The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to
WP:GNG. Across the provided sources, I see a fair amount of non-independent coverage but nothing that is both independent and significant. Searching online returned more of the same, Jing seems to have a propensity for garnering mentions in "X habits of successful entrepreneur" clickbait articles. It may be easier to establish a case for notability for her company, Banish. signed, Rosguilltalk 23:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm really not all that fussed about this article since he's a rookie in a fully pro league and a MLS first round draft pick and would have played but for covid. That being said the fact the article references his LinkedIn page while also failing
WP:GNG (none of the sources pass that line I don't think) is a red flag.
This is the best source I found and it's mostly an interview and has a plug for his podcast at the end, and there's a bunch of national Irish MLS draft pick related coverage - if he were playing it'd probably be fine to keep. Not entirely sure what to suggest here, it's sort of a twilight zone notable article.
SportingFlyerT·C 00:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Upgrading to a weak keep. I think he barely passes
WP:GNG as it stands, he's been a professional, he's on a professional side. If he never plays again or gets anymore press we can revisit it, but I don't think it's
WP:TOOSOON.
SportingFlyerT·C 05:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
@SK2242 He played 14 matches for
Drogheda United FC a professional side in Ireland and 28 for
Reading United AC including 2 caps in the
U.S. Open Cup all of those are professional caps. Not too sure why this would be deleted considering he was a top draft pick as well and would have had caps as
User:SportingFlyer said. I will take a look at the sourcing and see if I can pull some better sources.
NoahRiffe (
talk) 03:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
User:NoahRiffe, I believe the League of Ireland First Division and the USL League Two are not professional leagues (The latter is a development league). Furthermore, the cup games won’t count because they have to be 2 teams in fully professional leagues, which Reading United isn’t.
SK2242 (
talk) 11:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Furthermore I’m not sure why you created the exact same page in user/draft space and
submitted it.
SK2242 (
talk) 11:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
User:SK2242The club he played for
Drogheda United FC has had appearances in the
UEFA Champions League, it's a second div league, just like the USL Championship. My apologies for editing and then creating I honestly messed that up, was not my intention to submit both. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
NoahRiffe (
talk •
contribs) 18:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong delete Has not played a game. The fact that if he had played a game he would then be considered notable is a clear sign we have way too low a standard for notability. However he does not meet that standard, we do not create articles on the assumption people will become notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 16:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL.
GiantSnowman 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
fails GNG and NFOOTBALL: According to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability he checks both of these boxes "Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below: Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional. Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition." For GNG he passes the "Significant coverage", I am working on adding more news articles about him. "Reliable", Sourced from leagues MLS, USL, PDL, state newspapers and more. "Independent of the subject", I removed all sources directly connected to the subject. "Presumed", He was a top draft pick in the MLS Superdraft, he is linked in multiple other wiki articles he just doesn't have his own page.
The source you gave me doesn’t mention the word "professional" anywhere. In fact it seems none of the Irish football league system is professional.
SK2242 (
talk) 18:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't know much about Irish football, but I seem to recall this fact that it lakes any fully professional component being discussed elsewhere.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Players who play in Ireland fail the
WP:NFOOTY presumption but can still pass
WP:GNG. Furthermore, Molloy is currently on a team which would pass
WP:NFOOTY if he made an appearance, and has national Irish coverage along with a smattering of US coverage for
WP:GNG. A classic edge case, exacerbated by the lack of football being played.
SportingFlyerT·C 19:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus that the subject's body of work is sufficient to support notability. However, it remains the case that batter sourcing must be provided for claims made in the article, and those supporting its retention should see to that.
BD2412T 23:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
A non notable voice actor.
WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of substantial coverage that could help to improve the article.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
KEEPWP:ENTERTAINER is the subject specific guideline for voice actors. They have played a significant role in notable media. A major character on Castle in the Sky, the main character of Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water, Count Magnus Lee on Vampire Hunter D, etc.
DreamFocus 20:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Are there any reliable secondary sources to back this up?
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Their name is in the credits of the entertainment media. Primary sources are fine for things like this. Also common sense that the main character in a notable film is a notable part does not require any secondary sources to tell you that, you can hopefully think for yourself.
DreamFocus 21:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I’m really concerned that an editor of such experience believes this. Please read
WP:BLP and come back with secondary sources.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 22:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. You can verify things in the credits of what they've been in. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. I don't see any information there challenged. The guideline exist to prevent any slanderous lies from being in someone's article. There is nothing that could be seen as slanderous to the person, therefore its not a BLP issue. If you can list him in the credits of the articles for the films and television shows he's been in, then you can list that information in his own article.
DreamFocus 22:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
In
WP:N it states that all standalone articles must be sourced using “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. We currently have no evidence of this.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 22:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It states A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. So it doesn't have to pass the general notability guidelines that you just mentioned, if it passes a subject specific guideline like
WP:ENTERTAINERDreamFocus 22:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
...But articles must have reliable sources under
WP:V and
WP:OR. At the moment, there are no reliable sources.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 23:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This is not original research by any possible means. You only need to verify something if it is in doubt. Is there anything listed that anyone has any reasonable doubt is true? And I added some reliable sources. Clicked the link at the top of the AFD to search for Wikipedia reliable sources, and found TV guide confirming they were in one thing, and an link to Amazon.com page which list him in the credits for another. Having this same pointless argument every single time a voice actor comes up to AFD is tiresome. Usually they are kept, sometimes not, but its just a waste of time. Been going on for years now. The Wikiproject for Anime and Manga should be where standards are discussed for this type of article, and just leave it be. Doesn't really matter if people find this information on Wikipedia, or the manga wikia
https://manga.fandom.com/wiki/Jeff_Winkless or elsewhere. Not really worth the bother to constant argue over it.
DreamFocus 02:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete with
WP:REFUND. The article is poorly sourced and fails
WP:GNG. I see there are Amazon sources and
Dream Focus mentioned the Wikia, but those are not considered reliable sources by even
WP:ANIME. I am inclined to believe this article can be kept due to
WP:ENTERTAINER as long as Winkless' "notable" roles are sourced, and they are not.
lullabying (
talk) 18:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Draft move to draftspace for improvement as he does have a number of prominent roles as per
WP:NACTOR but better referencing is needed imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 00:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep or Redirect/Merge: For the moment, based on
WP:NACTOR, I am voting "Weak Keep". There wouldn't be much of an issue verifying the subject's roles, because there a lots of hits at newspapers.com in TV listings. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of in-depth coverage, though. I have found an obituary, which I will get clipped and provide here, but I'm not sure whether it would be considered acceptable as a
WP:GNG-source. Alternatively, perhaps a redirect/merge to a "List of Voice Actors" page might work—if such a page exists.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 14:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi, obituaries in reliable sources count towards
WP:GNG if they have significant biographical content and are not paid obituaries, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you,
Atlantic306. This may be a paid obituary, I'm not sure. As soon as it is clipped I will provide it here.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 00:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Here is the obituary to which I referred above:
here. I haven't yet read it yet, so feedback is most welcome.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 06:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Not sure really, there doesn't seem to be a byline unless its been cut, it is significant content but it needs to be independent which a byline would indicate, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 00:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree with you,
Atlantic306. Is there anywhere we might be able to redirect to, like a "List of Voice Actors" page?
Dflaw4 (
talk) 10:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Id rather put into draftspace for future improvement, as a list of actors has very little info, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 18:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 01:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep It seem that there are some sources, enough to pass GNG, but generally not in-depth on the man. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~ 20:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A BLP so a second relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per reasons above. With the sources indicated, the article is good enough to pass
WP:GNG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 06:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
SNGs do not override the need to locate reliable sources, they are merely an indication. And
WP:BEFORE sets out minimum requirements before nominating an article for
WP:AFD which are not exhaustive and do not cover print media. Therefore claiming someone hasn’t completed
WP:BEFORE because they missed a print-only source is erroneous.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 00:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - can I please ask all editors to review the sources presented in this AfD, I still do not believe there is enough for
WP:GNG at this stage. All of the sources presented so far are either passing mentions, unreliable sources, captions on a picture, or listicles. As a BLP the sourcing needs to be far more substantial in my view.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 00:24, 4 June 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. After extended time for discussion, there is no reasonable possibility that this will come out other than as a consensus to keep.
BD2412T 00:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment:Dlthewave, You should add this to the wikiproject train. I don't know how to add it or I'd do it myself.
Normal Op (
talk) 03:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
delete a fairly unremarkable rail spot, originally recorded in WP as a "community" per the usual GNIS misreading of the maps. I'm not seeing the notability other than the usual documentation which is commonly availalbe for many rail locations.
Mangoe (
talk) 03:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep or Merge to
Grand Rivers, Kentucky#History, as this named place is part its rail/river/crushed stone/dam history.07:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC) (This unsigned !vote was by
Djflem) (changed to Keep or merge
Djflem (
talk) 09:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC))reply
Keep (strong): Meets
notability,
verifiability,
reliable sources, and
neutral point of view. The topic meets
WP:GNG including significant coverage. Several historical documents mention this area by name, mention where it was, mention what products came from it, and how those products were used. Though the mentions were brief, they were neither trivial nor a passing mention. The sources are reliable, are secondary sources, and are independent of the subject. I'm sure the original reason to PROD or AfD this article was because one could not SEE anything on a current satellite view, and a cursory google search of "gravel switch" brought up nothing. However, now that there has been some researching and article improvement, we've discovered that there are sources, including ample maps, SHOWING that this place was populated, active and commercial. The products from this area were mentioned in several of the citations, along with mentioning the name of this place and where it sits in relation to other known places. That the TVA built a dam and flooded the nearby area, causing the railroads to re-route their line right through the old operating area of Gravel Switch, doesn't negate that the place existed as an area (not simply a railroad switch that has since been removed). As for a merge argument, the article subject doesn't really fit into any other article. I say Keep because the arguments for deletion don't hold water. (Pun intended... because of the new lake.)
Normal Op (
talk) 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Re any arguments for merging: Per
Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger, it says "Merging should be avoided if: ... 3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short". It has been suggested to merge it with
Grand Rivers, Kentucky however Gravel Switch was not IN Grand Rivers, and still is not in Grand Rivers even though the city limits have been expanded. It was, and still is, in
Livingston County, Kentucky and that would be a better merge target if one needed to be chosen.
Normal Op (
talk) 03:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
IF: It is in Lake City, an unincorporated area (once called Jessup), for which there is no article (though this would work within it). The quarry is the Grand Rivers Quarry; references consistently mention GR; and it's part of the economic history of the "greater" Grand Rivers region.
Djflem (
talk) 09:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Grand Rivers, Kentucky. There no requirement whatsoever that content about a city is limited to that only within legal limits: coverage of area geography, businesses, and history is regularly included with the nearest city, and this is the best way to consolidate relevant information for readers, seeing that Grand Rivers is mentioned as the relevant community in sources. Citation review:
[5] passing mention,
[6] passing mention,
[7] does not mention Gravel Switch,
[8] database entry about quarry,
[9] brief blurb of Grand Rivers quarry as a producer of crushed stone,
[10] passing mention of quarry. I am simply baffled how this possibly passes GNG or even
WP:V. This article synthesizes together a former rail switch and the quarry terminal now nearby, using original research to claim "Gravel Switch is an area", rather than it just being former name of the spur line and its then-gravel operation as indicated by the sources. There is no evidence at all this is the name of the quarry terminal area or railroad through-line today: the two sources with passing mentions of the spur switch fail to use it that way.
Reywas92Talk 04:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment This is very potentially notable, but there's also a Gravel Switch in Marion County and I want to make sure the heaps of references are for the proper community. Gravel Switch, Marion County has a census designation but Livingston county does not, and
[11] describes it as a flag stop.
SportingFlyerT·C 06:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This fails
WP:GEOLAND as it's not a community but probably passes
WP:GEOFEAT as a gravel deposit that's been fairly decently covered. Probably a weaker keep, but I see no reason to delete this, given we're a gazetteer.
SportingFlyerT·C 04:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment, have added mining wikiproject to article talkpage so that those editors are aware of this afd.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 01:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sourcing appears to be borderline.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to compile a list of their roles — and further, the vast majority of the roles listed here are supporting or guest appearances as minor characters, some of whom didn't even have names. So there are only a few roles here that might have been notable enough to count as "significant" for the purposes of
WP:NACTOR — but even then, NACTOR still isn't passed just because such "possibly significant" roles appear in the list, and still requires a
WP:GNG-worthy volume of
reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the roles by actually saying something substantive, above and beyond just the cast list, about him and his performances. No sources, no article.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete when the closest we get to a big time productions is the role "Muto's Crows nest tech #2" I think it is pretty safe to say we are dealing with a non-notable actor.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I can't say I agree with
John Pack Lambert's assessment of the subject's notability; he has had a number of significant roles in notable productions throughout his career (the part that John mentioned was one of his more minor ones). There are also several sources discussing the subject and his work:
here,
here,
here and
here. I therefore believe that the relevant notability standards are met.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 09:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Having a small handful of "local kid does stuff" human interest coverage in his own hometown local newspaper is not in and of itself enough coverage to get a person over
WP:GNG in the absence of any wider attention — and the only one of those four sources that is from anywhere extralocal just mentions his name without being about him or his character to any non-trivial degree. So no, that's not enough coverage to change the equation here.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Bearcat, there are more sources online. There is coverage—that is my point.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 00:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Then show us the three best sources you're finding, not just three or four random weak ones.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
There's no need to be brusque,
Bearcat. I haven't gone through every source, and I don't think those I provided are necessarily weak sources, either. I'll get some more clipped for you.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 11:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, person is notable enough to be kept. I remember watching him on YCDTOTV and Are You Afraid of the Dark, yes notable indeed.
Davidgoodheart (
talk) 05:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Can you point to reliable sources that would confirm this?
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 00:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 03:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. NACTOR is not a golden ticket to uncontestable notability. It's a presumptive standard - we presume that people who meet one or more of the criteria are probably going to have generated sufficient coverage to meet
WP:N, and that's usually true (or else we'd rewrite the criteria). But if we can't confirm that there is sufficient N-satisfying coverage (remember, N requires substantial coverage at a broad, not simply local level), then the article fails the notability test and we cannot keep it. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 22:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: a second relist as this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. No real dispute that the subject satisfies applicable SNG's. Instead, all we have in response is thoroughly unsubstantiated speculation about the possible nonexistence of sources. Given that the subject had regular or recurring roles in at least eight TV series, that argument is exceptionally implausible. SNGs exist precisely to avoid timewasting disputes where sources are likely to exist, and where there is no factually based dispute over basic claims. They are not disregarded simply because an editor blurts "Prove it!"
