The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 BLP of a recently deceased person that has almost zero encyclopedically relevant content, apart from an infobox. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:ACTOR. There's some coverage in Hungarian [1] following the subject's death after a long illness in 2017, but this fact is not even reflected in the article. Coverage is of tribute style and I don't believe that it amounts to encyclopedia notability. The first two AfDs closed as "No consenus"
(1st) and "Delete" (2nd), both in 2007. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no claim of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Hits from Google and GNews cover this performer's death, but few have biographical depth. Most of the sources are in Hungarian, and I can't vouch for their reliability. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is also coverage about her retirement[2] and what seems like a tv show featuring her on some Hungarian channel.[3][4] No idea about their reliability and I acknowledge there is a systematic bias against foreign sources because editors have no clue on their reputation or reliability. Perhaps we should be polling editors from the Hungarian wikipedia's version of WP:RSN if there is one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Neither "county executive" nor "non-winning candidate for higher office" constitutes an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists — but the article is sourced nowhere even close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going off on a limb here, I know, but his run statewide got lots of coverage, from what I recall. FWIW, I voted against him. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A non-winning candidacy for statewide office is not an WP:NPOL pass. If a person didn't win the election, then they have to already have cleared another notability standard for other reasons independent of the candidacy itself. There are occasional exceptions for cases like Christine O'Donnell, who got so much nationalized and internationalized coverage for her witch snafu that her article is actually longer and better-sourced than the one about the guy she lost to — but campaign-related coverage doesn't help a non-winning candidate clear GNG except in truly extraordinary circumstances like O'Donnell's. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Neither county executive or unsuccessful candidate for governor pass WP:NPOL, you need to come up with a lot of independent sources outside of the election coverage for him to pass.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 unelected candidates are generally not notable. Wikipedia is not Ballotpedia, and does not seek to be a comprehensive listing of political candidates. Instead we seek to be a truly international encyclopedia, where at least it is hoped that the people who serve in legislative bodies in Venezuela, Ghana, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Russia, the United States and Tonga all are equally likely to have articles created on them. This is not quite the case, but we at least can agree that the absurd number of unelected candidates make it impossible to even consider including them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County treasurer is an office that might get a person into Wikipedia if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but is not one that guarantees him an article just because he exists — and being a non-winning candidate for office counts for nothing whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 list is not notable. There is no third-party coverage of route nineteen as a group worthy of study or discussion. The selection criterion is as arbitrary as the magnetic orientation or longitude of the route. Rhadow (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Needing to disambiguate "Route 19" is a huge stretch, and the shared number is not enough of a reason otherwise to link these. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Now that the wikilawyering has started, I should point out that List of highways numbered 19 and List of public transport routes numbered 19 both fail to meet the standard for disambiguation articles WP:DABNAME. The page Route 19 does not make it easier for the reader. Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be. In every case the reader will have to click through twice to reach the article of interest. Rhadow (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)** @Rhadow: So we should fix that rather than making it even harder for the reader by deleting this page entirely. If this page is kept, I'd support starting a new RfC to reopen the discussion on how to handle these articles. Ideally, I'd support merging this with List of highways numbered 19 to create a disambiguation page Route 19 (disambiguation). But simply put, that's not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep If the routes are notable, this is an appropriate disambiguation page. If they're not, delete them first, then worry about the list. Simply put, disambiguation pages like this are not required to meet WP:GNG, and any assertion to the contrary is patently absurd. And WP:DABNAME is a content issue, not a deletion issue. Start an RfC or something. Smartyllama (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it should be a disambiguation page. I'd support merging this with List of highways numbered 19 to create Route 19 (disambiguation). But that's not a deletion issue, that's a content issue. Someone searching for "Route 19" should be able to find whatever Route 19 they're looking for as easily as possible. The current situation isn't ideal, but it's a whole lot better than deleting these articles entirely. Smartyllama (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to delete per this explanation. Yes a lot of indexes can be created like the one you named and we have to avoid it. — MapSGV (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MapSGV: The problem is it's not a list, it's a disambiguation page that's poorly titled due to a prior RfC. But that's not a deletion issue. The issue is that Route 19 could refer to either a highway numbered 19 or a transit route numbered 19, and the RfC determined we should have separate disambiguation pages for the two. I would prefer to merge this with List of highways numbered 19, for instance, to create Route 19 (disambiguation), but this is not the appropriate place to discuss that given the prior RfC. To further the Presidential analogy, President Harrison exists as a disambiguation page even though there are few if any sources which discuss Benjamin and William Henry together. But it's not called List of Presidents Named Harrison. Again, though, that's not a deletion issue, that's a content issue. Such an article, if it existed, would almost certainly be moved to the appropriate place rather than deleted. If this is kept, I'd be open to starting a new RfC on what exactly to call these disambiguation pages, since the title is just inviting confusion like this. Someone searching for Route 19 should be able to easily get to whichever Route 19 they're looking for. That's why we have disambiguation pages. And while I agree the current situation is poorly designed, that's still not a deletion issue. I'll also note that we have disambiguation pages for Red Line, Orange Line, etc. and I don't see why it should be different for routes that are numbered rather than colored. But it should just be one disambiguation page for everything with that name, not several lists. Smartyllama (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhadow: I agree the page shouldn't exist as a list. At the same time, there's a clear need for a disambiguation page. If we did have a page called List of Presidents Named Harrison, it would be moved to where it belongs (and currently is) not deleted outright thereby preventing readers from finding information on whichever President Harrison they're looking for. If these pages aren't disambiguation pages, they should be. And that's not a deletion issue, that's a content issue which should be discussed with a new RfC. Someone searching for Route 19 should be able to find whichever Route 19 they're looking for. This isn't the way to do it, but deleting these articles certainly isn't either. Smartyllama (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether this page is better suited in list or disambiguation form is not a deletion issue and should not be treated as such. Only one delete !vote explicitly addressed the need to disambiguate these pages, and I hope the closer will take this into account. Smartyllama (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Public Transport Routes is a so generic scope, that disambiguation by their arbitrary number alone, makes little more sense than disambiguation of Nobel Prize Winners by number of letters in their first names'. - If there is a need for disambiguation of Public Transport Routes, then it would be by location (e.g. country, region, city), and then optionally subdivided into type (e.g. bus, tram, train, metro), and only then may route number become relevant. DexterPointy (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how disambiguation pages work. "Route 1" is a plausible search term and the reader should be able to find the information they're looking for as easily as possible. Smartyllama (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question should be whether the delete !voters would object to a disambiguation page called, for instance, Route 1 (disambiguation) that included these routes among other content with that name (such as highways). If not, this is a content issue, not a deletion one. Smartyllama (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DexterPointy: Your concern is valid for list articles, but disambiguation articles generally are used for things with the same name but little else in common. You may want to reconsider your !vote in light of the information below re existing disambiguation pages. Smartyllama (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that I missed a feature/fact of WikipediaSearch, namely that a search does not always produce a search results list, but rather sometimes produce a disambiguation page. (I've stricken my "Delete", and will return w. comments focused on mergings & redirections) DexterPointy (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just discovered that Line 19 and the others are actual disambiguation pages that exist and are properly marked as such. In light of this, I'm striking my !vote above and adjusting it below. Smartyllama (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Line 1, Line 2, etc. This content belongs at a disambiguation page, not a list, but I can't see how a redirect would hurt and the standards are lower for those. Besides, there's no need to duplicate content. Smartyllama (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think a reader will type in List of public transport routes numbered 19 instead of Route 19, then a redirect is entirely appropriate. I don't see the point of leaving it in, though. Rhadow (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. A redirect wouldn't really do any harm, and could be beneficial. At the very least, it stops someone else from recreating this article later, and us having to go through this whole thing all over again. Smartyllama (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have to let this AfD run its course since there are still delete !votes (and one keep !vote), so let's wait until it's closed officially. Smartyllama (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirections & Merges - This is part of a greater mess. A WikipediaSearch for [Line 19] produces Line 19 (a disambiguation page) A WikipediaSearch for [Route 19] produces Route 19 (a disambiguation page) Yet this AfD is about List of public transport routes numbered 19, which is presently a separate logical-sub-page of Route 19
That's an incomplete list, and many of the articles included (linked in that list) are stubs, stubs with no real chance of getting anywhere meaningful. - The first one I picked (from the list) was Puerto Rico Highway 19, and lets throw a party, because: In little more than 24 hours, that article will be exactly 10 years old, yet does still only contain what more easily can be read of a map.