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (
talk) 20:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
SNGs do not override
WP:GNG which state that reliable sources must be found. Otherwise we’d have BLPs with no sources just because someone says so, which is ridiculous. So “prove it” is an entirely reasonable response.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 00:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Move to draft. As it stands, this is a substantial
WP:BLP violation, because no claims in the article are sourced at all. The sole source provided is for a single role in the list.
BD2412T 17:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. The actor has 66 roles to date. He has around 10 roles in large film productions, and was especially active in the first half of 2000s, with roles in
The Score (2001 film), I can't believe that there weren't any publications about him then. There is a passing mention of him in film Power Corps. (2004) in a book, there were publications in newspapers about him — see urls above. He starred in web-series, and has role in upcoming TV series Sweet Tooth by
Team Downey starring
Will Forte.
Кирилл С1 (
talk) 18:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The number of roles someone has is irrelevant, it’s how notable those roles are. All of which needs to be backed up with reliable sources. Have you managed to find any further sources?
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I am currently adding the sources I found above to the article, so as to alleviate any
WP:BLP concerns.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 03:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I would also say that it would be virtually impossible to have coverage, even trivial coverage, for every role in an actor's career. I think more can be done to improve the article—and I will continue to work on it if it remains—but, for the moment, I believe that it is certainly good enough to pass the notability criteria.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 03:48, 5 June 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.
Taking to AfD because the present PROD tags are invalid due to a dePROD in 2014.
Original nom this time around was
Robincantin, with the rationale: "Article about a piece of software that's been "in development" for the last 13 years."
Endorsed by
Phil Bridger with the rationale: "Clearly a piece of software that went nowhere, and only attracted a couple of "gee-whiz" news items when it was announced. If I was designing a filter for stupidity it would filter out anything written in in camelCase and undated "status" pages that only tell us what the status was in the dim and distant past."
In my opinion the subject fails
WP:N, which requires significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time (my bold), ie, not simply a couple of "wow won't this be cool" articles around the time of the announcement. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 22:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This software would have been notable had it been developed. Alas, such an occurrence has not come to pass.
TH1980 (
talk) 03:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - caused some coverage at the time, but that was just a blip. No sustained coverage over time. --
Whpq (
talk) 18:39, 2 June 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 - he has had more press coverage than the average clergyman because of his stand on gay issues and some other publicity, including as an unsuccessful candidate for a bishopric, but not enough for notability.
Ingratis (
talk) 23:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I can't find any in depth coverage of him. Being an unsuccessful candidate for a bishopric and officiating at the first gay marriage in the Church of Scotland isn't really enough.--
Jahaza (
talk) 00:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep notable musician and multimedia artist with reliable sources under the name of Setareh Malekzadeh[1][2][3][4] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Armin3001 (
talk •
contribs) 19:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, see the references given by
Armin3001, including e.g. non-trivial content from the Swedish national broadcasting company. /
Julle (
talk) 10:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I disagree with this AFD. More details needed for deletion. @
Persia: you are nominating a lot of AFDs.. in this short period of time, it is not possible to nominate carefully. Anyway, this person is
notable.
Lexy iris (
talk) 23:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as has reliable sources coverage added to the article such as Dagbladet newspaper and other sources identified in this discussion so that
WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 00:35, 3 June 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 redirect to
High Road (Kesha album). Consensus not to keep. Unclear whether to merge or redirect. Redirection is a compromise. Sandstein 18:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 21:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete in addition to the above, every citation used in the article aside from
a merchandise link are merely announcements (both plans and cancellations), four of which are tweets from Kesha that don't count towards WP:GNG when they're primary sources.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 23:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge per nom. There is hardly any content apart from mere announcements.
Accesscrawl (
talk) 04:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge due to lack of coverage in reliable sources
Pi(Talk to me!) 13:14, 4 June 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 to
Britney Spears: One of the sources state that the tour has been postponed. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:CRYSTAL - I can't see any sources suggesting that this is going to go ahead. All relevant information is included in
Britney SpearsPi(Talk to me!) 19:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Britney Spears - as the nominator pointed out, relevant information on the cancelled tour is covered on her main article, so making this a redirect would be appropriate. Plausible search term. --
Dps04 (
talk) 17:36, 3 June 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 tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 20:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article mentions several aspects of genetics and "Lamarckian" inheritance, but attempts to
synthesize these with a brief uncited introduction into the
pseudoscience topic named in the article title. Sources exist, therefore, for the subtopics, but no reliable scientific source (such as a systematic review article) exists for the topic as a whole. The article should therefore be deleted as
Original Research.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Natureium: Not exactly: that is one aspect, and it's genuine science, but not a synonym for "genetic memory"; there are other examples listed in the article. What the article is trying to do is to tie all the different bits of real but disparate science together into one non-scientific domain.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 18:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
rename and cleanup: calling for deletion of flawed articles is lazy. Btw, I do not think this is "fringey synthesis" in origin, it seems that this goes back to my splitting off various off-topic "biological" material from the article on genetic memory proper. I think the proper approach here would be to rename to
somatic memory (which appears to be a bona fide term) and prune any material that doesn't relate to that topic. --
dab(𒁳) 05:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
That would be yet another subject, not a synonym. The synthesis, if such it is, would have preceded your splitting; the material should I think have been deleted rather than split off, but that was surely at the time an easy mistake to make, given there was technical-looking material in an article about something else. On laziness, that is a forbidden personal attack; it's also false, as I investigated the matter carefully, and having written several articles on related topics (like Lamarckism and Orthogenesis...) I'm familiar with the area and its fringiness.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 07:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I do not think I made a mistake: I did split off the material as useless crap. It's just that my view of "deletion" is different: Instead of throwing out everything, you should just blank the material that is useless and retain the stuff that is relevant. The useless material can always remain in the edit history so people can review it and perhaps rescue tidbits that are useful after all. And come on, I did not "attack you personally", I voiced a general opinion of how to approach editing broken articles. Do tone down the belligerence, nobody is attacking you, this isn't even remotely a content dispute, I am sure we agree on pretty much everything regarding Lamarckism etc., I am just giving my view on how to approach cases such as this as a task of copyediting. --
dab(𒁳) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Well if we're agreed it's "useless crap" then deletion is the right answer.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 12:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete There are subtopics backed by reliable sources, e.g., epigenetic memory is a well-established set of concepts. Epigenetics plays a role in memory formation, see
Epigenetics in learning and memory. Epigenetic state can be inheritable, see
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Some believe it plays a role in evolution, see
Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution. DNA can be used as a memory storage device, see
DNA digital data storage and
E. coli for that matter. But I was unable to find any reliable sources in biology that discuss these and other subtopics under the umbrella term of genetic memory. In order to be viable, a general overview article like needs reliable sourcing that provides such overviews--books or review articles on genetic memory. Without such, this article is original research through synthesis and should be deleted. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk} 18:56, 2 June 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.
Yunshui雲水 10:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Sources provided for this businessman are about equally split between unabashed promo features (
this one could serve as a museum piece for soapbox enabler interviews) and coverage of his businesses, OrangeScape and Kissflow. Normally I would say, redirect to one of these, but since
OrangeScape is currently lingering in draft, I'd suggest deletion instead. A redirect can easily be set up again when/if there is an article for one of the companies. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable businessman. We have way too many sources on such people.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per nominator and above. No indication of notability.
Electiondata (
talk) 02:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Per above, nothing to show notability.
Nika2020 (
talk) 11:45, 1 June 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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 05:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Moving on to
Amador County, California, we have yet another isolated house in the middle of a national forest, the ruin of which is still visible on GMaps. It's one small building, not a community.
Mangoe (
talk) 19:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - "Allen" or "Allen Camp" was located on the
Carson Trail (see
[12]).
This document published by Amador County states "Many families that grazed cattle and sheep left their names associated with places such as Allen Camp". The
Allen Camp hiking trail is well documented.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 10:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete So a family grazed cattle there, no evidence there was ever a community there, less a notable one.
Reywas92Talk 20:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't say there was a community there, nor did I vote keep. I simply added content relevant to this discussion. No need to be loutish.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 21:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't say you said that. This is a separate vote, not a response to your comment which was indeed relevant, thanks for the sources. Just saying cattle grazing may be representative of a number of these non-community ranches.
Reywas92Talk 23:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete "Unincorporated community" label is OR. Sources confirm that this was just a cattle/sheep grazing area, no evidence of significant coverage to meet GNG. –
dlthewave☎ 02:06, 2 June 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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 05:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: I thought about nominating them myself for the same reasons.
Toddst1 (
talk) 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete:, per nom. non notable company and ...
Alex-h (
talk) 10:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Unclear how this fails
WP:NCRIC or
WP:CRIN. The relevant criteria for clubs, teams and venues (which we can use as a model to determine the notability of a league) states:
Difficulty may arise with clubs that have not competed at senior level and, similarly, with venues that have not staged first-class or List A matches. "Minor cricket" is a specific term in the sport that does not necessarily imply a lack of notability; in parallel with sports like association football and baseball, many cricket clubs in "minor leagues" are professionally run and do employ professional players. It is necessary to take an individual view about each country in terms of its own grassroots structure.
(emphasis is mine)
The Qatar T10 league is clearly "minor" but not clearly non-notable. The Qatar league is well-known (at least in Qatar) and has an established presence there. There appears to be a benefit to having the article as this information is readily available elsewhere. The league seems to have First class players which is explicitly a criteria for notability (of individuals) -
WikiProject Cricket participants have adopted the following guidelines for notability of cricket people, men's and women's cricket having equal importance, to qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia: [the individual must have] appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level
In general and looks at the criteria it seems as though the players, and potentially the teams in the league are notable for inclusion - and equally the league should also be notable enough.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Thunderstorm008 (
talk •
contribs)
Merge into
Qatar T10 League. There is only one season so far, and no evidence it passes
WP:NSEASONS. Qatar is not an important cricketing nation, and this league is not notable enough to have articles for every season (if there is even more than one season of it).
Joseph2302 (
talk) 08:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge into the
Qatar T10 League Only has one season so far and has no evidence which would have pass
WP:NSEASONS especially being in a non-cricketing nation like Qatar.
HawkAussie (
talk) 05:30, 2 June 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.
Indian death metal band. The notability of this page has been doubted since January 2020. I am not surprised as the sources aren't worth crap. The "sources" presented are the following: Reverb Nation, some blog, Metal Archives, a site which isn't even available and a concert promotion in The Hindu where Crypted is mentioned alongside other bands, in four words (Crypted - Progressive Death Metal). That's it. But I don't see reliable, secondary sources. I did a Google search (with the word "crypted" in quotation marks) and the results were dictionary definitions and tips about removing a computer virus of the same name. The only thing I found about the band was a Spotify page which is not a reliability making source either. When I first searched for this band without quotation marks, I did not found anything about them, only bands which have "crypt" in their names or named "crypt". By the way, the sources are also the same on the Spanish Wikipedia too. I think this band is absolutely not notable. I can even see a speedy deletion around here.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 list of people who played for an American football team that lasted one season and, despite the article's assertion, is not recognized by the NFL as being a member of the league at any point. The category
Category:Syracuse Pros players suffices in place of this short list. Eagles24/7(C) 15:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect per Paul McDonald and Ejgreen77.
Cbl62 (
talk) 19:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to Bob Dylan.
Nika2020 (
talk) 11:46, 1 June 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 to
Rascal Flatts: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 04:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 15:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Lady Antebellum: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 04:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Little Mix: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 03:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made.
CodeSlashh (
talk) 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, do not redirect. The title is totally ambiguous and would probably be deleted at RfD. The first page of Google gives no results for Little Mix outside of Wikipedia. --
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete without redirect per
User:King of Hearts. Many groups can already claim a cancelled "Summer 2020 Tour", so this would not be an appropriate title for a redirect.
BD2412T 00:08, 6 June 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 tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 15:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Alicia Keys: One of the sources state that the tour has been postponed. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 03:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made.
CodeSlashh (
talk) 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 15:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Bon Jovi: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 03:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made.
CodeSlashh (
talk) 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 15:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 15:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made.
CodeSlashh (
talk) 04:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as per reasons above. The tour actually has rescheduled dates but considering the climate it would be better to create it once it starts and receives more coverage and secondary sources. --
Fabrictii (
talk) 16:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Björk: The tour has been rescheduled at later dates. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 03:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to fail
WP:GNG and
WP:NALBUM. Of the sources I can find, the sputnikmusic review
[15] is clearly tagged as "user review", only staff and emiritus reviews from that website are RS per
WP:MUSICRS. metal-archives.com is not an RS per
WP:ALBUMAVOID. For the Metal Storm entry,
WP:MUSICRS states "Only staff review from 2009 onward are usable, don't use guest reviews recognizable by a tag, which fail WP:USERG", and the review on that page for this album is from 2007, so not useable. After that, you get into myspace, bandcamp, etc. Taking this here instead of a bold redirect to the band page because the I don't speak the relevant language for Austria, where the album was originally released. Honestly, I think the only reason this page exists is that it is Middle-earth related, apparently in the past, anything tangentially related to LOTR got a free pass (see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lord of the Rings (pinball) and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gollum: How We Made Movie Magic).
Hog Farm (
talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, I know nothing of this band, but the German Wikipedia article
de:Minas Morgul (Album) lists 16 sources, 5 of them properly archived on Archive.org in the German Wikipedia article, and of the rest at least
this interview is in fact available. The band could easily be notable. Of the 5 archived refs,
MetalInfo gives it 3/5, a full review.
Of the unarchived refs in the German article,
MedienKonverter offers a detailed review of the album and gives it 5/5.
SputnikMusic reviews it (in English) as 4.5, claiming "it has earned classic status".
Metal Storm also guest-reviews it in English, awarding it "a perfect 10". I'm not sure if guest reviews confer notability but the overall impression is of an authentic and much-liked 'metal' album of the period.
Bloodchamber is a slightly shorter review; it awards 7.5 points (out of 10, I guess) and finds the music has "an almost meditative character". Each to their own. But given the multiple sources, this must be a Keep.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 16:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per
Chiswick Chap. Its German article is notable. With the sources indicated above, the English article good enough to pass
WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 03:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Summoning (band): having lots of sources doesn't mean the article is notable, if those sources all fail
WP:RS. The two editors above appear to not have read WP:MUSICRS and the nominator stating correctly that the Sputnikmusic source is a user review, which has already been established by consensus is not reliable, and also that the Metal Storm review is invalid. The Tartarean Desire site is a webzine/blog, and moreover it's a primary source interview, so it doesn't convey any independent notability. So that's at least three of the sources above that aren't valid, and it's debatable whether any of the others are anything more than community blogs. In light of this, until it can be established whether any of the sources pass WP:RS, a redirect to the band's article seems to be the best option.