So, as I already said, this is part of a greater mess.
Well, "part of a greater mess" can more honestly be phrased as "motherfucking inane bottomless pit of unorganised ad hoc structure, a chaos produced by void of diligence, if not even void of intelligent behaviour" (a "wisdom of the crowd" product). - Even #TwitterHashTags are better. Not because they're more meaningful or present any structure, but because they don't pretend to represent anything (other than some sort of signal, hipster peacocking)
@DexterPointy: Primary state highways are considered notable per long-time consensus. Let's not mess with that for now. This is neither the time nor the place. Puerto Rico is a special case since it's not a state, I'll grant. Really, if we're going to touch anything more than the public transit articles, we need an RfC, not an AfD. So let's merge just the transit ones for now and start an RfC as needed to deal with the highways. Smartyllama (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DexterPointy: Primary vs. Secondary State Highway isn't determined by length but by classification (though length usually figures into it). A number of states have numerous extremely short (<1 mile) secondary routes, which are not notable. In Virginia, virtually every public road outside of cities and a handful of counties are numbered routes, but only the primary ones as designated by the state are considered notable. However, in certain states, extremely short primary highwasy can be merged into one article - for instance List of primary state highways in Virginia shorter than one mile. However, a mile is usually the cutoff for those, so 2.4 miles would probably be worthy of its own article. See, for instance, New York State Route 113, which is about the same length, and numerous others. Again, if we want to have a discussion on what exactly the cutoff should be, this isn't the appropriate place to have it. Smartyllama (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at this point I would not object to a procedural close for the purpose of starting an RfC - there's way too much to deal with here at AfD since we have three sets of articles, two of which should definitely be merged with each other, and possibly with a third. But AfD is not really the place to deal with such a huge topic. And there's no point in wasting five more days here at AfD when it's not the right place to discuss what we want to discuss. Smartyllama (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ideally in my opinon we'd have 20 pages, one for each number. Combining all 40 lists into one page would be way too large, and not the proper way to disambiguate. Whether we should continue to separate public transit routes and highways as we do now is another issue, which can be discussed at an RfC once we close this. Smartyllama (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we close this as no consensus already so we can start the appropriate RfC, since consensus seems to be that's the appropriate thing to do to determine redirects, merges, etc. Smartyllama (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This AfD has gone on for two weeks now. Let's not prolong the agony by moving the discussion elsewhere. Let's just close this this one according to consensus. If someone feels a need to open an RfC on other similar articles, fine. Rhadow (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Opposed: List of transit exchanges in Metro Vancouver links to transit centers of lesser size than this transit center, so I'm not sure why this transit center would not be considered notable. Also, this transit center has been proposed to be a light rail stop in the past (similar to how many bus transit centers in the Puget Sound region are being upgraded to light rail stops with Link's expansion. Should Spokane ever get light rail, it is likely that this would become a light rail stop.Jdubman (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it doesn't make small transit centers like this notable. Spokane is not a major city where its transit stations (which get less than 5,000 daily passengers) can pass general notability. A scrapped light rail plan doesn't make this one station notable; wait until there is a firm plan and the preferred alternative includes this station before trying to use light rail to assert its notability. SounderBruce07:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That is a great question regarding whether a guideline exists on number of passengers making a transit hub notable or not. In my opinion, I don't think the lone qualifier should be passenger numbers. There are numerous transit stops (including light rail stops) in the United States that have Wikipedia articles (seemingly on the sole basis that they are a light rail stop) that have lower passenger numbers than this transit hub in question. This is not meant to be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but rather, an argument that there should be multiple criteria that weighs into whether a transit hub is notable or not. Jdubman (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding notability, WP:BUSOUTCOMES mentions articles that describe historically large social impact may be considered notable. I've just expanded the history section of the transit center. The transit center was a cornerstone of major transit expansion in the Spokane area. STA's predecessor, Spokane Transit System, was city owned. Therefore, routes extending outside of city limits (such as into Spokane Valley) were few and far between and were on the chopping block. This transit center was a major component of the transition to a county-wide system that enabled transit development outside of Spokane city limits. Jdubman (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The social impacts described aren't unique at all (literally every other bus route on earth can be described with similar impacts on distance traveled). Much of the new content belongs in the STA system article; we are an encyclopedia after all, one that doesn't need to explain that much background repetitively. SounderBruce08:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Keep as the singer won I love New York competition with her own song and 7 Notes Challenge competition organized by famous musician Serj Tankian. Moreover, there is a significant coverage about her on the internet. Harut111 (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the 'I Love New York festival' doesn't even appear among the top Google queries. How relevant is it, really? ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º×18:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment coming in 7th in the Armenian Eurovision qualifying contest doesn't meet any SNG, and I agree that I don't know what the "I love New York" festival is supposed to be. Refs are almost entirely in Armenian; I doubt WP:ENT is met by them but GNG might be. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. No published music (doesn't have an iTunes or Spotify page), so paragraph 1 isn't met; hasn't won any major music competitions, which means paragraph 9 isn't met; and participating in a Eurovision selection doesn't give her automatic encyclopedic relevance, or else this wouldn't have happened. We should remember that this is an encyclopedia, and not a platform to promote unsigned hopefuls who haven't contributed to anything relevant in order to have their own page. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º×15:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence reminds me of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. When determining notability, the Wikipedia guidelines are what's important. The current state of sourcing in the article demonstrates she's received significant coverage in independent sources about not just her music but her history and her life. According to WP:GNG, this indicates that she is notable. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the current sourcing of the article (I clicked on just three examples, though there's many more), it appears to easily pass WP:GNG due to the amount of coverage in independent secondary sources. Whether or not she passes WP:MUSIC, the extensive coverage she's received about her history, hobbies, and education demonstrate that there's significant interest in her as a person. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unclear what makes being released commercially notable. It seems like there is no limit to the list, and it seems to be indiscriminate. WP is also not a commercial directory of film scores ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ21:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am limiting it to commercial releases because they are widely available and standardized. An isolated score that was burned onto a CD wouldn't be available to everyone and the track names would be different. I think there would be great interest in which scores were available from which movies. I'm not trying to make it commercial in any way, simply stating what is available and what isn't.Parmadil (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmadil (talk • contribs) 01:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How would you differentiate "score" from "soundtrack"? Some movie soundtracks include both pop/rock songs and an orchestral instrumental score, e.g. Romeo + Juliet. Does it have to be an classical orchestral score, or would you include Vangelis's score for Blade Runner, Jonny Greenwood's Bodysong, or the RZA's Japan-only release of the soundtrack to Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai? If you're going to include all commercially available soundtrack albums this is going to be an enormous list, because so many films have accompanying soundtrack albums – not just Hollywood and European films, but Bollywood movies and even some low-budget independent arthouse films. Richard3120 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Improve Other Articles - I agree with the others above that this list could get out of hand without a precise definition of "released" and how that applies to notability for each listed item. But it appears that User:Parmadil is knowledgeable on this topic and wants to add to Wikipedia's coverage of it. So I instead would suggest that knowledge of score recordings and their histories be developed at the articles for the respective movies, Birth of a Nation>Score for example. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)21:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are lists of motion pictures that are sorted by nation and year, which would be broader than this is. And I plan on using the first and/or most complete score, not every release. For the person who says, "I wonder if the score for such-and-such was ever released." Sometimes the entire score is only released as a re-recording.Parmadil (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete First off, the title promises the printed music, not recordings. But yeah, when you get to recordings, release these days is the norm, not the exception, so this is hugely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria. His main claim to notability appears to be winning the Best Screenplay award at the New Hampshire Film Festival, but that seems relatively minor. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. I agree with Prince of Thieves that there is no rationale provided for deletion, just a personal preference for categories rather than lists (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The existence of Category:Defunct football leagues in Scotland is an argument to keep, not an argument to delete, as it indicates that the list is likely to be notable per WP:LISTN. The list seems to also pass WP:LSC, particularly as most of the items are blue links. However, I looked at a couple of the linked league articles, and they don't provide WP:RS for each league, and the list itself could be improved with citations evidencing that the list "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as suggested in WP:LISTN. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds like a perfectly reasonable list that people might look for, certainly needs an improvement but I can't see any clear rational for deletion. Govvy (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hi, I consider the 3 magazine articles reliable. This is my 1st article and i appreciate the advice on what needs to be changed. I love electronic music and this band is cool... i think that with their releases they deserve more recognition so i made them a page... appreciate suggestions. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Music (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With music on Youtube plus with a search there are also fan made videos, counts towards notability.
I also consider this wikipedia page to be reliable! Even though WizG is an up and coming duo. I follow them deeply. They are on all music platforms to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.138.194 (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True. And in this case, I consider the quantity of magazine reference influence the notability combined with the streaming platforms. In the end, I may vote for keeping... what could be added/subtracted to help article in the meantime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Music (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter and Instagram accounts are active and match. With music on YouTube plus the fan-made videos, their notability may be ranked for page status. Member ´Kostas´ also verified account on Twitter. EDM.com reference is from an electronic music publisher, one of the largest, adding a verifiable source for the credibility of the page. Overall, it seems the band has notability and some good references, keep the 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.
WP:BLP of a portfolio manager with a wealth management firm, not referenced to sufficient reliable source coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG. Most of the references here are either the firm's own self-published content about itself or glancing namechecks of Tetrault's existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things -- but a person has to be the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not just get quoted in coverage about other subjects, to get over GNG. And the only two sources here that are both independent and more than just soundbitingly about him are just covering him in the context of organizing a local charity ball hockey tournament, not anything that would pass a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. There's also a very real advertorial tinge here, making it very unsurprising that the creator self-declares paid editing on their userpage (although not specifically in conjunction with this article yet). None of the content or sourcing here is adequate grounds for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
You know, if you have to call it a "populated place", that's not enough better than a "locality" as far as knowing what it really is. In this case, it appears to be, yes, another blank spot on the globe, if not someone or other's map. Geonames admits it's "unverified", and I couldn't verify it either. Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that articles about places that don't exist with no sources should be allowed, but only if they are outside the "Anglosphere"? It's one world, and thanks to satellite imagery we can check for the existence of supposed towns anywhere in the world equally and without prejudice. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V we need actual sources covering something in order to have an article on it, and yes this applies regardless of where you are. Even the maps associated with the sources cited show it's just a random piece of desert with no evidence of human habitation. Hut 8.521:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete Not seeing the sigcov needed to establish WP:NSOFT. Sources like www.theserverside.com seem to be directly tied to the team that runs EXo, with the articles cited using language like "After we had developed a Learning Management System (LMS), we decided to provide a custom web site as the basis for a Learning Content Management System (LCMS)", and therefore does not pass Wikipedia's criteria for independent sourcing. The same goes for the www.infoq.com sources. The FCW article is more significant, but only briefly makes mention of EXo Platform [5]. In short, EXo Platform definitely exists but its existence has not resulted in the in-depth, independent third party sources needed to establish encyclopedic notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hello, I want to have acces on the page to modify the sources ... Otherwise, quote me the references to remove and the necessary recommendations to optimize this page and to be publish...Bjaouane (talk)14:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've been asked multiple times in the help IRC channel to provide sources to establish notability, and you've been unable to. Additionally, as other editors have mentioned here, we've been unable to locate sources ourselves. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs14:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Alfie says, the problem isn't that there are bad references in the article that need to be removed, the problem is that there aren't any good ones. The above isn't an argument to keep the article so much as it is a statement that you don't understand why other editors are objecting to the article. The links given above should help with that. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)15:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article fails notability test for artists, i.e., no notable gallery purchases or exhibitions, Government purchases or notable awards. She is a popular local artist, and her exhibition has been featured in The Independent Utah, but that is the only news item that you can find.