Richard3120 (
talk) 00:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 15:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 15:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 05:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Academic who does not seem to meet
WP:NPROF - very few publications or citations. (He did hold a named chair, but not at a major institution.)
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 08:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Sections of this article appear to have been taken verbatim and unacknowledged from a
paid obituary in the NY Times. asnac (
talk) 09:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think the Luce Lecturer position counts as the kind of named professorship that
WP:PROF asks for. It's a short-term visiting lecturer job
[16], not a position held for years or decades.
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Notability not found yet.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 22:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC).reply
Weak keep as Worldcat shows 500 plus library holdings so he may be notable as an author but there are big copyright concerns. Earwig tool shows an 85% match with a news website piece that was posted some hours after this was started in December 2007, and it has been suggested it originated from a NYT paid obituary, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
Have just checked the NYT piece and the copying is mainly quotes so thats not so bad
Atlantic306 (
talk) 23:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 00:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 15:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, does not seem to meet
WP:NPROF, nor does there actually seem to be much independent coverage to demonstrate notability otherwise. Even putting aside copyright concerns, the source mentioned in the discussion is a paid obituary and hence pretty lousy even for
WP:V - this is article has basically no actual reliable-source coverage. ~
mazcatalk 15:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't believe any of the criteria at
WP:NPROF are met and my search did not turn up the significant independent coverage that I believe is required to meet
WP:GNG.
Papaursa (
talk) 02:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. One reasonably well cited edited volume (Public Religion and Urban Transformation: Faith in the City) is not enough for
WP:PROF or
WP:AUTHOR, the sourcing is far below the standard for
WP:GNG, and there seems to be nothing else. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I could not find any coverage (except mentions in real estate listings, or appearances of the word "Boothgate" in other places) about this street (it is indeed a street). Fails both the overall
WP:GNG and the topic specific
WP:GEOROAD.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable street; nothing found online. Can always be recreated if sources ever surface to show its signficance. (COI declaration: this is a few miles from where I live). I see no need to even redirect to
Heage or
Belper. Photo isn't even of the road (
see here).
Nick Moyes (
talk) 10:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete even if there was something of note to say about the street the village article is not long enough or involved enough to justify splitting off articles on individual streets.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Peter James: It said it was a village: that was incorrect (hence why it doesn't say it anymore). The source you give seems to use "hamlet" and "road" to refer to what is essentially the same location (it refers to maps in "Appendix 2", but those are not provided so I can't check). Whatever it is, it fails GNG. Maybe I should have bothered to correct the coordinates in the article.
This is the correct location and as you can clearly see it's a street. Thanks,
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 16:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom and above, fails notability.
Nika2020 (
talk) 11:48, 1 June 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 state level Teen USA competition winners are not notable. Being the first Indonesian American to win in Illinois in no way adds to her notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deletion by
Jimfbleak; promo from undisclosed paid editor
Promotional article created by an account that matches the name of the subject's manager. There is a credible claim of significance (he has apparently won some awards), and the text isn't quite G11-promotional, but the sourcing is lacking - it's currently sourced exclusively to YouTube, and I can't find any coverage in independent reliable sources, so seems to fail GNG and NMUSIC
GirthSummit (blether) 12:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Jimfbleak, well, if we're assessing the article on its merits, I didn't think that it quite fit into any of the criteria. However, given that there is clearly no sourcing to establish notability, and the author (who seems to be the subject's manager) has been blocked for promo, I would not be disturbed of you wanted to decided to go with your first instinct...
GirthSummit (blether) 21:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - as per nom; the refs just don't demonstrate notability.
Ingratis (
talk) 11:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete clearly not notable. It is high time we created a minimum number of edits a user has to make before they can create a new article. New users are tempted to create new articles on new subjects but usually have to little grasp of notability guidelines and create articles on subjects not justified. My first article I created was deleted, and I think that was baiscally my first edit. It was on Phoebe Whitmore Carter (Woodruff) who considering how heavily she is mentioned in both volume 1 and Volume 2 of Saints:A History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might merit an article. Currently she is redirected to the article on her husband, but a seperate article, especially considering that one of her letters was published in an anthology might be justifieiable, especially considering there is a desire to have better coverage of women. Woodruff was also a key figure in sufferage and protesting the unjust outside colonialist oppresion of the residents of Utah Territory. When I first created the article back in 2006 some of the now extant sources of secondary coverage on Woodruff did not yet exist.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A non-notable film director, producer, composer and lyricist with so many claims to notability but there are no independent sources to back them up.
GSS💬 09:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Likely non-notable, coverage I have found from secondary sources only seem to be trivial mentions. Lordship does not necessarily indicate notability—
WP:POLITICIAN only presumes notability for politicians who have held international, national, or state/province–wide office, of which
Serifos as a municipality is not.
17jiangz1 (
talk) 09:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article, which was created 11 years ago, does not have enough information to be useful to readers. The only date in the article is the year of his marriage, not when he was born or died. The article says that he was "co-lord of
Serifos", but the article
Serifos says nothing about the island having been governed by lords or co-lords. If he was a co-lord, presumably he must have served alongside another co-lord, but the other co-lord's name is not given here. The article says that Giovanni Michiel "married in 1424 the daughter of
Niccolo Crispo from
Negropont". But
Niccolo Crispo's ten children are mentioned in the article about him, and each of his daughters is mentioned there as marrying someone else -- not Giovanni Michiel. The article says that after Michiel's first wife died, he married "the daughter of another Euboean feudatory" -- with no indication of who that was. I realize that information about 15th century people may be in short supply, but, for example, the article about Michiel's purported father-in-law
Nicholas Crispo, Lord of Syros at least provides a date of birth, date of death, and the name of his wife. This is an article about a person with similar social status, from the same era and same geographic area, but it has none of those pieces of information. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Metropolitan90:. The article list as its source
Karl Hopf's, Veneto-Byzantinische Analekten (1859) p. 77; in fact it is a summary of what Hopf writes (which is not much either). Obviously "Giovanni" was a member of the Michieli (in plural), the Venetian patrician family
it:Michiel, "which contributed three doges to Venice" in 11th-12th cent. (
Kenneth M. Setton, A History of the Crusades: The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East, p. 434). Hopf provides info about many members of the family involved in the Archipelago, and describes how "Giovanni II." Michiel after an unhappy incident with Giovanni delo Cavo (
John de lo Cavo; note that usually several Giovannis from those days are known as "Johns" in English historiography) set foot on Serifos (p.75). "Our" Giovanni, "Giovanni IV." (cf. p. 77) was son of "Allesundro Michieli" and he was -according to Hopf's narration- "Mithesitzer der Insel", co-owner of the Isle of Serifos. Hopf continues by referring to a relation with the "duke family of Naxos" thru his (first) marriage with the daughter of "Nicolo Crispo of Negroponte", and then, after the death of her, he married another woman, from Euboea, perhaps a daugher of Nicolaos Protimos (Νικόλαος Προθυμός = the last archbishop of Athens under Latin rule). "Giovanni IV." died childless in Negreponte (see
Chalcis),
Euboea. That's all we get to know about him from Hopf. I don't know how accurate is all that -we need a modern reliable source on the subject. ǁǁǁ ǁ
Chalk19 (
talk) 15:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete -- There might be a case for an article on the medieval lords of Serifios, possibly listing them in the article on the island. The question is whether being lord of this island is enough for notability. I compare this with peerages in England, where there is a list article for every peerage, but not for the lordship of every manor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per my previous comment, and per User's Peterkingiron point above. ǁǁǁ ǁ
Chalk19 (
talk) 07:32, 3 June 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 only source on the entry is a tiny obituary, fails GNG and ONEEVENT. Not HASPOT after searched on regular engines.
Ixocactus (
talk) 08:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
a conference about him: Franco Volpi interprete del pensiero contemporaneo, Atti dell'incontro internazionale di studio, Padova, 19 Novembre 2009, Vicenza, Accademia Olimpica, 2012
another conference about him: Ricordando Franco Volpi filosofo: 04.10.1952-14.04.2009, Atti dell'Incontro internazionale del 24 Aprile 2010, Lavarone, Comune di Lavarone, 2017
On that basis, I'd have said this was probably a Keep.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 09:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Has published quite a lot. Based on the other language wikipedia's, cross language sources, I would say there is enough for GNG.
Govvy (
talk) 13:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. After the many good sources provided above I think that I made a mistake. Thanks for patience. I will put these sources on entry.
Ixocactus (
talk) 07:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
That's very good of you, many thanks.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 08:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article fails
WP:ORG and
WP:GNG. There are not enough reliable, independent, in-depth sources which cover this student group in detail.
User:Namiba 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Very weak keep. "oldest Hillel Foundation organization in the United States" is a specific claim of notability of this among the many student-organizations on this campus and the many campus branches of this parent organization. However, I don't think there is enough encyc about this article to ever be more than a stub. There's lots here now that should probably be removed as unencyclopediac details at best, promotional fluff at worst. Some of the independent refs are mere passing mention and most of the refs are not independent (and only support in-my-view-unencyc content anyway). Potential merge targets are
Texas A&M University and
History of the Jews in Brazos County, Texas, with redirect to...probably the school and cross-links between those two targets.
DMacks (
talk) 14:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Article-history note: Was recently PRODded by Namiba, which I disputed because there was the claim of apparent notability sufficient to merit a full discussion.
DMacks (
talk) 16:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep or Redirect to
Hillel International Most such campus organizations do not merit a standalone article, but the claim as oldest Hillel organization is a credible claim of notability, but the scope and breadth of sourcing need work. If not kept, I would redirect to the article for the parent organization (
Hillel International), where the Texas A&M "chapter" is already listed, with a source.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This article has 27 sources, and even if 9 are from the organization' website, that still leaves 18 sources. That says something, IMHO. If not kept, then redirect to
Hillel International as suggested by
Alansohn.
Debresser (
talk) 23:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
There is one independent source on the page which covers the group in any type of detail. The number of self-published or university-published sources does not contribute to notability per
WP:GNG.--
User:Namiba 13:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Being the oldest of something isn't enough if reliable sources have not chosen to reward this claim to fame with any coverage. We could mention in the Hillel article (or in Judaism in the US, in Texas?, whatever) that this was the first one founded, but if the independent reliable sources aren't there, they aren't there. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 04:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (
t愛c) 08:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect as suggested above. I agree with the editors who note there is not enough third-party coverage to justify a standalone article. --Kinut/c 02:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No reviews that I can find and written by an obscure, redlinked author, so this novel fails
WP:NBOOK.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There are some sources, but I think there's is c9nsensus that those are ot sufficient for GNG
Fenix down (
talk) 07:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable footballer. Not every 18-year-old who kicks a ball in a formal game is notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, no international caps yet = too soon for an article.
GiantSnowman 18:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - meets GNG with significant coverage of his national team call-up. I'm also quickly finding a lot of routine (non-GNG) English coverage of him
one,
two,
three that spell his first name as 'Faisal' rather than 'Foysal' - so perhaps this article should be moved to
Faisal Ahmed Fahim.
Nfitz (
talk) 23:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More time for further discussion needed, there seem to be at least two sources in the article which could indicate GNG due to their length, but language barrier is making things difficult
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 08:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - meets
WP:FOOTYN, we in
WP:FOOTY generally keep players who are playing in country's top league, actually help us in keeping records properly. Though its a stub now, but don't see a problem, have a scope of expanding.
Drat8sub (
talk) 11:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Not true, please do not disinform the voters. We in NFOOTY generally keep players from fully-pro league, regardless of the level. --
BlameRuiner (
talk) 12:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Disinform ?? I think that's what you are doing, not me. Keep players from fully-pro league, oops !!
BlameRuiner,
Bangladesh Premier League (football) is the top most professional league of Bangladesh. Shall I assume that you never heard of Bangladesh. Countries' top leagues are generally professional leagues only and the winners/runners-up often play in continental level.
Drat8sub (
talk) 20:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
League calling itself Professional is not enough for it to actually be fully-professional. Please read the list of leagues that are assessed by FOOTY project as fully-pro here:
WP:FPL. Bangladeshi league is not fully-pro, as about 50 other top level leagues. --
BlameRuiner (
talk) 21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Yup, A project that cannot define, what is a fully professional league? I've gone through
WP:FPL project much before I place my comment. Secondly,
this also shows the clubs are paying or trying to pay the salary in pandemic also, no doubt in normal time they use to pay salary.
Drat8sub (
talk) 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep scrapes though
WP:GNG there is coverage in
Bengali Language and subject has received a national callup and won a Golden boot ,subject is 18 years and currently playing see little point in deleting it.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 18:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
What do you mean by "locally"
User:Ortizesp? There's national media coverage - and what does "local" mean in a city of over 20 million people?
Nfitz (
talk) 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Does not fail
WP:FOOTY, as I've previously mentioned, per
WP:FOOTYN, played in professional league and competitive fixtures between professional clubs.
Drat8sub (
talk) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nfitz, I know it has listed, but upon what criteria, the project listed without defining the most important point, "what is a fully professional league?" Am I missing here anything else? Let me know.
Drat8sub (
talk) 00:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Drat8sub I mentioned the criteria in the other thread - "the players on all teams are full-time paid players". i.e. they don't have other jobs on the side. Are there references that support this? Though it's moot here, as this one meets GNG
Nfitz (
talk) 01:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Well FOOTYN clearly says, for league notability, leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are generally notable. I don't understand why the "fully" professional even become so important here when BPL champions/runners up are playing at the continental level. For salary thing I've mentioned above in the other discussion under my initial comment. The whole wikipedia is full of many european 2nd tier league players if I am not wrong, and here we are discussing if to keep it or not, a player who is playing in his country's premier league and which passes significant coverage.
Drat8sub (
talk) 03:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
But
User:Drat8sub,
WP:FOOTYN#Player notability clearly says The player section of this notability guidancehas been superseded by WP:Notability (sports),and is included below for information only as a record of theprevious guidancethat the Footy project came up with. The criteria in use for the last decade is at
WP:NFOOTY and says Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable. Second tier leagues are often fully professional in some countries - even fourth tier leagues occasionally. The criteria is clear - it may not be fair, and it surely has
WP:BIAS, but it is clear - so arguing that the player plays in the top league in the country get's no where. You either need to provide references that GNG is met (which I believe is the case for this particular player), or that the league is actually fully professional (which means the players on all teams are full-time, and don't have other employment).
Nfitz (
talk) 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 07:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No real experience yet and certainly fails NFOOTY. Perhaps draftify, but I would rather delete.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. --
SalmanZ (
talk) 20:55, 1 June 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.
:@
User:Archmedhis Wikipedia is not a news site.
WP:NOTNEWS. Your sources are just small 2 line mentions of the news that she won the Miss polo in Nigeria and will represent Nigeria in Dubai. All sources even use similar words. This cannot be used to base an article on.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk) 20:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC) struck sockpuppet,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (
t愛c) 06:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit.
MER-C 17:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - passes WP:GNG. Plenty of reliable sources.
BabbaQ (
talk) 18:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I've added a 2nd Find-sources above for AIS Technology Services which was the company's name until recently.
AllyD (
talk) 12:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Clearly an article with a history of promotional editing, though that could probably be avoided using page protection. I have tried to neutralise the present version of the company history and added a reference, albeit one which would fall under "brief announcements, and routine coverage" trivial coverage at
WP:CORPDEPTH. As to whether the firm is notable, searches find further routine announcement coverage, for example around the company refinancing in 2013
[34] (not mentioned in the article text), but neither under previous or current names am I finding the
coverage needed to demonstrate
attained notability.
AllyD (
talk) 13:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Yunshui雲水 08:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
non notable rich guy. Article is full of passing mentions and tries to COATRACK the lulu group, even though is just one of the managing directors, and not the owner/majority stack holder. Fails GNG
MistyGraceWhite (
talk) 17:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Also it seems that the creator is a paid editor/COI editor. JavaHurricane 07:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Adeeb Ahamed is a billionaire business among top 10 richest in India. He is in the mainline news on a consistent basis. He was recently awarded the prestigious gold card award by the government of UAE given only to very few people in the world. He is the managing director of Lulu financial group. He co-owns the largest retail network in India and Middle East. He is a very notable person. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
202.83.44.121 (
talk) 18:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
delete paid for spam with the usual pr puffery as sources. See also
Adeeb Ahamed.
Praxidicae (
talk) 13:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Deleted in draft in 2015; had a current draft article, deleted by me in case this is moved to draft: ns. —
billinghurstsDrewth 00:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your comments. I am a little confused why a person so famous in middle East and India is still non notable. They own the famous Scotland yard hotel in UK. He is also axgold card holder in UAE Thank you for your time. (
Kuruvillac (
talk) 08:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC))reply
Also, please do check my edit history, I am not a paid editor. (
Kuruvillac (
talk) 08:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC))reply
Respected Admins, i would like to make an observation. I got his spelling wrong which resulted in his mentions in news not showing up in search. I have rectified that. Now news references of him can be seen in search. Sorry cor the inconvenience. (
Kuruvillac (
talk) 05:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC))reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug! 06:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit.
MER-C 17:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
And just to add on to this, despite the noms block, I still strongly stand by my delete comment.
Praxidicae (
talk) 17:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - as a
WP:NBIO and likely
WP:GNG failure. While sources do exist that cover the subject, they lack the quality needed to actually establish the encyclopedic notability of the subject; too many are
WP:PRIMARY (articles merely quoting the subject are too common), lack depth, or primarily concern other topics (a
WP:NOTINHERITED issue). There is also a seeming lack of sources that put forward a claim to encyclopedic notability for Ahamed or indicate how he is different from his peers - he seems to be a wealthy run-of-the-
WP:MILL businessman.
SamHolt6 (
talk) 23:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Sir, by considering someone non notable like adeeb ahamed who is daily in the mainline news in middle east and india mostly independent news, are we not setting the bar too high.
Kuruvillac (
talk) 04:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Cuurent posts he holds include member of the World Economic Forum's South Asian Regional Strategy Group, gold card visa holder from government of UAE- honor given to select businessmen, and trustee of Kochi Biennale Foundation board. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
111.92.73.218 (
talk) 13:08, 2 June 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. No valid "delete" opinions remain. Sandstein 10:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
An event for startups that is not notable in itself.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk) 17:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug! 06:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit.
MER-C 17:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - sources points to notability within WP:GNG. The nominator was a sock.
BabbaQ (
talk) 12:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The movie does not meet GNG, all the sources mentioned are non-reliable. This seems to be an Indie film, whose trailer released on the "Movie Creator"'s youtube channel in December 2019.
Daiyusha (
talk) 03:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
DELETE Film is an indie with no established actors, company, or distributor.
Donaldd23 (
talk) 18:11, 1 June 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.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid counter-argument to a lack of notability. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not
reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to get over
WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist -- the key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is to write a substantive and well-sourced article that demonstrates his political significance. But other than stating that he exists, the only other content here is a criminal allegation that has not
verifiably resulted in a conviction, and would very likely not be of any enduring importance to get him over the
WP:PERP bar even if it had. But merely being charged with a crime is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if the person did not already clear our notability standards, then being charged with a crime that has not led to a conviction is not a notability booster. And there's just one footnote here anyway, which is nowhere close to enough coverage to make a smalltown mayor notable even if it weren't about an as yet untried criminal allegation.
Bearcat (
talk) 03:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - as per nom's analysis: fails both
WP:NPOL and
WP:CRIM, and the combination of the two doesn't help.
Ingratis (
talk) 11:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I thought I had heard of this guy. I live in Detroit, so maybe heard something about the criminal charges on the news. Taylor is not a significant or major area in Metro-Detroit. It is less important than its population would indicate, in that unlike other cities of its size it has few major businesses. We would need a lot more sources to justify notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable local mayor, even with the allegations in the article. Fails
WP:BLP.
SportingFlyerT·C 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: Taylor is not necessarily a "smalltown" by Michigan standards, and there are many
articles about mayors in Michigan whose entire political career was a mayor of a much smaller city and with less newsworthy information (e.g.
Covey,
Dempsey,
Janke,
Kozaren,
Wurmlinger). It is not about the notability of Taylor but of the verifiability of Sollars, which has extensive media coverage, albiet a very weak stub article. —
Notorious4life (
talk) 00:38, 2 June 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. czar 05:22, 3 June 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. czar 05:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Doesn't seem to pass
WP:ENT or the
WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage about her in reliable sources.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 02:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
That book is published by
Lulu.com, a self-publishing platform, and porn films can be run up in such large numbers that even PORNBIO excluded that criterion 14 years ago. Now that PORNBIO is gone, the subject needs good sources that can either satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BASIC or verify passing some criterion of
WP:ENT.
• Gene93k (
talk) 04:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy close. The creator has
withdrawn their deletion request and nobody else has supported deletion. Hut 8.5 17:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @
Joh582 as author requested (
WP:CSD#G7). This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.
FASTILY 01:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 05:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Does not meet
WP:GNG, does not appear to have any coverage outside of databases and has zero hits on Google Scholar. Previously nominated for PROD by
Mccapra, dePROD by an admin following an objection by the initial editor on the talk page: While accepting that even as a stub, the article is rather thin, I would argue for its retention, simply on the basis that Wikipedia has hitherto maintained a digest of all known elm species and cultivars, past and present. Its existence as a stub is far more likely to prompt additions to create a comprehensive article than its deletion. In response to this objection, I'll say that the deletion nomination is not due to the state of the article, but rather due to the apparent total lack of coverage in secondary sources, reliable or otherwise. signed, Rosguilltalk 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete — No coverage in secondary reliable sources can be observed/found.
Celestina007 (
talk) 01:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this was the rationale for my PROD.
Mccapra (
talk) 04:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – cultivars which are not well known and so do not appear in reliable secondary sources can be briefly mentioned or discussed on the relevant species or genus page, but I agree that they should not have their own article.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm not seeing any independent sources establishing notability. Just being listed in a seed/plant order catalogue doesn't reach the bar for cultivar notability.
Kingofaces43 (
talk) 16:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 05:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Subject of article fails to satisfy
WP:MUSICBIO & doesn’t satisfy
WP:GNG either. A before search shows him mentioned
here but like earlier stated this doesn’t satisfy
WP:GNGCelestina007 (
talk) 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Barely found anything about the artist, aside from the link indicated by the nominator. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 06:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Like the nominator and previous voter, I can find no
viable media coverage except for that one story. All else to be found are the typical streaming entries and self-promotional sites. Charitably it is
too soon for a WP article on this performer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 19:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete There's nothing in terms of the coverage necessary to pass
WP:GNG. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 03:55, 3 June 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 film, page created by an editor with a history of promo (username matches a film production company), unsourced for five years now,
WP:GNG/
WP:NFILM failure. The only source I managed to find with any pretense of reliability is a review
here, but that review doesn't even have a byline.
creffett (
talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete Seems to fail
WP:NFILM and
WP:GNG. Same as Creffett, all I could find was a review in
The India Times (not too reliable for sourcing, but fine for a film review AFAIK) and
APN news (rather dubious Indian news network). It's very possible there could be
Marathi language sourcing to substantiate notability, but I haven't seen any.
Eddie891TalkWork 00:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:SNOW delete. There is no reasonable possibility of this being kept, and
WP:BLP concerns militate in favor of prompt disposition.
BD2412T 04:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTNEWS. This is essentially an article on a current news story, and moreover one that raises BLP issues. Not all conspiracy theories deserve their own article, even those endorsed by a President; if we had an article on every false claim advocated by Trump, we'd have thousands of unnecessary articles. This one is sufficiently documented in
Joe Scarborough's article; there's no need for a separate page here, and it doesn't seem likely at the time of writing that there's going to be anything more to add to this one.
Robofish (
talk) 00:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose Clearly meets
WP:N standards. Hundreds of sources, including international sources. Very much like
Murder of Seth Rich . Unfounded crap, but pushed online.
Casprings (
talk) 00:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The Seth Rich story has had a lot more media attention over the years than this one, though: there's clearly enough there to justify an independent article. If this article developed to the state that one is in, it would be worth keeping, but I don't see that we need it now.
Robofish (
talk) 00:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Is article needs improvement a reason to delete? There are many WP:RS to meet WP:N.
Casprings (
talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying it 'needs improvement' - I'm saying that at present, there doesn't seem to be more to add to it, and so no need for a separate article. A separate article can always be recreated in future if this 'story' does turn out to be as enduring, and receive as much attention, as the Rich story did.
Robofish (
talk) 00:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
That is an argument to merge, not to delete.
Casprings (
talk) 00:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, maybe it should be merged then; but it seems to me that the relevant information is already in Scarborough's article (and
Mika Brzezinski) so I'm not sure there's anything more to merge here.
Robofish (
talk) 00:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment may have issues related NOTNEWS, SOAPBOX, FORUM.
Drat8sub (
talk) 00:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete While some online may posit a conspiracy, Trump just implies murder, title's all wrong.
InedibleHulk (
talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
True - if the article is to be kept, it should also be renamed, since it's not just Trump's theory. But '
Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory' would seem to have even more blatant BLP issues.
Robofish (
talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
What's wrong with "murder allegation"?
InedibleHulk (
talk) 00:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
We should really try to avoid 'allegation' in article titles (though sometimes it's unavoidable).
Robofish (
talk) 00:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Regarding the name, I haven't seen anyone suggesting a conspiracy, though some reports are using the term "conspiracy theory". I guess the people who believe this are arguing the autopsy was fake - and that would make this a conspiracy... The theory doesn't originate with Trump, so it shouldn't be termed Donald Trump's anything. It was also raised by Michael Moore and has circulated for almost 20 years. I don't believe that the current title or anything similar would be a useful redirect because it's not a likely search term.
Lori Klausutis is a likely search term, but that redirect is being considered for deletion. I don't think there is any point in merging this article. The allegation is already mentioned on several other articles, and there is no point in having a standalone article at this point in time. It is true that Wikipedia has several questionable Trump-related articles such as
Bowling Green massacre, but we don't need another one.--
Jack Upland (
talk) 01:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Random thoughts This has been added to
Joe Scarborough with a load of BLP problems. I’ve tried to clean it up, although I don’t know if it should be mentioned at all there. I linked to this article there to trim the text. Yes, if this article is kept, the title should be modified. I wouldn’t have created it so soon. But, it may be required at some point.
O3000 (
talk) 01:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete We don't need an article every time a well-documented pathological liar trumps his pants. Not News.
Nfitz (
talk) 02:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Long standing consensus that this death is not notable and content fork from scarborough.. Jimbo weighed in at the time with consideration for the deceased's spouse and sensationalism and conspiracy nature of the allegation.
ConstantPlancks (
talk) 06:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. As per the article, Twitter says that "statements by the President, even false ones, are newsworthy". Possibly, but false statements by Trump aren't Wikipedia-worthy other than en masse. This one already has a paragraph in the too-shyly named but otherwise good article
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, which is certainly all it needs. I don't see much need for a redirect.
Bishonen |
tålk 08:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC).reply
Delete - First, this isn't exclusive to Trump. Michael Moore and others have been bringing this up for decades. Second, there's nothing here that can't be telescoped (with sources) to Scarborough's article as a paragraph at most. --
Veggies (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not news. Just because something gets broad coverage in news does not make it notable. This can receive a balanced mention in the articles on Trump and Scarborough, although I am not sure it is even worth mentioning in the latter. There is no reason to create a seperate article on it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Even though it is covered in major media, it is fairly recent and hence can be addressed as a section within the Scarborough article. In the future, if the conspiracy theory continues to be prominent, say six months or a year in the future, it may deserve its own article.
Noleander (
talk) 15:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete As
Jack Upland observes above, this is not Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory. It's been around for decades. Moreover, the longstanding Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory has not been deemed worthy of its own page, nor has it been added to the
list of conspiracy theories. This new page, specific to Donald Trump, flunks both
Wikipedia:Notability and
WP:NOTNEWS.
NedFausa (
talk) 17:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or Merge Just because a conspiracy theory gets in the news, it is not worthy of being a Wikipedia article. It does not meet the requirements set by
WP:N. However, it may be best to merge it into
Joe Scarborough as a section. As
Jack Upland mentioned earlier, this conspiracy theory has been around for more than a decade, and it is not Donald Trump’s idea. Therefore, it has to do with Joe Scarborough and NOT Donald Trump.
Delete waste of space, and the origin of the conspiracy is not attributable to Trump, that appears to be down to Markos Moulitsas and Michael Moore.
Acousmana (
talk) 12:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete for now - I'm not seeing anything right now that warrants this topic having its own article. Other articles can perfectly summarize this without leaving out a lot of important information.
Love of Corey (
talk) 04:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete In a perfect world we'd be able to have a
Death of Lori Klausutis article ... there are some good questions about the autopsy and its finding that the media is treating as dispositive in this case, as well as Scarorough's behavior after the body was discovered (For the record, as I've said elsewhere online, I do not think he killed her (he couldn't have) or even that he had her killed. But I think it's still possible someone did, and that Scarborough may have known, or thought he knew, something about the death that he didn't want getting out). But no reliable source has ever discussed these issues. When one does, we can have it.