http://suindependent.com/st-george-art-museum-erin-hanson/
Keep passes WP:NARTIST as has received significant critical attention for her solo exhibitions in museums such as a 42 piece exhibition at the St.George Art Museum Utah, and an 11 piece exhibition at Zion National Park Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the St.George Art Museum and Zion National Park are notable galleries and museums, as required by WP:ARTIST. Sure, Zion National Park is notable, but it's not exactly known for its art collection or curatorial excellence, which I think is implied in WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All that these two sources establish is that she has had two shows and been mentioned in two news articles in small, local publications. It's not enough IMHO.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the museum show mentioned is a very low level show. In fact Yelp has a picture of the actual show in question. One might also note that a "museum show" is not the same as being in the permanent collections of several notable museums, per WP:ARTIST. A search turns up nothing in terms of RS. I cannot see what the page had as it has been blanked. If you know anything about the history of art and contemporary art, you can also see that her paintings are extremely run of the mill and do not constitute anything innovative or particularly original that would meet WP:Artist. If her work was in fact original and innovative, we'd see her in permanent collections, reviews and books. We see her work not in those notability-causing things but rather the few run of the mill local news items mentioned above. Ergo, she is not notable in any way. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage that is out there is sparse, to say the least. What little there is does not convince me that there would be better in specialized references. Most of what shows up is social media based with a couple of minor, local articles. Does not pass GNG or NARTIST. Jbh Talk04:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. The seeming remoteness of a locality could have many other explanations rather than having "no trace". For example, in these areas Somalis are known for being nomadic, hence no fixed population figures are going to exist. Also, periods of drought occur which could also cause population displacement. Furthermore, dispersion is also very likely because of militia groups which do operate in these areas. Another reason why it is difficult to find sources for this locality is because of the lack of a standardised Somali. This is not the fault of the local community. It is the fault of the weakness of the Somali government. Most of these places are transliterated in a myriad of ways, hence will not be useful when doing a google search. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if there was a single source to even suggest this empty bit of desert was anything relevant. But there is nothing, so I can't see how it will pass the notability requirements. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Amar Deen" came up in a Geonames OpenStreetMap search; it had been deleted, and nothing existed where it had been placed. Delete without prejudice, though. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Apparently fails WP:CORP. Apart from its routine business of buying and selling artworks, the only thing it has ever done to attract news coverage seems to be the closure of its London space. I've not found any in-depth coverage that indicates why it should be considered important enough to have an article here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I added a couple of article references which provide basic verification of this gallery's operations in London and Los Angeles, but either these nor art fair listings and occasional reviews found through searches provide enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. I'm not surprised that Hindi director active in the 1960s does not have a ton of sources available readily available online. That doesn't mean he's non-notable, it just means there's WP:SYSTEMIC bias to the available online sources. There are enough hits in the English Google book results to suggest that he's likely notable -- the best sources are likely offline, and in Hindi. This needs attention from a native speaker. Υπογράφω (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Acharya63, yes you are welcome to take part in the discussion. As Υπογράφω has pointed out this article illustrates two of Wikipedia's weaknesses, we don't have digital access to enough sources from the pre internet era, especially in languages like Marathii and Hindi. Of course sources don't need to be online any more than they need to be in English, so if you have access to books, magazines or newspapers of or about that era feel free to use them to improve the article. ϢereSpielChequers 11:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC):Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss04:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--See this reference.Old Marathi dalilies have covered him to some extent.At any case, the news refs which are online mentions the subject as the director of the first Hindi film to feature Lata Mangeshkar's voice and are pretty much unable to establish any notabilty.~ Winged BladesGodric08:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article Mutual energy principle in question should be entirely and summarily deleted. It is incoherent and idiosyncratic, and cannot be repaired piecemeal. It cannot be saved by saying 'Oh, it's just that the author is not fluent in English'. It mixes quantum and classical ideas as if they belonged to the same paradigm. It is more or less pure OR. This is currently obvious from its being a very long article that is the work of a sole author.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. This looks awful. I doubt a PhD would have an easy time sorting it out. Appears to be the work of a singular author and sounds like a lecture. A damning factor for this article is the fact that it has a conclusion and synthesizes the techno-babble from above. Nope. Jip Orlando (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Save The mutual energy principle is a theory combining the two important theories, one is Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory derived in 1945 and the time-domain reciprocity theorem from W. J. Welch derived in 1960. In the time Wheeler and Feynman writing the absorber theory, they do not know the the time-domain reciprocity theorem. I believe if they know they will also introduced the mutual energy principle. Dr. Shuang-ren Zhao derived the mutual energy theorem in 1987. The mutual energy theorem and time domain reciprocity theorem can be seen as a same theorem but one is in the time domain and another one is in Fourier domain. This theorem tell us the part of energy send from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna. This theorem tell us the receiving antenna sends advanced wave similar to the absorber in Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory. 30 years after the derivation of the mutual energy theorem, Dr Shuang-ren Zhao finally realized that the mutual energy theorem actually can also describe the energy flow of the photon. This is a very important discovery. Hence it should offer some time to let this article fully develop, correct some English errors, make good formula and so on. The mutual energy principle is Wheeler and Feynman trying very hard to get but still not. However Wheeler and Feynman have introduced many concepts which have been included inside the theory of the mutual energy principle.Imrecons (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's beyond me to evaluate whether there is actually some fundamental discovery here that will revolutionise the world of physics - but then again, that's not what Wikipedia is for. We don't publish novel ideas. After this principle/theory has been thoroughly digested, reviewed, verified by repeated experiments, and incorporated into generally accepted science - then it should have an article here. At the moment it is OR. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well, the real issue of course is WP:OR, and the refs make it clear this is a single-man or rather single-lab project. This being said, I scanned quickly through the contents, and while there are no outright calculations mistakes or other egregious stuff, this has a few hallmarks of WP:FRINGE (especially in the "conclusion" section) - I could develop if really needed, but I am not sure that is a worthwhile use of time here. TigraanClick here to contact me09:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
"Women's liberation movement" is already bolded as another term used for the Feminist movement. This article seems to be repeating the history of second-wave feminism/radical feminism and I don't see any unique information in this article. I don't doubt the importance of the term, but I've only ever seen it used as a synonym for the feminist movement and don't think it needs it's own article. I think it deserves it's own section within Feminist movement or Feminism to discuss how it was the way women identified themselves before those terms were popularized. Woodsy lesfem (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, then merge Your intention seems entirely reasonable, but AfD is the wrong venue for this: if you want to merge one article into the other, you should follow the process for page merges: see WP:MERGE. -- The Anome (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see what you mean, but the sections I'm suggesting are more of an attempt at rationale for deletion (basically "this term is important enough for maybe a section in another article but doesn't deserve a page on a topic already fully discussed in other articles") than they are a merge proposal. I would have suggested a merge if I thought that the information in the current article contained what I think should be in sections of other pages, but it doesn't. It just re-hashes information that is already contained in second-wave and radical feminism. If I suggested it as a merge, I wouldn't really be taking anything from the article in question--I'd have to look for sources discussing the term. Sorry if that was a little confusing, but thank you for