Daniel Case (
talk) 15:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to
WP:GNG. Across the provided sources, I see a fair amount of non-independent coverage but nothing that is both independent and significant. Searching online returned more of the same, Jing seems to have a propensity for garnering mentions in "X habits of successful entrepreneur" clickbait articles. It may be easier to establish a case for notability for her company, Banish. signed, Rosguilltalk 23:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm really not all that fussed about this article since he's a rookie in a fully pro league and a MLS first round draft pick and would have played but for covid. That being said the fact the article references his LinkedIn page while also failing
WP:GNG (none of the sources pass that line I don't think) is a red flag.
This is the best source I found and it's mostly an interview and has a plug for his podcast at the end, and there's a bunch of national Irish MLS draft pick related coverage - if he were playing it'd probably be fine to keep. Not entirely sure what to suggest here, it's sort of a twilight zone notable article.
SportingFlyerT·C 00:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Upgrading to a weak keep. I think he barely passes
WP:GNG as it stands, he's been a professional, he's on a professional side. If he never plays again or gets anymore press we can revisit it, but I don't think it's
WP:TOOSOON.
SportingFlyerT·C 05:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
@SK2242 He played 14 matches for
Drogheda United FC a professional side in Ireland and 28 for
Reading United AC including 2 caps in the
U.S. Open Cup all of those are professional caps. Not too sure why this would be deleted considering he was a top draft pick as well and would have had caps as
User:SportingFlyer said. I will take a look at the sourcing and see if I can pull some better sources.
NoahRiffe (
talk) 03:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
User:NoahRiffe, I believe the League of Ireland First Division and the USL League Two are not professional leagues (The latter is a development league). Furthermore, the cup games won’t count because they have to be 2 teams in fully professional leagues, which Reading United isn’t.
SK2242 (
talk) 11:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Furthermore I’m not sure why you created the exact same page in user/draft space and
submitted it.
SK2242 (
talk) 11:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
User:SK2242The club he played for
Drogheda United FC has had appearances in the
UEFA Champions League, it's a second div league, just like the USL Championship. My apologies for editing and then creating I honestly messed that up, was not my intention to submit both. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
NoahRiffe (
talk •
contribs) 18:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong delete Has not played a game. The fact that if he had played a game he would then be considered notable is a clear sign we have way too low a standard for notability. However he does not meet that standard, we do not create articles on the assumption people will become notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 16:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL.
GiantSnowman 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
fails GNG and NFOOTBALL: According to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability he checks both of these boxes "Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below: Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional. Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition." For GNG he passes the "Significant coverage", I am working on adding more news articles about him. "Reliable", Sourced from leagues MLS, USL, PDL, state newspapers and more. "Independent of the subject", I removed all sources directly connected to the subject. "Presumed", He was a top draft pick in the MLS Superdraft, he is linked in multiple other wiki articles he just doesn't have his own page.
The source you gave me doesn’t mention the word "professional" anywhere. In fact it seems none of the Irish football league system is professional.
SK2242 (
talk) 18:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't know much about Irish football, but I seem to recall this fact that it lakes any fully professional component being discussed elsewhere.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Players who play in Ireland fail the
WP:NFOOTY presumption but can still pass
WP:GNG. Furthermore, Molloy is currently on a team which would pass
WP:NFOOTY if he made an appearance, and has national Irish coverage along with a smattering of US coverage for
WP:GNG. A classic edge case, exacerbated by the lack of football being played.
SportingFlyerT·C 19:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus that the subject's body of work is sufficient to support notability. However, it remains the case that batter sourcing must be provided for claims made in the article, and those supporting its retention should see to that.
BD2412T 23:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
A non notable voice actor.
WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of substantial coverage that could help to improve the article.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
KEEPWP:ENTERTAINER is the subject specific guideline for voice actors. They have played a significant role in notable media. A major character on Castle in the Sky, the main character of Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water, Count Magnus Lee on Vampire Hunter D, etc.
DreamFocus 20:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Are there any reliable secondary sources to back this up?
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Their name is in the credits of the entertainment media. Primary sources are fine for things like this. Also common sense that the main character in a notable film is a notable part does not require any secondary sources to tell you that, you can hopefully think for yourself.
DreamFocus 21:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I’m really concerned that an editor of such experience believes this. Please read
WP:BLP and come back with secondary sources.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 22:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. You can verify things in the credits of what they've been in. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. I don't see any information there challenged. The guideline exist to prevent any slanderous lies from being in someone's article. There is nothing that could be seen as slanderous to the person, therefore its not a BLP issue. If you can list him in the credits of the articles for the films and television shows he's been in, then you can list that information in his own article.
DreamFocus 22:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
In
WP:N it states that all standalone articles must be sourced using “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. We currently have no evidence of this.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 22:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It states A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. So it doesn't have to pass the general notability guidelines that you just mentioned, if it passes a subject specific guideline like
WP:ENTERTAINERDreamFocus 22:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
...But articles must have reliable sources under
WP:V and
WP:OR. At the moment, there are no reliable sources.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 23:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This is not original research by any possible means. You only need to verify something if it is in doubt. Is there anything listed that anyone has any reasonable doubt is true? And I added some reliable sources. Clicked the link at the top of the AFD to search for Wikipedia reliable sources, and found TV guide confirming they were in one thing, and an link to Amazon.com page which list him in the credits for another. Having this same pointless argument every single time a voice actor comes up to AFD is tiresome. Usually they are kept, sometimes not, but its just a waste of time. Been going on for years now. The Wikiproject for Anime and Manga should be where standards are discussed for this type of article, and just leave it be. Doesn't really matter if people find this information on Wikipedia, or the manga wikia
https://manga.fandom.com/wiki/Jeff_Winkless or elsewhere. Not really worth the bother to constant argue over it.
DreamFocus 02:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete with
WP:REFUND. The article is poorly sourced and fails
WP:GNG. I see there are Amazon sources and
Dream Focus mentioned the Wikia, but those are not considered reliable sources by even
WP:ANIME. I am inclined to believe this article can be kept due to
WP:ENTERTAINER as long as Winkless' "notable" roles are sourced, and they are not.
lullabying (
talk) 18:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Draft move to draftspace for improvement as he does have a number of prominent roles as per
WP:NACTOR but better referencing is needed imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 00:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep or Redirect/Merge: For the moment, based on
WP:NACTOR, I am voting "Weak Keep". There wouldn't be much of an issue verifying the subject's roles, because there a lots of hits at newspapers.com in TV listings. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of in-depth coverage, though. I have found an obituary, which I will get clipped and provide here, but I'm not sure whether it would be considered acceptable as a
WP:GNG-source. Alternatively, perhaps a redirect/merge to a "List of Voice Actors" page might work—if such a page exists.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 14:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi, obituaries in reliable sources count towards
WP:GNG if they have significant biographical content and are not paid obituaries, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you,
Atlantic306. This may be a paid obituary, I'm not sure. As soon as it is clipped I will provide it here.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 00:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Here is the obituary to which I referred above:
here. I haven't yet read it yet, so feedback is most welcome.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 06:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Not sure really, there doesn't seem to be a byline unless its been cut, it is significant content but it needs to be independent which a byline would indicate, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 00:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree with you,
Atlantic306. Is there anywhere we might be able to redirect to, like a "List of Voice Actors" page?
Dflaw4 (
talk) 10:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Id rather put into draftspace for future improvement, as a list of actors has very little info, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 18:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 01:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep It seem that there are some sources, enough to pass GNG, but generally not in-depth on the man. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~ 20:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A BLP so a second relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per reasons above. With the sources indicated, the article is good enough to pass
WP:GNG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 06:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
SNGs do not override the need to locate reliable sources, they are merely an indication. And
WP:BEFORE sets out minimum requirements before nominating an article for
WP:AFD which are not exhaustive and do not cover print media. Therefore claiming someone hasn’t completed
WP:BEFORE because they missed a print-only source is erroneous.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 00:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - can I please ask all editors to review the sources presented in this AfD, I still do not believe there is enough for
WP:GNG at this stage. All of the sources presented so far are either passing mentions, unreliable sources, captions on a picture, or listicles. As a BLP the sourcing needs to be far more substantial in my view.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 00:24, 4 June 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. After extended time for discussion, there is no reasonable possibility that this will come out other than as a consensus to keep.
BD2412T 00:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment:Dlthewave, You should add this to the wikiproject train. I don't know how to add it or I'd do it myself.
Normal Op (
talk) 03:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
delete a fairly unremarkable rail spot, originally recorded in WP as a "community" per the usual GNIS misreading of the maps. I'm not seeing the notability other than the usual documentation which is commonly availalbe for many rail locations.
Mangoe (
talk) 03:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep or Merge to
Grand Rivers, Kentucky#History, as this named place is part its rail/river/crushed stone/dam history.07:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC) (This unsigned !vote was by
Djflem) (changed to Keep or merge
Djflem (
talk) 09:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC))reply
Keep (strong): Meets
notability,
verifiability,
reliable sources, and
neutral point of view. The topic meets
WP:GNG including significant coverage. Several historical documents mention this area by name, mention where it was, mention what products came from it, and how those products were used. Though the mentions were brief, they were neither trivial nor a passing mention. The sources are reliable, are secondary sources, and are independent of the subject. I'm sure the original reason to PROD or AfD this article was because one could not SEE anything on a current satellite view, and a cursory google search of "gravel switch" brought up nothing. However, now that there has been some researching and article improvement, we've discovered that there are sources, including ample maps, SHOWING that this place was populated, active and commercial. The products from this area were mentioned in several of the citations, along with mentioning the name of this place and where it sits in relation to other known places. That the TVA built a dam and flooded the nearby area, causing the railroads to re-route their line right through the old operating area of Gravel Switch, doesn't negate that the place existed as an area (not simply a railroad switch that has since been removed). As for a merge argument, the article subject doesn't really fit into any other article. I say Keep because the arguments for deletion don't hold water. (Pun intended... because of the new lake.)
Normal Op (
talk) 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Re any arguments for merging: Per
Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger, it says "Merging should be avoided if: ... 3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short". It has been suggested to merge it with
Grand Rivers, Kentucky however Gravel Switch was not IN Grand Rivers, and still is not in Grand Rivers even though the city limits have been expanded. It was, and still is, in
Livingston County, Kentucky and that would be a better merge target if one needed to be chosen.
Normal Op (
talk) 03:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
IF: It is in Lake City, an unincorporated area (once called Jessup), for which there is no article (though this would work within it). The quarry is the Grand Rivers Quarry; references consistently mention GR; and it's part of the economic history of the "greater" Grand Rivers region.
Djflem (
talk) 09:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Grand Rivers, Kentucky. There no requirement whatsoever that content about a city is limited to that only within legal limits: coverage of area geography, businesses, and history is regularly included with the nearest city, and this is the best way to consolidate relevant information for readers, seeing that Grand Rivers is mentioned as the relevant community in sources. Citation review:
[5] passing mention,
[6] passing mention,
[7] does not mention Gravel Switch,
[8] database entry about quarry,
[9] brief blurb of Grand Rivers quarry as a producer of crushed stone,
[10] passing mention of quarry. I am simply baffled how this possibly passes GNG or even
WP:V. This article synthesizes together a former rail switch and the quarry terminal now nearby, using original research to claim "Gravel Switch is an area", rather than it just being former name of the spur line and its then-gravel operation as indicated by the sources. There is no evidence at all this is the name of the quarry terminal area or railroad through-line today: the two sources with passing mentions of the spur switch fail to use it that way.
Reywas92Talk 04:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment This is very potentially notable, but there's also a Gravel Switch in Marion County and I want to make sure the heaps of references are for the proper community. Gravel Switch, Marion County has a census designation but Livingston county does not, and
[11] describes it as a flag stop.
SportingFlyerT·C 06:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This fails
WP:GEOLAND as it's not a community but probably passes
WP:GEOFEAT as a gravel deposit that's been fairly decently covered. Probably a weaker keep, but I see no reason to delete this, given we're a gazetteer.
SportingFlyerT·C 04:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment, have added mining wikiproject to article talkpage so that those editors are aware of this afd.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 01:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sourcing appears to be borderline.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to compile a list of their roles — and further, the vast majority of the roles listed here are supporting or guest appearances as minor characters, some of whom didn't even have names. So there are only a few roles here that might have been notable enough to count as "significant" for the purposes of
WP:NACTOR — but even then, NACTOR still isn't passed just because such "possibly significant" roles appear in the list, and still requires a
WP:GNG-worthy volume of
reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the roles by actually saying something substantive, above and beyond just the cast list, about him and his performances. No sources, no article.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete when the closest we get to a big time productions is the role "Muto's Crows nest tech #2" I think it is pretty safe to say we are dealing with a non-notable actor.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I can't say I agree with
John Pack Lambert's assessment of the subject's notability; he has had a number of significant roles in notable productions throughout his career (the part that John mentioned was one of his more minor ones). There are also several sources discussing the subject and his work:
here,
here,
here and
here. I therefore believe that the relevant notability standards are met.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 09:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Having a small handful of "local kid does stuff" human interest coverage in his own hometown local newspaper is not in and of itself enough coverage to get a person over
WP:GNG in the absence of any wider attention — and the only one of those four sources that is from anywhere extralocal just mentions his name without being about him or his character to any non-trivial degree. So no, that's not enough coverage to change the equation here.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Bearcat, there are more sources online. There is coverage—that is my point.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 00:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Then show us the three best sources you're finding, not just three or four random weak ones.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
There's no need to be brusque,
Bearcat. I haven't gone through every source, and I don't think those I provided are necessarily weak sources, either. I'll get some more clipped for you.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 11:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, person is notable enough to be kept. I remember watching him on YCDTOTV and Are You Afraid of the Dark, yes notable indeed.
Davidgoodheart (
talk) 05:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Can you point to reliable sources that would confirm this?
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 00:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 03:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. NACTOR is not a golden ticket to uncontestable notability. It's a presumptive standard - we presume that people who meet one or more of the criteria are probably going to have generated sufficient coverage to meet
WP:N, and that's usually true (or else we'd rewrite the criteria). But if we can't confirm that there is sufficient N-satisfying coverage (remember, N requires substantial coverage at a broad, not simply local level), then the article fails the notability test and we cannot keep it. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 22:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: a second relist as this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. No real dispute that the subject satisfies applicable SNG's. Instead, all we have in response is thoroughly unsubstantiated speculation about the possible nonexistence of sources. Given that the subject had regular or recurring roles in at least eight TV series, that argument is exceptionally implausible. SNGs exist precisely to avoid timewasting disputes where sources are likely to exist, and where there is no factually based dispute over basic claims. They are not disregarded simply because an editor blurts "Prove it!"
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (
talk) 20:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
SNGs do not override
WP:GNG which state that reliable sources must be found. Otherwise we’d have BLPs with no sources just because someone says so, which is ridiculous. So “prove it” is an entirely reasonable response.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 00:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Move to draft. As it stands, this is a substantial
WP:BLP violation, because no claims in the article are sourced at all. The sole source provided is for a single role in the list.
BD2412T 17:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. The actor has 66 roles to date. He has around 10 roles in large film productions, and was especially active in the first half of 2000s, with roles in
The Score (2001 film), I can't believe that there weren't any publications about him then. There is a passing mention of him in film Power Corps. (2004) in a book, there were publications in newspapers about him — see urls above. He starred in web-series, and has role in upcoming TV series Sweet Tooth by
Team Downey starring
Will Forte.
Кирилл С1 (
talk) 18:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The number of roles someone has is irrelevant, it’s how notable those roles are. All of which needs to be backed up with reliable sources. Have you managed to find any further sources?
Cardiffbear88 (
talk) 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I am currently adding the sources I found above to the article, so as to alleviate any
WP:BLP concerns.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 03:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I would also say that it would be virtually impossible to have coverage, even trivial coverage, for every role in an actor's career. I think more can be done to improve the article—and I will continue to work on it if it remains—but, for the moment, I believe that it is certainly good enough to pass the notability criteria.
Dflaw4 (
talk) 03:48, 5 June 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.
Taking to AfD because the present PROD tags are invalid due to a dePROD in 2014.
Original nom this time around was
Robincantin, with the rationale: "Article about a piece of software that's been "in development" for the last 13 years."
Endorsed by
Phil Bridger with the rationale: "Clearly a piece of software that went nowhere, and only attracted a couple of "gee-whiz" news items when it was announced. If I was designing a filter for stupidity it would filter out anything written in in camelCase and undated "status" pages that only tell us what the status was in the dim and distant past."
In my opinion the subject fails
WP:N, which requires significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time (my bold), ie, not simply a couple of "wow won't this be cool" articles around the time of the announcement. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 22:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This software would have been notable had it been developed. Alas, such an occurrence has not come to pass.
TH1980 (
talk) 03:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - caused some coverage at the time, but that was just a blip. No sustained coverage over time. --
Whpq (
talk) 18:39, 2 June 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 - he has had more press coverage than the average clergyman because of his stand on gay issues and some other publicity, including as an unsuccessful candidate for a bishopric, but not enough for notability.
Ingratis (
talk) 23:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I can't find any in depth coverage of him. Being an unsuccessful candidate for a bishopric and officiating at the first gay marriage in the Church of Scotland isn't really enough.--
Jahaza (
talk) 00:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep notable musician and multimedia artist with reliable sources under the name of Setareh Malekzadeh[1][2][3][4] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Armin3001 (
talk •
contribs) 19:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, see the references given by
Armin3001, including e.g. non-trivial content from the Swedish national broadcasting company. /
Julle (
talk) 10:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I disagree with this AFD. More details needed for deletion. @
Persia: you are nominating a lot of AFDs.. in this short period of time, it is not possible to nominate carefully. Anyway, this person is
notable.
Lexy iris (
talk) 23:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as has reliable sources coverage added to the article such as Dagbladet newspaper and other sources identified in this discussion so that
WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 00:35, 3 June 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 redirect to
High Road (Kesha album). Consensus not to keep. Unclear whether to merge or redirect. Redirection is a compromise. Sandstein 18:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 21:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete in addition to the above, every citation used in the article aside from
a merchandise link are merely announcements (both plans and cancellations), four of which are tweets from Kesha that don't count towards WP:GNG when they're primary sources.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 23:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge per nom. There is hardly any content apart from mere announcements.
Accesscrawl (
talk) 04:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge due to lack of coverage in reliable sources
Pi(Talk to me!) 13:14, 4 June 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 to
Britney Spears: One of the sources state that the tour has been postponed. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:CRYSTAL - I can't see any sources suggesting that this is going to go ahead. All relevant information is included in
Britney SpearsPi(Talk to me!) 19:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Britney Spears - as the nominator pointed out, relevant information on the cancelled tour is covered on her main article, so making this a redirect would be appropriate. Plausible search term. --
Dps04 (
talk) 17:36, 3 June 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 tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 20:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article mentions several aspects of genetics and "Lamarckian" inheritance, but attempts to
synthesize these with a brief uncited introduction into the
pseudoscience topic named in the article title. Sources exist, therefore, for the subtopics, but no reliable scientific source (such as a systematic review article) exists for the topic as a whole. The article should therefore be deleted as
Original Research.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Natureium: Not exactly: that is one aspect, and it's genuine science, but not a synonym for "genetic memory"; there are other examples listed in the article. What the article is trying to do is to tie all the different bits of real but disparate science together into one non-scientific domain.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 18:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
rename and cleanup: calling for deletion of flawed articles is lazy. Btw, I do not think this is "fringey synthesis" in origin, it seems that this goes back to my splitting off various off-topic "biological" material from the article on genetic memory proper. I think the proper approach here would be to rename to
somatic memory (which appears to be a bona fide term) and prune any material that doesn't relate to that topic. --
dab(𒁳) 05:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
That would be yet another subject, not a synonym. The synthesis, if such it is, would have preceded your splitting; the material should I think have been deleted rather than split off, but that was surely at the time an easy mistake to make, given there was technical-looking material in an article about something else. On laziness, that is a forbidden personal attack; it's also false, as I investigated the matter carefully, and having written several articles on related topics (like Lamarckism and Orthogenesis...) I'm familiar with the area and its fringiness.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 07:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I do not think I made a mistake: I did split off the material as useless crap. It's just that my view of "deletion" is different: Instead of throwing out everything, you should just blank the material that is useless and retain the stuff that is relevant. The useless material can always remain in the edit history so people can review it and perhaps rescue tidbits that are useful after all. And come on, I did not "attack you personally", I voiced a general opinion of how to approach editing broken articles. Do tone down the belligerence, nobody is attacking you, this isn't even remotely a content dispute, I am sure we agree on pretty much everything regarding Lamarckism etc., I am just giving my view on how to approach cases such as this as a task of copyediting. --
dab(𒁳) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Well if we're agreed it's "useless crap" then deletion is the right answer.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 12:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete There are subtopics backed by reliable sources, e.g., epigenetic memory is a well-established set of concepts. Epigenetics plays a role in memory formation, see
Epigenetics in learning and memory. Epigenetic state can be inheritable, see
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Some believe it plays a role in evolution, see
Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution. DNA can be used as a memory storage device, see
DNA digital data storage and
E. coli for that matter. But I was unable to find any reliable sources in biology that discuss these and other subtopics under the umbrella term of genetic memory. In order to be viable, a general overview article like needs reliable sourcing that provides such overviews--books or review articles on genetic memory. Without such, this article is original research through synthesis and should be deleted. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk} 18:56, 2 June 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.
Yunshui雲水 10:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Sources provided for this businessman are about equally split between unabashed promo features (
this one could serve as a museum piece for soapbox enabler interviews) and coverage of his businesses, OrangeScape and Kissflow. Normally I would say, redirect to one of these, but since
OrangeScape is currently lingering in draft, I'd suggest deletion instead. A redirect can easily be set up again when/if there is an article for one of the companies. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable businessman. We have way too many sources on such people.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per nominator and above. No indication of notability.
Electiondata (
talk) 02:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Per above, nothing to show notability.
Nika2020 (
talk) 11:45, 1 June 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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 05:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Moving on to
Amador County, California, we have yet another isolated house in the middle of a national forest, the ruin of which is still visible on GMaps. It's one small building, not a community.
Mangoe (
talk) 19:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - "Allen" or "Allen Camp" was located on the
Carson Trail (see
[12]).
This document published by Amador County states "Many families that grazed cattle and sheep left their names associated with places such as Allen Camp". The
Allen Camp hiking trail is well documented.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 10:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete So a family grazed cattle there, no evidence there was ever a community there, less a notable one.
Reywas92Talk 20:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't say there was a community there, nor did I vote keep. I simply added content relevant to this discussion. No need to be loutish.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 21:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't say you said that. This is a separate vote, not a response to your comment which was indeed relevant, thanks for the sources. Just saying cattle grazing may be representative of a number of these non-community ranches.
Reywas92Talk 23:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete "Unincorporated community" label is OR. Sources confirm that this was just a cattle/sheep grazing area, no evidence of significant coverage to meet GNG. –
dlthewave☎ 02:06, 2 June 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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 05:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: I thought about nominating them myself for the same reasons.
Toddst1 (
talk) 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete:, per nom. non notable company and ...
Alex-h (
talk) 10:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Unclear how this fails
WP:NCRIC or
WP:CRIN. The relevant criteria for clubs, teams and venues (which we can use as a model to determine the notability of a league) states:
Difficulty may arise with clubs that have not competed at senior level and, similarly, with venues that have not staged first-class or List A matches. "Minor cricket" is a specific term in the sport that does not necessarily imply a lack of notability; in parallel with sports like association football and baseball, many cricket clubs in "minor leagues" are professionally run and do employ professional players. It is necessary to take an individual view about each country in terms of its own grassroots structure.
(emphasis is mine)
The Qatar T10 league is clearly "minor" but not clearly non-notable. The Qatar league is well-known (at least in Qatar) and has an established presence there. There appears to be a benefit to having the article as this information is readily available elsewhere. The league seems to have First class players which is explicitly a criteria for notability (of individuals) -
WikiProject Cricket participants have adopted the following guidelines for notability of cricket people, men's and women's cricket having equal importance, to qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia: [the individual must have] appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level
In general and looks at the criteria it seems as though the players, and potentially the teams in the league are notable for inclusion - and equally the league should also be notable enough.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Thunderstorm008 (
talk •
contribs)
Merge into
Qatar T10 League. There is only one season so far, and no evidence it passes
WP:NSEASONS. Qatar is not an important cricketing nation, and this league is not notable enough to have articles for every season (if there is even more than one season of it).
Joseph2302 (
talk) 08:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge into the
Qatar T10 League Only has one season so far and has no evidence which would have pass
WP:NSEASONS especially being in a non-cricketing nation like Qatar.
HawkAussie (
talk) 05:30, 2 June 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.
Indian death metal band. The notability of this page has been doubted since January 2020. I am not surprised as the sources aren't worth crap. The "sources" presented are the following: Reverb Nation, some blog, Metal Archives, a site which isn't even available and a concert promotion in The Hindu where Crypted is mentioned alongside other bands, in four words (Crypted - Progressive Death Metal). That's it. But I don't see reliable, secondary sources. I did a Google search (with the word "crypted" in quotation marks) and the results were dictionary definitions and tips about removing a computer virus of the same name. The only thing I found about the band was a Spotify page which is not a reliability making source either. When I first searched for this band without quotation marks, I did not found anything about them, only bands which have "crypt" in their names or named "crypt". By the way, the sources are also the same on the Spanish Wikipedia too. I think this band is absolutely not notable. I can even see a speedy deletion around here.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 list of people who played for an American football team that lasted one season and, despite the article's assertion, is not recognized by the NFL as being a member of the league at any point. The category
Category:Syracuse Pros players suffices in place of this short list. Eagles24/7(C) 15:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect per Paul McDonald and Ejgreen77.
Cbl62 (
talk) 19:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to Bob Dylan.
Nika2020 (
talk) 11:46, 1 June 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 to
Rascal Flatts: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 04:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 15:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Lady Antebellum: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 04:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Little Mix: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 03:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made.
CodeSlashh (
talk) 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, do not redirect. The title is totally ambiguous and would probably be deleted at RfD. The first page of Google gives no results for Little Mix outside of Wikipedia. --
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete without redirect per
User:King of Hearts. Many groups can already claim a cancelled "Summer 2020 Tour", so this would not be an appropriate title for a redirect.
BD2412T 00:08, 6 June 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 tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 15:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Alicia Keys: One of the sources state that the tour has been postponed. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 03:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made.
CodeSlashh (
talk) 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 15:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Bon Jovi: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 03:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made.
CodeSlashh (
talk) 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 15:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both
WP:CRYSTAL and
WP:NTOURS. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 15:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made.
CodeSlashh (
talk) 04:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as per reasons above. The tour actually has rescheduled dates but considering the climate it would be better to create it once it starts and receives more coverage and secondary sources. --
Fabrictii (
talk) 16:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Björk: The tour has been rescheduled at later dates. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 03:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to fail
WP:GNG and
WP:NALBUM. Of the sources I can find, the sputnikmusic review
[15] is clearly tagged as "user review", only staff and emiritus reviews from that website are RS per
WP:MUSICRS. metal-archives.com is not an RS per
WP:ALBUMAVOID. For the Metal Storm entry,
WP:MUSICRS states "Only staff review from 2009 onward are usable, don't use guest reviews recognizable by a tag, which fail WP:USERG", and the review on that page for this album is from 2007, so not useable. After that, you get into myspace, bandcamp, etc. Taking this here instead of a bold redirect to the band page because the I don't speak the relevant language for Austria, where the album was originally released. Honestly, I think the only reason this page exists is that it is Middle-earth related, apparently in the past, anything tangentially related to LOTR got a free pass (see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lord of the Rings (pinball) and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gollum: How We Made Movie Magic).
Hog Farm (
talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, I know nothing of this band, but the German Wikipedia article
de:Minas Morgul (Album) lists 16 sources, 5 of them properly archived on Archive.org in the German Wikipedia article, and of the rest at least
this interview is in fact available. The band could easily be notable. Of the 5 archived refs,
MetalInfo gives it 3/5, a full review.
Of the unarchived refs in the German article,
MedienKonverter offers a detailed review of the album and gives it 5/5.
SputnikMusic reviews it (in English) as 4.5, claiming "it has earned classic status".
Metal Storm also guest-reviews it in English, awarding it "a perfect 10". I'm not sure if guest reviews confer notability but the overall impression is of an authentic and much-liked 'metal' album of the period.
Bloodchamber is a slightly shorter review; it awards 7.5 points (out of 10, I guess) and finds the music has "an almost meditative character". Each to their own. But given the multiple sources, this must be a Keep.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 16:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per
Chiswick Chap. Its German article is notable. With the sources indicated above, the English article good enough to pass
WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 03:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Summoning (band): having lots of sources doesn't mean the article is notable, if those sources all fail
WP:RS. The two editors above appear to not have read WP:MUSICRS and the nominator stating correctly that the Sputnikmusic source is a user review, which has already been established by consensus is not reliable, and also that the Metal Storm review is invalid. The Tartarean Desire site is a webzine/blog, and moreover it's a primary source interview, so it doesn't convey any independent notability. So that's at least three of the sources above that aren't valid, and it's debatable whether any of the others are anything more than community blogs. In light of this, until it can be established whether any of the sources pass WP:RS, a redirect to the band's article seems to be the best option.