your recommendation. Woodsy lesfem (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Woodsy lesfem: Its a misunderstanding that the term Women's Liberation Movement is a synonym for 'the' feminist movement. Like Socialist Feminism, Radical Feminism, Reformist Feminism and Liberal Feminism, it is one of the strands of Western feminism that have differing analyses of the sources of women's oppression and disadvantage and what should be done to change this. To provide detailed information about all the different strands of complex political movements all on one Wikipedia article makes for indigestible reading. Especially if the movement is international. (Imageine trying to do "the Labour movement" in one article ..) Makes for much better comprehension if each of those approaches to feminism are named and described BRIEFLY in a general article, with links provided to the more detailed descriptions. My suggestion is that if the general article is loaded with too much DETAILED information (eg. on Women's Liberation, Socialist feminism etc), what is needed is a good edit of the general article to re-locate this DETAILED info into the more specific articles. In other words the solution is not to get rid of the specific articles but to tidy up the more general one. I'm new to Wikipedia but hope this is useful ( and I will give it a go myself if I have time to scratch).SheHoo (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is well sourced and has a long editing history. It deserves to be kept as an independent article and not simply made a redirect.--Ipigott (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exactly SheHoo. One would not expect an article about the film industry to discuss all genres of movies and processes in great depth. It would rather be, so to speak, an anchor article about which other articles explain in greater depth specific aspects of the industry. Women's liberation was the think tank, so to speak from which other aspects of second wave feminism germinated.[6] It was a time when radical changes in the 1960s, such as the civil rights movement, the decolonization movements, the AIM movement and other radical ideas, led to women wanting to deal with inequalities throughout the society, rather than efforts aimed at unfair practices of individual businesses or laws.[7] In defining the movement and forcing women to think about what they wanted and how they defined themselves within the context of society, conflicts and fissures broke off between those who wanted to reform society and those who wanted to radically alter society, giving birth to other aspects of second wave feminism. Curthoy's argues that Women's Liberation differed from radicalism in that it focused on the harm of oppression to society at large.[8] It was a distinct world-wide phenomenon, as shown by the sources, which clearly indicate the topic is a significant facet of second wave feminism that lasted over two decades and clearly meets GNG. [9], [10],[11],[12], [13]SusunW (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ipigott and SusunW. Also, clearly meets GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Speedy Keep. Changing from Keep to Speedy Keep, which I should have done from the start. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @SheHoo and SusunW: the term arose at a specific historical moment, within a specific context, and cannot and should not be conflated with the terms that succeeded it. Agree that (as so often) a good overhaul is the way to go. Alafarge (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepSusunW showed exactly why this isn't the same as the Feminist movement. There's a reason we have different names for different social movements: there's a lot of nuance involved that can get lost when we try to merge everything into one article. It also diminishes the work and effort of the people involved to lump them into one homogeneous grouping. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That concept (WLM as not a synonym) is not solid though--the statement "The expression "Women's Liberation" has been used to refer to feminism throughout history." from History of feminism has a legit source. I'll give ya that women's liberation has generally been used to specify the second-wave (see Jo Freeman's discussion of the branches of the WLM in the first few pages of this paper--NOW/liberal vs those coming from the New Left/younger women doing the more radical stuff[2]) but there are sources that call the entire movement for women's rights the women's liberation movement, as well as call the second-wave the women's liberation movement. [3][4][5][6][7][8] It's important to note that people stopped calling it the women's liberation movement and started calling it the women's movement (which it's still called by some, although it's more commonly just called feminism now) due to stigma, so I disagree that it was only a specific type of feminist movement. Regardless, it definitely needs to be reworked. Again, I appreciate the input from y'all. Never quite sure how to close these discussions/rescind my nomination lol Woodsy lesfem (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is not typically the place to discuss the article, which I will grant should be severely overhauled. Sources can always be found to establish any point of view, but looking at historical sources, we gain a sense that the WLM was a period when sexism was not only recognized, it was challenged, with women seeking the right to be autonomous. That was a different concept than simply seeking socio-economic and political gains, which had been the course of the first wave of feminism. While it may now be lumped in with the history that came after, at the time, it was decidedly a radical concept for women to view themselves as individuals rather than the societal roles that defined them.p 299, [14], p 306 It wasn't a specific type of movement, in the sense that it was unified and seeking singular gains like suffrage, equal pay, etc., but it was a specific movement in that consciousness raising on the question of autonomy and women being able to chart their own course became a mainstream idea for the first time. SusunW (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an object case of why it's not wise to rely on maps compiled for some other purpose. In this case the source of this is a UN map: every other "substantial" reference to the name is on a copy of this map. Geonames, however, doesn't believe in it, and after more GMap scanning than ought to be necessary, I don't either. The article drops you in the ocean, but the closest settlement on the coast that I could find definitely has a different name, and doesn't appear to be at quite the same location as the dot on the map suggests. I'd be willing to accept its reality if the text of the various uses of the map talked about the place, even incidentally, but they don't. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map does say The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. and there is nothing at the spot marked. The nearest land to the supposed coords is definitely an empty sand dune. The few villages nearby are clearly labelled with other names. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Ceel-Lahelay It seems that the language in this article nomination is riddled with Eurocentric terms and thought processes. Somalis are historically among the most nomadic people in the world; moving from place to place for grazing for their cattle. Western norms and thought processes should not be applied to the Somali people. Maintaing articles such as this one is important since, even if isolated, it represents clan territory for a specific sub-clan, in this case I believe the Saruur Habar Gidir.. Also, I looked at the sources, and they are not misrepresentative 92.19.179.136 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know, maybe or maybe not this is a lot of talking around the point. But whatever rationalization you you want to make for ignoring the impoverishment of sources, the raw problem remains that the only sources we an find, which are western and governmental and therefore can bring western, governmental, thorough resources to the matter, nonetheless fail to check out themselves, never mind having issues with matching the articles on occasion. I don't have a problem with the notion that villages may not be a terribly meaningful concept, but then the issue is that we need to delete those articles that say there is a village named "Thusly" in such-and-such a place in "Whatever" district, because the whole class of articles is invalid. And I'm for writing articles which address the things better than a western dots-and-lines-on-maps basis, but the problem is that the only sources I'm finding are entirely western maps that that say "there is a dot here and a line there". Otherwise, the correct outcome is that we implicitly confess our ignorance of Somali geography by not writing about it. Mangoe (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move My best educated guess is that this actually is called Ceel-Lahelay, which is in the same position as Hilalaya on the UN Map. We don't have an article for and there's a settlement nearby to the marker on OpenStreetMap. Also a note to look at coordinates when reviewing these: Anything with a single significant digit could be up to 11 miles away from the actual point on the map. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we apparently can't even meet WP:V. Better to, as Mongoe suggests, confess our ignorance of Somali geography, than to make stuff up that we're not sure is correct. What SportingFlyer suggests, i.e. looking at a map and making an educated guess, is the very definition of WP:OR. -- RoySmith(talk)23:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DeProded article. Prod reason was Abstract WP:DICTDEF that requires a degree in mathematics to be able to make heads or tails of. Dependant on a singular source that spends all of a few sentences in a multiple page research paper. Deproder made no effort to address the concerns of the prod. Fundamentally this would be best served as a section of Artin approximation theorem (as the text of this page claims critical dependance on the text) until such time that this page could be spun off into a proper article. I am bringing this to AFD under the auspices of "Articles for discussion" and not just looking for Deletion. I think a merge/redirect would be best, however I don't have the expertiese to correctly merge/redirect and I know that if this were to go the regular route of Merge requests, in 6 months 10k bytes of discussion about the suitability will have occured but no forward progress will have been made. Calling the question here forces a timetable for the merge/redirect (if any true merging needs to be occur). I thank the author of this article as they used it as a preview of a "What about X" argument for a draft of similar quality/content that is at MFD. Hasteur (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Deproder made no effort to address the concerns of the prod"? False [15][16]. Please do not jump the gun. Moreover, your characterization of the original source is incorrect: the theorem which is the subject of this article occupies a central part of that paper's logical flow, and indeed, that paper calls it the "central technical ingredient we need" and a "remarkable result". XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially with XOR's additions, but probably only if there's a source that refers to this specifically as "Popescu's Theorem", and not something slightly more oblique. While it's just a stub, it seems notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon Vorbis (talk • contribs)
Keep. Reference 2 of the article is a reliable source for the name of the theorem and for its notability. As the Journal of the American Mathematical Society is one of the most important and the most selective journals of mathematics, this reference is sufficient for establishing the notability of the subject, and thus for keeping this stub. D.Lazard (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree the article is a bit short as it is, but that’s why it is a stub and a stub is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable way to start the article (i.e., not every new article needs to be split off from the existing article.) Beside, the article itself is already informative; it gives the statement and explains the application (so it makes sense it exists as a standalone article.) —- Taku (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "requires a degree in mathematics to be able to make heads or tails of" is not grounds for deletion. That is true of many topics in mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, there's not only one source. Secondly, sure, it's a bit over most people's heads, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted, it means more people need to work on it. Thirdly, all the reasons everyone else has said. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Was deleted via AfD a couple of months ago. This version is slightly expanded in content but still does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. He is mentioned only trivially in the references provided, other claims are not referenced at all, and I cannot find other significant discussion of the individual. ...discospinstertalk16:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Sources are not substantively enough about him to get him over WP:GNG, and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sources from having to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment this is a secondary school, so there is no clear rule about whether or not it should be kept. If the only sourcing possible is the school's own webpage/Facebook page, it should be deleted. I'll wait for other people to try to find sourcing before making a !vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient in-depth or persistence of coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate inherent notability. In fact there are sofew that it is actually hard—not to say impossible—to verify its existence at all. The only corroborative evidence that this is what it says it is is their own website; per WP:SPS, this is not a source for the topics existence or verification. Combined with the inclusion of promotional material and the reliance on copyrighted images suggests that this may well be a thing; or a planned thing; but it's not notable as of today, and, WP:ORGCRIT (not counting her sisters, ORGIND, AUD and ORGDEPTH), has no place in the encyclopaedia. >SerialNumber54129...speculates17:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is absolutely no information online about this publication, the company or the persons named in the article which leads me to believe it's either a very obscure one this is a fake article. *Αλέξανδρος (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Kyriakatika Elathen". In Greek: "Κυριακάτικα ΕΛΑΘΕΝ"; ΕΛΑΘΕΝ stands for the self-coined "Ελευθερο-Αδεσμευτο-Θεματο-Νέα". Ιt's a joke, an imaginary "newspaper" by a blogger called "Μυστηριώδης Εκδότης" (= Mysterious Publisher), who supposed to be its "editor-in-chief" [17], [18], [19]. ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Advert by undisclosed paid editor with only primary sources, either the subject or an affiliated business (hardinge)and what superficially looks like reliable coverage but is in fact an advertisement, [20] Note the "article" has no byline and is marked as "Anzeige" (advertisment). Mduvekot (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
*weak delete I'm surprised to come across a railroad viaduct about which little is written, but except for the two localish sources everything other reference is incidental. 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs)
I only suggested to merge as a possible alternative to deletion, if there was consensus that it was not notable enough for an article. Its listed building status (upgraded from B to A) makes it notable. Peter James (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems to be a viaduct of sufficient size that it should be capable of sustaining a article. More references are required (tagged) before GNG can be demonstrated to have been met, but needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grade A listed buildings in Northern Ireland are always notable; it's the highest level, and the practice here has never been challenged. Based on the discussion above, it seems the article wasn't clear about the exact status. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 State not local pageant, plenty of coverage of pageant & titleholders in reliable sources. Discussion should have been postponed until Alabama & Washington came to a conclusion --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Local to Georgia. McDonalds Georgia does not get a page either but it is a much bigger more substantial business than this one. Adding separate pages for franchise holders is a policy violation and essentially a form of corporate spam. Legacypac (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SPINOUT. If there is concern that the Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants article should not exist, then let that page be nominated for deletion. But given that the article does exist, and given further that it reached a "keep" decision when nominated in 2015, it is now time to face the fact that it is becoming too large for a single article. Spinning out separate articles for separate sub-topics is appropriate, and using "by state" as the criterion is a reasonable way to do it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We managed to survive without this as a seperate article until two weeks ago. We also manage to cover most of the state feeder pageants within the main article without creating pages on the non-notable Wap:BRANCHes. What changed in the last two weeks that made the top need to expand from 1 page to 52 pages? Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia managed to survive in 2004 with much less editors than today. But is today amuch better Wikipedia with the inclusion of many more articles and editor.BabbaQ (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants easily passed AFDs in 2015 and 2007. At the time, the article was a lot smaller because there had been fewer titleholders crowned up to that time. The article as it stood before it started to be split (in October, not two weeks ago) was becoming unworkably long [21] (169 references), and after Legacypac started (erroneously, in my opinion) started tagging it as OR there was a small discussion about splitting the article out. @Mariacricket: then started the process. There were two AFDs launched soon after, both of which ended as no consensus.[22][23]. Hope you enjoy the history lesson. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That we've managed to survive without this article until 2 weeks ago may very well be the most ridiculous rationale for proposed deletion I've encountered, and that's quite a statement, as I've seen some really stupid shit here. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable state-level teen pageant; WP:SPINOUT does not apply as the subject is non-notable. Coverage is routine and / or hyper-local. The article itself is nothing but a list of nn winners, not meeting WP:LISTN either. In general, this is an example of WP:NOT: an indiscriminate amount of information that fails notability guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete State level feeder pageant. No consensus that winners of national level pageant are notable. The winners of the these state level feeders are not nor is the pageant. This is effectivly a franchise and they do not get their own articles because "...franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable...". Also see WP:BRANCH - "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area."Jbh Talk03:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I've already recommended that the article be "kept". Right now, I'll comment on two of the arguments put forth by others. First, nothing in WP:SPINOUT calls for a separate test of notability for each sub-list spunout from an overly-large parent list. To those who suggest otherwise, I ask that they point out the language in WP:SPINOUT that leads them to that conclusion. A difficult challenge, I know, because that language simply isn't there. And when we look to the parent article, Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants, we see that it has already been tested at deletion nominations -- twice -- and has survived those nominations as "keep".