Richard3120 (
talk) 00:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 15:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 15:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 05:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Academic who does not seem to meet
WP:NPROF - very few publications or citations. (He did hold a named chair, but not at a major institution.)
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 08:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Sections of this article appear to have been taken verbatim and unacknowledged from a
paid obituary in the NY Times. asnac (
talk) 09:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think the Luce Lecturer position counts as the kind of named professorship that
WP:PROF asks for. It's a short-term visiting lecturer job
[16], not a position held for years or decades.
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Notability not found yet.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 22:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC).reply
Weak keep as Worldcat shows 500 plus library holdings so he may be notable as an author but there are big copyright concerns. Earwig tool shows an 85% match with a news website piece that was posted some hours after this was started in December 2007, and it has been suggested it originated from a NYT paid obituary, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
Have just checked the NYT piece and the copying is mainly quotes so thats not so bad
Atlantic306 (
talk) 23:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 00:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 15:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, does not seem to meet
WP:NPROF, nor does there actually seem to be much independent coverage to demonstrate notability otherwise. Even putting aside copyright concerns, the source mentioned in the discussion is a paid obituary and hence pretty lousy even for
WP:V - this is article has basically no actual reliable-source coverage. ~
mazcatalk 15:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't believe any of the criteria at
WP:NPROF are met and my search did not turn up the significant independent coverage that I believe is required to meet
WP:GNG.
Papaursa (
talk) 02:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. One reasonably well cited edited volume (Public Religion and Urban Transformation: Faith in the City) is not enough for
WP:PROF or
WP:AUTHOR, the sourcing is far below the standard for
WP:GNG, and there seems to be nothing else. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I could not find any coverage (except mentions in real estate listings, or appearances of the word "Boothgate" in other places) about this street (it is indeed a street). Fails both the overall
WP:GNG and the topic specific
WP:GEOROAD.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable street; nothing found online. Can always be recreated if sources ever surface to show its signficance. (COI declaration: this is a few miles from where I live). I see no need to even redirect to
Heage or
Belper. Photo isn't even of the road (
see here).
Nick Moyes (
talk) 10:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete even if there was something of note to say about the street the village article is not long enough or involved enough to justify splitting off articles on individual streets.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Peter James: It said it was a village: that was incorrect (hence why it doesn't say it anymore). The source you give seems to use "hamlet" and "road" to refer to what is essentially the same location (it refers to maps in "Appendix 2", but those are not provided so I can't check). Whatever it is, it fails GNG. Maybe I should have bothered to correct the coordinates in the article.
This is the correct location and as you can clearly see it's a street. Thanks,
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 16:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom and above, fails notability.
Nika2020 (
talk) 11:48, 1 June 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 state level Teen USA competition winners are not notable. Being the first Indonesian American to win in Illinois in no way adds to her notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deletion by
Jimfbleak; promo from undisclosed paid editor
Promotional article created by an account that matches the name of the subject's manager. There is a credible claim of significance (he has apparently won some awards), and the text isn't quite G11-promotional, but the sourcing is lacking - it's currently sourced exclusively to YouTube, and I can't find any coverage in independent reliable sources, so seems to fail GNG and NMUSIC
GirthSummit (blether) 12:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Jimfbleak, well, if we're assessing the article on its merits, I didn't think that it quite fit into any of the criteria. However, given that there is clearly no sourcing to establish notability, and the author (who seems to be the subject's manager) has been blocked for promo, I would not be disturbed of you wanted to decided to go with your first instinct...
GirthSummit (blether) 21:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - as per nom; the refs just don't demonstrate notability.
Ingratis (
talk) 11:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete clearly not notable. It is high time we created a minimum number of edits a user has to make before they can create a new article. New users are tempted to create new articles on new subjects but usually have to little grasp of notability guidelines and create articles on subjects not justified. My first article I created was deleted, and I think that was baiscally my first edit. It was on Phoebe Whitmore Carter (Woodruff) who considering how heavily she is mentioned in both volume 1 and Volume 2 of Saints:A History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might merit an article. Currently she is redirected to the article on her husband, but a seperate article, especially considering that one of her letters was published in an anthology might be justifieiable, especially considering there is a desire to have better coverage of women. Woodruff was also a key figure in sufferage and protesting the unjust outside colonialist oppresion of the residents of Utah Territory. When I first created the article back in 2006 some of the now extant sources of secondary coverage on Woodruff did not yet exist.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A non-notable film director, producer, composer and lyricist with so many claims to notability but there are no independent sources to back them up.
GSS💬 09:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Likely non-notable, coverage I have found from secondary sources only seem to be trivial mentions. Lordship does not necessarily indicate notability—
WP:POLITICIAN only presumes notability for politicians who have held international, national, or state/province–wide office, of which
Serifos as a municipality is not.
17jiangz1 (
talk) 09:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article, which was created 11 years ago, does not have enough information to be useful to readers. The only date in the article is the year of his marriage, not when he was born or died. The article says that he was "co-lord of
Serifos", but the article
Serifos says nothing about the island having been governed by lords or co-lords. If he was a co-lord, presumably he must have served alongside another co-lord, but the other co-lord's name is not given here. The article says that Giovanni Michiel "married in 1424 the daughter of
Niccolo Crispo from
Negropont". But
Niccolo Crispo's ten children are mentioned in the article about him, and each of his daughters is mentioned there as marrying someone else -- not Giovanni Michiel. The article says that after Michiel's first wife died, he married "the daughter of another Euboean feudatory" -- with no indication of who that was. I realize that information about 15th century people may be in short supply, but, for example, the article about Michiel's purported father-in-law
Nicholas Crispo, Lord of Syros at least provides a date of birth, date of death, and the name of his wife. This is an article about a person with similar social status, from the same era and same geographic area, but it has none of those pieces of information. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Metropolitan90:. The article list as its source
Karl Hopf's, Veneto-Byzantinische Analekten (1859) p. 77; in fact it is a summary of what Hopf writes (which is not much either). Obviously "Giovanni" was a member of the Michieli (in plural), the Venetian patrician family
it:Michiel, "which contributed three doges to Venice" in 11th-12th cent. (
Kenneth M. Setton, A History of the Crusades: The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East, p. 434). Hopf provides info about many members of the family involved in the Archipelago, and describes how "Giovanni II." Michiel after an unhappy incident with Giovanni delo Cavo (
John de lo Cavo; note that usually several Giovannis from those days are known as "Johns" in English historiography) set foot on Serifos (p.75). "Our" Giovanni, "Giovanni IV." (cf. p. 77) was son of "Allesundro Michieli" and he was -according to Hopf's narration- "Mithesitzer der Insel", co-owner of the Isle of Serifos. Hopf continues by referring to a relation with the "duke family of Naxos" thru his (first) marriage with the daughter of "Nicolo Crispo of Negroponte", and then, after the death of her, he married another woman, from Euboea, perhaps a daugher of Nicolaos Protimos (Νικόλαος Προθυμός = the last archbishop of Athens under Latin rule). "Giovanni IV." died childless in Negreponte (see
Chalcis),
Euboea. That's all we get to know about him from Hopf. I don't know how accurate is all that -we need a modern reliable source on the subject. ǁǁǁ ǁ
Chalk19 (
talk) 15:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete -- There might be a case for an article on the medieval lords of Serifios, possibly listing them in the article on the island. The question is whether being lord of this island is enough for notability. I compare this with peerages in England, where there is a list article for every peerage, but not for the lordship of every manor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per my previous comment, and per User's Peterkingiron point above. ǁǁǁ ǁ
Chalk19 (
talk) 07:32, 3 June 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 only source on the entry is a tiny obituary, fails GNG and ONEEVENT. Not HASPOT after searched on regular engines.
Ixocactus (
talk) 08:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
a conference about him: Franco Volpi interprete del pensiero contemporaneo, Atti dell'incontro internazionale di studio, Padova, 19 Novembre 2009, Vicenza, Accademia Olimpica, 2012
another conference about him: Ricordando Franco Volpi filosofo: 04.10.1952-14.04.2009, Atti dell'Incontro internazionale del 24 Aprile 2010, Lavarone, Comune di Lavarone, 2017
On that basis, I'd have said this was probably a Keep.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 09:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Has published quite a lot. Based on the other language wikipedia's, cross language sources, I would say there is enough for GNG.
Govvy (
talk) 13:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. After the many good sources provided above I think that I made a mistake. Thanks for patience. I will put these sources on entry.
Ixocactus (
talk) 07:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
That's very good of you, many thanks.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 08:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article fails
WP:ORG and
WP:GNG. There are not enough reliable, independent, in-depth sources which cover this student group in detail.
User:Namiba 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Very weak keep. "oldest Hillel Foundation organization in the United States" is a specific claim of notability of this among the many student-organizations on this campus and the many campus branches of this parent organization. However, I don't think there is enough encyc about this article to ever be more than a stub. There's lots here now that should probably be removed as unencyclopediac details at best, promotional fluff at worst. Some of the independent refs are mere passing mention and most of the refs are not independent (and only support in-my-view-unencyc content anyway). Potential merge targets are
Texas A&M University and
History of the Jews in Brazos County, Texas, with redirect to...probably the school and cross-links between those two targets.
DMacks (
talk) 14:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Article-history note: Was recently PRODded by Namiba, which I disputed because there was the claim of apparent notability sufficient to merit a full discussion.
DMacks (
talk) 16:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep or Redirect to
Hillel International Most such campus organizations do not merit a standalone article, but the claim as oldest Hillel organization is a credible claim of notability, but the scope and breadth of sourcing need work. If not kept, I would redirect to the article for the parent organization (
Hillel International), where the Texas A&M "chapter" is already listed, with a source.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This article has 27 sources, and even if 9 are from the organization' website, that still leaves 18 sources. That says something, IMHO. If not kept, then redirect to
Hillel International as suggested by
Alansohn.
Debresser (
talk) 23:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
There is one independent source on the page which covers the group in any type of detail. The number of self-published or university-published sources does not contribute to notability per
WP:GNG.--
User:Namiba 13:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Being the oldest of something isn't enough if reliable sources have not chosen to reward this claim to fame with any coverage. We could mention in the Hillel article (or in Judaism in the US, in Texas?, whatever) that this was the first one founded, but if the independent reliable sources aren't there, they aren't there. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 04:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (
t愛c) 08:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect as suggested above. I agree with the editors who note there is not enough third-party coverage to justify a standalone article. --Kinut/c 02:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No reviews that I can find and written by an obscure, redlinked author, so this novel fails
WP:NBOOK.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There are some sources, but I think there's is c9nsensus that those are ot sufficient for GNG
Fenix down (
talk) 07:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable footballer. Not every 18-year-old who kicks a ball in a formal game is notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, no international caps yet = too soon for an article.
GiantSnowman 18:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - meets GNG with significant coverage of his national team call-up. I'm also quickly finding a lot of routine (non-GNG) English coverage of him
one,
two,
three that spell his first name as 'Faisal' rather than 'Foysal' - so perhaps this article should be moved to
Faisal Ahmed Fahim.
Nfitz (
talk) 23:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More time for further discussion needed, there seem to be at least two sources in the article which could indicate GNG due to their length, but language barrier is making things difficult
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 08:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - meets
WP:FOOTYN, we in
WP:FOOTY generally keep players who are playing in country's top league, actually help us in keeping records properly. Though its a stub now, but don't see a problem, have a scope of expanding.
Drat8sub (
talk) 11:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Not true, please do not disinform the voters. We in NFOOTY generally keep players from fully-pro league, regardless of the level. --
BlameRuiner (
talk) 12:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Disinform ?? I think that's what you are doing, not me. Keep players from fully-pro league, oops !!
BlameRuiner,
Bangladesh Premier League (football) is the top most professional league of Bangladesh. Shall I assume that you never heard of Bangladesh. Countries' top leagues are generally professional leagues only and the winners/runners-up often play in continental level.
Drat8sub (
talk) 20:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
League calling itself Professional is not enough for it to actually be fully-professional. Please read the list of leagues that are assessed by FOOTY project as fully-pro here:
WP:FPL. Bangladeshi league is not fully-pro, as about 50 other top level leagues. --
BlameRuiner (
talk) 21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Yup, A project that cannot define, what is a fully professional league? I've gone through
WP:FPL project much before I place my comment. Secondly,
this also shows the clubs are paying or trying to pay the salary in pandemic also, no doubt in normal time they use to pay salary.
Drat8sub (
talk) 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep scrapes though
WP:GNG there is coverage in
Bengali Language and subject has received a national callup and won a Golden boot ,subject is 18 years and currently playing see little point in deleting it.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 18:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
What do you mean by "locally"
User:Ortizesp? There's national media coverage - and what does "local" mean in a city of over 20 million people?
Nfitz (
talk) 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Does not fail
WP:FOOTY, as I've previously mentioned, per
WP:FOOTYN, played in professional league and competitive fixtures between professional clubs.
Drat8sub (
talk) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nfitz, I know it has listed, but upon what criteria, the project listed without defining the most important point, "what is a fully professional league?" Am I missing here anything else? Let me know.
Drat8sub (
talk) 00:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Drat8sub I mentioned the criteria in the other thread - "the players on all teams are full-time paid players". i.e. they don't have other jobs on the side. Are there references that support this? Though it's moot here, as this one meets GNG
Nfitz (
talk) 01:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Well FOOTYN clearly says, for league notability, leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are generally notable. I don't understand why the "fully" professional even become so important here when BPL champions/runners up are playing at the continental level. For salary thing I've mentioned above in the other discussion under my initial comment. The whole wikipedia is full of many european 2nd tier league players if I am not wrong, and here we are discussing if to keep it or not, a player who is playing in his country's premier league and which passes significant coverage.
Drat8sub (
talk) 03:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
But
User:Drat8sub,
WP:FOOTYN#Player notability clearly says The player section of this notability guidancehas been superseded by WP:Notability (sports),and is included below for information only as a record of theprevious guidancethat the Footy project came up with. The criteria in use for the last decade is at
WP:NFOOTY and says Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable. Second tier leagues are often fully professional in some countries - even fourth tier leagues occasionally. The criteria is clear - it may not be fair, and it surely has
WP:BIAS, but it is clear - so arguing that the player plays in the top league in the country get's no where. You either need to provide references that GNG is met (which I believe is the case for this particular player), or that the league is actually fully professional (which means the players on all teams are full-time, and don't have other employment).
Nfitz (
talk) 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Fenix down (
talk) 07:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No real experience yet and certainly fails NFOOTY. Perhaps draftify, but I would rather delete.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. --
SalmanZ (
talk) 20:55, 1 June 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.
:@
User:Archmedhis Wikipedia is not a news site.
WP:NOTNEWS. Your sources are just small 2 line mentions of the news that she won the Miss polo in Nigeria and will represent Nigeria in Dubai. All sources even use similar words. This cannot be used to base an article on.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk) 20:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC) struck sockpuppet,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (
t愛c) 06:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit.
MER-C 17:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - passes WP:GNG. Plenty of reliable sources.
BabbaQ (
talk) 18:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I've added a 2nd Find-sources above for AIS Technology Services which was the company's name until recently.
AllyD (
talk) 12:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Clearly an article with a history of promotional editing, though that could probably be avoided using page protection. I have tried to neutralise the present version of the company history and added a reference, albeit one which would fall under "brief announcements, and routine coverage" trivial coverage at
WP:CORPDEPTH. As to whether the firm is notable, searches find further routine announcement coverage, for example around the company refinancing in 2013
[34] (not mentioned in the article text), but neither under previous or current names am I finding the
coverage needed to demonstrate
attained notability.
AllyD (
talk) 13:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Yunshui雲水 08:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
non notable rich guy. Article is full of passing mentions and tries to COATRACK the lulu group, even though is just one of the managing directors, and not the owner/majority stack holder. Fails GNG
MistyGraceWhite (
talk) 17:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Also it seems that the creator is a paid editor/COI editor. JavaHurricane 07:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Adeeb Ahamed is a billionaire business among top 10 richest in India. He is in the mainline news on a consistent basis. He was recently awarded the prestigious gold card award by the government of UAE given only to very few people in the world. He is the managing director of Lulu financial group. He co-owns the largest retail network in India and Middle East. He is a very notable person. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
202.83.44.121 (
talk) 18:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)reply
delete paid for spam with the usual pr puffery as sources. See also
Adeeb Ahamed.
Praxidicae (
talk) 13:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Deleted in draft in 2015; had a current draft article, deleted by me in case this is moved to draft: ns. —
billinghurstsDrewth 00:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your comments. I am a little confused why a person so famous in middle East and India is still non notable. They own the famous Scotland yard hotel in UK. He is also axgold card holder in UAE Thank you for your time. (
Kuruvillac (
talk) 08:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC))reply
Also, please do check my edit history, I am not a paid editor. (
Kuruvillac (
talk) 08:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC))reply
Respected Admins, i would like to make an observation. I got his spelling wrong which resulted in his mentions in news not showing up in search. I have rectified that. Now news references of him can be seen in search. Sorry cor the inconvenience. (
Kuruvillac (
talk) 05:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC))reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug! 06:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit.
MER-C 17:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
And just to add on to this, despite the noms block, I still strongly stand by my delete comment.
Praxidicae (
talk) 17:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - as a
WP:NBIO and likely
WP:GNG failure. While sources do exist that cover the subject, they lack the quality needed to actually establish the encyclopedic notability of the subject; too many are
WP:PRIMARY (articles merely quoting the subject are too common), lack depth, or primarily concern other topics (a
WP:NOTINHERITED issue). There is also a seeming lack of sources that put forward a claim to encyclopedic notability for Ahamed or indicate how he is different from his peers - he seems to be a wealthy run-of-the-
WP:MILL businessman.
SamHolt6 (
talk) 23:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Sir, by considering someone non notable like adeeb ahamed who is daily in the mainline news in middle east and india mostly independent news, are we not setting the bar too high.
Kuruvillac (
talk) 04:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Cuurent posts he holds include member of the World Economic Forum's South Asian Regional Strategy Group, gold card visa holder from government of UAE- honor given to select businessmen, and trustee of Kochi Biennale Foundation board. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
111.92.73.218 (
talk) 13:08, 2 June 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. No valid "delete" opinions remain. Sandstein 10:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
An event for startups that is not notable in itself.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk) 17:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug! 06:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit.
MER-C 17:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - sources points to notability within WP:GNG. The nominator was a sock.
BabbaQ (
talk) 12:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The movie does not meet GNG, all the sources mentioned are non-reliable. This seems to be an Indie film, whose trailer released on the "Movie Creator"'s youtube channel in December 2019.
Daiyusha (
talk) 03:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
DELETE Film is an indie with no established actors, company, or distributor.
Donaldd23 (
talk) 18:11, 1 June 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.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid counter-argument to a lack of notability. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not
reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to get over
WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist -- the key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is to write a substantive and well-sourced article that demonstrates his political significance. But other than stating that he exists, the only other content here is a criminal allegation that has not
verifiably resulted in a conviction, and would very likely not be of any enduring importance to get him over the
WP:PERP bar even if it had. But merely being charged with a crime is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if the person did not already clear our notability standards, then being charged with a crime that has not led to a conviction is not a notability booster. And there's just one footnote here anyway, which is nowhere close to enough coverage to make a smalltown mayor notable even if it weren't about an as yet untried criminal allegation.
Bearcat (
talk) 03:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - as per nom's analysis: fails both
WP:NPOL and
WP:CRIM, and the combination of the two doesn't help.
Ingratis (
talk) 11:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I thought I had heard of this guy. I live in Detroit, so maybe heard something about the criminal charges on the news. Taylor is not a significant or major area in Metro-Detroit. It is less important than its population would indicate, in that unlike other cities of its size it has few major businesses. We would need a lot more sources to justify notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable local mayor, even with the allegations in the article. Fails
WP:BLP.
SportingFlyerT·C 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: Taylor is not necessarily a "smalltown" by Michigan standards, and there are many
articles about mayors in Michigan whose entire political career was a mayor of a much smaller city and with less newsworthy information (e.g.
Covey,
Dempsey,
Janke,
Kozaren,
Wurmlinger). It is not about the notability of Taylor but of the verifiability of Sollars, which has extensive media coverage, albiet a very weak stub article. —
Notorious4life (
talk) 00:38, 2 June 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. czar 05:22, 3 June 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. czar 05:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Doesn't seem to pass
WP:ENT or the
WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage about her in reliable sources.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 02:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
That book is published by
Lulu.com, a self-publishing platform, and porn films can be run up in such large numbers that even PORNBIO excluded that criterion 14 years ago. Now that PORNBIO is gone, the subject needs good sources that can either satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BASIC or verify passing some criterion of
WP:ENT.
• Gene93k (
talk) 04:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy close. The creator has
withdrawn their deletion request and nobody else has supported deletion. Hut 8.5 17:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @
Joh582 as author requested (
WP:CSD#G7). This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.
FASTILY 01:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 05:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Does not meet
WP:GNG, does not appear to have any coverage outside of databases and has zero hits on Google Scholar. Previously nominated for PROD by
Mccapra, dePROD by an admin following an objection by the initial editor on the talk page: While accepting that even as a stub, the article is rather thin, I would argue for its retention, simply on the basis that Wikipedia has hitherto maintained a digest of all known elm species and cultivars, past and present. Its existence as a stub is far more likely to prompt additions to create a comprehensive article than its deletion. In response to this objection, I'll say that the deletion nomination is not due to the state of the article, but rather due to the apparent total lack of coverage in secondary sources, reliable or otherwise. signed, Rosguilltalk 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete — No coverage in secondary reliable sources can be observed/found.
Celestina007 (
talk) 01:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this was the rationale for my PROD.
Mccapra (
talk) 04:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – cultivars which are not well known and so do not appear in reliable secondary sources can be briefly mentioned or discussed on the relevant species or genus page, but I agree that they should not have their own article.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm not seeing any independent sources establishing notability. Just being listed in a seed/plant order catalogue doesn't reach the bar for cultivar notability.
Kingofaces43 (
talk) 16:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 05:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Subject of article fails to satisfy
WP:MUSICBIO & doesn’t satisfy
WP:GNG either. A before search shows him mentioned
here but like earlier stated this doesn’t satisfy
WP:GNGCelestina007 (
talk) 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Barely found anything about the artist, aside from the link indicated by the nominator. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE) 06:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Like the nominator and previous voter, I can find no
viable media coverage except for that one story. All else to be found are the typical streaming entries and self-promotional sites. Charitably it is
too soon for a WP article on this performer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 19:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete There's nothing in terms of the coverage necessary to pass
WP:GNG. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 03:55, 3 June 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 film, page created by an editor with a history of promo (username matches a film production company), unsourced for five years now,
WP:GNG/
WP:NFILM failure. The only source I managed to find with any pretense of reliability is a review
here, but that review doesn't even have a byline.
creffett (
talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete Seems to fail
WP:NFILM and
WP:GNG. Same as Creffett, all I could find was a review in
The India Times (not too reliable for sourcing, but fine for a film review AFAIK) and
APN news (rather dubious Indian news network). It's very possible there could be
Marathi language sourcing to substantiate notability, but I haven't seen any.
Eddie891TalkWork 00:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:SNOW delete. There is no reasonable possibility of this being kept, and
WP:BLP concerns militate in favor of prompt disposition.
BD2412T 04:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTNEWS. This is essentially an article on a current news story, and moreover one that raises BLP issues. Not all conspiracy theories deserve their own article, even those endorsed by a President; if we had an article on every false claim advocated by Trump, we'd have thousands of unnecessary articles. This one is sufficiently documented in
Joe Scarborough's article; there's no need for a separate page here, and it doesn't seem likely at the time of writing that there's going to be anything more to add to this one.
Robofish (
talk) 00:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose Clearly meets
WP:N standards. Hundreds of sources, including international sources. Very much like
Murder of Seth Rich . Unfounded crap, but pushed online.
Casprings (
talk) 00:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The Seth Rich story has had a lot more media attention over the years than this one, though: there's clearly enough there to justify an independent article. If this article developed to the state that one is in, it would be worth keeping, but I don't see that we need it now.
Robofish (
talk) 00:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Is article needs improvement a reason to delete? There are many WP:RS to meet WP:N.
Casprings (
talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying it 'needs improvement' - I'm saying that at present, there doesn't seem to be more to add to it, and so no need for a separate article. A separate article can always be recreated in future if this 'story' does turn out to be as enduring, and receive as much attention, as the Rich story did.
Robofish (
talk) 00:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
That is an argument to merge, not to delete.
Casprings (
talk) 00:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, maybe it should be merged then; but it seems to me that the relevant information is already in Scarborough's article (and
Mika Brzezinski) so I'm not sure there's anything more to merge here.
Robofish (
talk) 00:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment may have issues related NOTNEWS, SOAPBOX, FORUM.
Drat8sub (
talk) 00:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete While some online may posit a conspiracy, Trump just implies murder, title's all wrong.
InedibleHulk (
talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
True - if the article is to be kept, it should also be renamed, since it's not just Trump's theory. But '
Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory' would seem to have even more blatant BLP issues.
Robofish (
talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
What's wrong with "murder allegation"?
InedibleHulk (
talk) 00:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
We should really try to avoid 'allegation' in article titles (though sometimes it's unavoidable).
Robofish (
talk) 00:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Regarding the name, I haven't seen anyone suggesting a conspiracy, though some reports are using the term "conspiracy theory". I guess the people who believe this are arguing the autopsy was fake - and that would make this a conspiracy... The theory doesn't originate with Trump, so it shouldn't be termed Donald Trump's anything. It was also raised by Michael Moore and has circulated for almost 20 years. I don't believe that the current title or anything similar would be a useful redirect because it's not a likely search term.
Lori Klausutis is a likely search term, but that redirect is being considered for deletion. I don't think there is any point in merging this article. The allegation is already mentioned on several other articles, and there is no point in having a standalone article at this point in time. It is true that Wikipedia has several questionable Trump-related articles such as
Bowling Green massacre, but we don't need another one.--
Jack Upland (
talk) 01:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Random thoughts This has been added to
Joe Scarborough with a load of BLP problems. I’ve tried to clean it up, although I don’t know if it should be mentioned at all there. I linked to this article there to trim the text. Yes, if this article is kept, the title should be modified. I wouldn’t have created it so soon. But, it may be required at some point.
O3000 (
talk) 01:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete We don't need an article every time a well-documented pathological liar trumps his pants. Not News.
Nfitz (
talk) 02:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Long standing consensus that this death is not notable and content fork from scarborough.. Jimbo weighed in at the time with consideration for the deceased's spouse and sensationalism and conspiracy nature of the allegation.
ConstantPlancks (
talk) 06:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. As per the article, Twitter says that "statements by the President, even false ones, are newsworthy". Possibly, but false statements by Trump aren't Wikipedia-worthy other than en masse. This one already has a paragraph in the too-shyly named but otherwise good article
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, which is certainly all it needs. I don't see much need for a redirect.
Bishonen |
tålk 08:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC).reply
Delete - First, this isn't exclusive to Trump. Michael Moore and others have been bringing this up for decades. Second, there's nothing here that can't be telescoped (with sources) to Scarborough's article as a paragraph at most. --
Veggies (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not news. Just because something gets broad coverage in news does not make it notable. This can receive a balanced mention in the articles on Trump and Scarborough, although I am not sure it is even worth mentioning in the latter. There is no reason to create a seperate article on it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 13:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Even though it is covered in major media, it is fairly recent and hence can be addressed as a section within the Scarborough article. In the future, if the conspiracy theory continues to be prominent, say six months or a year in the future, it may deserve its own article.
Noleander (
talk) 15:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete As
Jack Upland observes above, this is not Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory. It's been around for decades. Moreover, the longstanding Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory has not been deemed worthy of its own page, nor has it been added to the
list of conspiracy theories. This new page, specific to Donald Trump, flunks both
Wikipedia:Notability and
WP:NOTNEWS.
NedFausa (
talk) 17:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or Merge Just because a conspiracy theory gets in the news, it is not worthy of being a Wikipedia article. It does not meet the requirements set by
WP:N. However, it may be best to merge it into
Joe Scarborough as a section. As
Jack Upland mentioned earlier, this conspiracy theory has been around for more than a decade, and it is not Donald Trump’s idea. Therefore, it has to do with Joe Scarborough and NOT Donald Trump.
Delete waste of space, and the origin of the conspiracy is not attributable to Trump, that appears to be down to Markos Moulitsas and Michael Moore.
Acousmana (
talk) 12:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete for now - I'm not seeing anything right now that warrants this topic having its own article. Other articles can perfectly summarize this without leaving out a lot of important information.
Love of Corey (
talk) 04:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete In a perfect world we'd be able to have a
Death of Lori Klausutis article ... there are some good questions about the autopsy and its finding that the media is treating as dispositive in this case, as well as Scarorough's behavior after the body was discovered (For the record, as I've said elsewhere online, I do not think he killed her (he couldn't have) or even that he had her killed. But I think it's still possible someone did, and that Scarborough may have known, or thought he knew, something about the death that he didn't want getting out). But no reliable source has ever discussed these issues. When one does, we can have it.
Daniel Case (
talk) 15:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.