And what are we to make of this novel theory that the state pageant is simply a "branch" of the national competition. Nothing in either WP:BRANCH or WP:CHAIN even hints at the possibility that the provisions are applicable to structured systems of organized competition. If the nominator truly wants to expand the scope of those provisions in this manner, there needs to be a centralised discussion held at WP:NORG. And don't forget to notify all of the WikiProjects that deal with league sports, because this novel theory could be used to say that individual teams are merely "branches" of the leagues to which they belong. Would we then call for deletion of our article on the Philadelphia Keystones on the theory that it was merely a "branch" of the Union Association? Would we do the same with Chicago Whales, because that team was just a "branch" of the Federal League? And that's just two of several examples from one sport (baseball). Can anyone here estimate how many other articles would be subject to deletion simply because the nominator has floated a novel theory untested by any centralised discussion? Considering that there is nothing in this novel theory that would limit its scope to any particular type of competition, I suspect that the number would run into the hundreds, if not thousands. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pageants are for profit businesses and this is not a sports event, more a modeling event. The idea it is a sport is novel. Anyway, Many sports like Little League have numerous branches that run events leading to a national event, but those branches don't get articles. Same with National Spelling Bee preliminaries. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I won't dispute your observation that the pageants might be run as for-profit entities, but I note that this didn't factor into my analysis of the rules on WP:SPINOUT, nor did it factor into my concerns about expanding the reach of WP:BRANCH and WP:CHAIN. And as for your observation that "the idea [pageantry] is a sport is novel", you're quite correct. And it might have been a relevant observation had I actually made that claim. But all I did was describe both forms of entertainment as examples of structured systems of organized competition. Which they are.
Your citing of Little League Baseball might have been ill-advised. There are, in fact, a goodly number of Little League articles that give lists of winners at the sub-national level. Just a few are: Little League World Series (Northwest Region), Little League World Series (Central Region), and Little League World Series 1957-2000 (West Region). There are others, and they all serve to bolster my basic position -- lists of winners are fine, even for teenagers and even at the sub-national level. And this is the same position that the community reached -- twice -- when it "kept" the parent article with its 50+ lists. The only issue here continues to be whether hosting all of those lists in a single article would make it so large that WP:SPINOUT is appropriate. And an article whose lists contain more than 600 entries, collectively requiring more than 1,000 references for complete sourcing, is certainly large enough to invoke WP:SPINOUT.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 -- DICDEF. If someone wants to move the content to Wiktionary, fine. There are hundreds of unreferenced photography articles, a remnant of a time when the standards for new articles were lower. Rhadow (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an article about a technique rather than simply a definition of a word, so not a DICDEF. Could be expanded, I'm sure, with discussion of tilt plates, etc., and how tilt is used in cinema, for which there are several possible book sources. Could quite possibly be merged somewhere else if appropriate. --Michig (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Merging with Panning (camera) and renaming that article to Panning and tilting would seem a reasonable option. --Michig (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's already a large section at View_camera that covers this topic and likewise tilt–shift photography deals with tilting on small and medium format cameras. I'm not certain if this standalone article is needed as the info is covered elsewhere and this specific definition is pretty basic and really can't be expanded beyond a stub. freshacconci (✉)19:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth noting, however banal it is, that tilt is probably more often used as a director's instruction to a studio or remote camera operator (e.g. "tilt up and pan left") than it is in large format photo or in reference to a tilt-shift lens.104.163.148.25 (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matches the corresponding article on Panning_(camera), though I'd happily see both articles merged together into Pan and tilt (camera). Pan and tilt are not minor terms or minor techniques within photography. The View camera is a very specific large format camera, so a redirect would be just lost there, whereas this term is applicable to cameras/video and film photography and tripods. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very difficult to see the two articles as matching. Panning has relevance for shutter speed and exposure, references etymology, use in video and 3D modelling: tilt essentially says "point it up or down a bit). Possible grounds for merger, but the tilt article per se is no more than application of a definition, and by no means a match to the one on panning. Kevin McE (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reasonable arguments for a merge to Panning (camera), but I don't think that works. At one level, they're both just rotations around an axis on the camera mount. But, tilt tends to be static; tilt to some angle, and lock it there. Panning is often dynamic, where you continuously pan to follow a moving subject with the specific goal of freezing motion of the main subject and/or blurring the background. This difference is implicit in the naming of the articles; it's not Pan (camera), it's Panning (camera), with the gerund form implying an ongoing action. Merging the two into tilt and pan wouldn't be terrible, but it's not necessary. -- RoySmith(talk)14:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:DICTDEF is only a valid reason to delete if there is no potential to expand. Potential to expand has been amply demonstrated. Merge opportunities can be discussed separately on talk pages. ~Kvng (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Regardless of what the name means, we can't have an article about it if it has no coverage in reliable sources. Hut 8.522:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Afweyn" appears to be Somali for "water well", because there are dozens of hits for this in Geonames, and most of them are tagged as wells, including two in this region alone. The one with the coords in this article is another spot in the middle of nowhere near the coast. Searching is impossible due to the common name, but I have to doubt the notability of wells, as I would the notability of towns with gas stations. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a fluent Somali speaker I am nominating keep because I find it quite perplexing how someone who speaks not a single word of Somali is trying to translate Somali words. Amazing. Afweyn means "big mouth". Af = mouth; weyn = big. *shakes head*. Also, since water wells are a political tool as well as important subsistence tool in such a barren region, this article is notable. 92.19.179.136 (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate does Somali now, send them feedback if they got it wrong. As far as the article is concerned, it clearly states it is a populated place, which is untrue, it is at best a well, assuming it exists at all, which is currently dubious. I see no specific guideline on whether desert wells are notable, it seems to me that they are relevant as you say, but somewhat lacking in sources or anything that could be written about them. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OpenStreetMap calls it a well, and if it's a well, it doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND as there are no reliable sources. Would also like to note I would like to keep all of these if possible. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
No evidence that this response program is notable. Many sources in article, but none I could find which are directly and independently about this program. Fram (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not verifiable. I haven't checked all the refs, but of the ones I checked, about half were dead and the other half didn't mention this group. Google search found nothing other than Wikipedia mirrors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 and rename Killing of Raju Risaldar. Searches on his name bring up SIGCOV from which article can be improved. I have added text sourced to a Times of India article, it begins an article upgrade. I oppose merging on the grounds that nuanced articles on the significant players in communal tensions in India are the best way to support and add depth to the articles on political and communal tensions to which they can be linked. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence that this organisation is notable. Many sources about the general situation, but few or none about this relief organisation specifically. Fram (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 didn't say the recreation was not allowed. I was simply reporting the facts. And no, AfD is not clean up but NPLACE doesn't apply to every place, nor to places that may not in fact exist. Otherwise, we would have an article for every house on every street. Please show some evidence that this place has some sort of official recognition or similar. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think really the onus is on you to prove it isn't called Ukrid, so we can have an article with the correct title. Anyway, it is pincoded by India Post[32](etc) and has census data[33][34][35]. At this location there are banks and schools with Ukrid in their names as well.[36][37][38] It's fairly obvious it's there. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The pincode and census sites are not reliable sources - neither are official and the census one in particular is known to aggregate from other sites - see MT Train's note below, which has the official link. Not sure about the schools sites, although some of those are definitely aggregators with little editorial oversight and have been spammed onto Wikipedia in the past. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the census data includes plenty of villages with 200 or so people living in it, so if it doesn't make that grade then it really is small, especially given the size of the average Indian family. I'm not trawling around to find examples but one article I edited recently and recall was Dilmeshwar, where the population was 327 across 70 houses, which may perhaps gives you an indication of how small this place must be, if it exists at all. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The pincode itself is official. And the Indian government's own website at www.censusindia.gov.in verifies the existence of this village in their governmental database with the ID codes 369137 & 368945 in the Ramgarh district [39]. With all respect to MT Train, looking at the census handbook purely at the district level was fruitless since it is actually in a different district from what is stated in the article. (not in Bokaro District, actually in the neighboring Ramgarh district). As far as size is concerned, all populated inhabited places are presumed notable regardless of size (in 2011 it had a population of 2,054). Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A prior version of the article claimed Ukrid had a population of 5,000 in 2011, which definitely would make it a census site in its own right. That said, if the district is stated incorrectly in the article (as it also was in the prior version) then it is no wonder no-one found it when I first raised the issue. - 21:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
all populated inhabited places are presumed notable regardless of size - not true, otherwise we would allow articles for every street, based on the same presumed notability that exists for secondary schools etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only wish I had realised the district was wrong to begin with, it would have saved some effort. The actual text from WP:GEOLAND is Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. (obviously applies to this village) but I think individual streets are specifically excluded from this and are covered by another guideline where there are not presumed to be notable, therefore they must pass WP:GNG requirements and be significant in some way. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-368945,Patratu CD, is currently inhabited per Ramgarh cenus handbook.369137, Dulmi CD, has a total population of 2054 and passes NPLACES.I didn't know of the Search Villages/Towns tool and hence searched the wrong handbooks:)~ Winged BladesGodric04:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I will withdraw the nomination based on the official census records found by Prince of Thieves, which relate to a place bearing the same name but in a different district and with a wildly different population to what had been claimed in the nominated article. Whether or not the article creator was hoaxing, there is a place called Ukrid and we can repurpose the article to cover that. - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn and all delete comments struck. Note the article is now about what is essentially a different village, of the same name but in a different district. A non-admin closure or other speedy closure could be done. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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@Lfstevens: Are you suggesting that the topic currently in draft at Draft:Capsule neural networkis notable, but that you accidentally put this copy into mainspace? If so, I'd advise you to remove the AFD template and put on a WP:G6 - a technical speedy deletion request for "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace". Then either continue working on the draft, MOVE the draft page into mainspace, or submit it for WP:AFC. This doesn't seem to be an AFD issue at all. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Personally, I interpret "X is a locality" as a synonym for "X isn't notable". At any rate, the coords take one to the side of a track running in a straight line due east and west, no habitation or indeed any other feature anywhere nearby. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You can't just make up your own definition of the word locality. it is however implausible that this area is uninhabited since most anthropological information assigns specific clan homage to this place. Also these areas Somalis are known for being nomadic, hence no fixed population figures are going to exist. Also, periods of drought occur which could also cause population displacement. Furthermore, dispersion is also very likely because of militia groups which do operate in these areas. Another reason why it is difficult to find sources for this locality is because of the lack of a standardised Somali. This is not the fault of the local community. It is the fault of the weakness of the Somali government. Most of these places are transliterated in a myriad of ways, hence will not be useful when doing a google search. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a populated locality, it's just the name given to a bit of uninhabited desert. The fact it has been uninhabited for at least 15 years is proven (by Google maps) and I can't find the anthropological information mentioned by 92.9.152.17, if there had ever been a settlement there, there would be traces remaining, and there aren't any. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Travel Service is a charter operator. It does not offer regularly scheduled common carriage to individual travelers. Therefore, a list of destinations is not meaningful. It is potentially every airport within the range of a B737-900ER. In any case, no references have been provided since 2007. A BEFORE search turns up no independent reliable references for Travel Service destinations. This article fails WP:V. Rhadow (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree with the fact that the airline flies charter routes and it therefore has no sense to speak about a list of fixed destinations. To me, that the article has no references is not a valid reason for deletion.--JetstreamerTalk18:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been original research since 2007. No references were provided to establish notability while the airline operated. A BEFORE search today turns up no independent reliable sources. The article fails WP:V. Rhadow (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article violate WP:PRIMARY SOURCES and WP:NOTABILITY. As far as I know, many university have more then one campus if we don't create specific page for every campus then why British Columbia will be treated differently. Neither its a residential college nor a independent university. I really don't see any reoson to keep it Ominictionary (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand what the nominator thinks our notability standards for educational institutions are. They're not based on whether the school is "residential" or not, and they don't require an institution to be fully independent. We do not necessarily deprecate writing separate articles about different campuses of a single institution in all cases — University of Ontario Institute of Technology, for example, would be a case where we don't require separate articles for each individual campus, because both campuses are in the same city and there's really nothing that can really be said about either campus as a distinct topic from the other beyond their physical locations. But in the case of University of Toronto Mississauga, we do have a standalone article about the Mississauga campus as a separate topic from the Downtown Toronto campus, because it has a lot that can be said about it and the parent institution is such a large, potentially overwhelming topic that it needs to be split up for size management purposes — if everything that could possibly be said about U of T were combined into a single article, it would be the size of several Don DeLillo novels put together. And UBC has the same problem — it's right up there with U of T and McGill in Canada's Ivy League — so its distinct campuses are a logical and valid splitpoint for getting some of the content out of the parent article. Yes, the article needs referencing improvement — but this campus has a considerable amount of content that can be written about it as a distinct topic from the parent institution, and we do not have any blanket rule against separate articles about satellite campuses of educational institutions. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large post-secondary institution. The only reason it would not be notable would be because it's a satellite campus, despite this satellite campus being bigger than most post-secondary institutions. Acebulf (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another Somali geography problem, worse than most. Geonames seems to think this is a "variant" on some utterly different placename, itself "unverified"; the coords once again drop into the middle of nowhere. Google searching is plagued by false hits, as both parts of the name are apparently common components, but the exact phrase only hits the usual mirrors and geography search traps. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom. The geo coordinates show simply an unpopulated patch of desert. I'm not finding anything with this name in relation to Somalia. Who's creating these articles? --Oakshade (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles like this were created by people making stubs on every entry in certain gazetteers or simply every entry on geonames on the premise they must exist, therefore are notable. This one is from 2011, but there are so many, especially in Somalia seemingly, where they simply don't exist, and since it is unclear whether there is even a government at all, there are no official designations. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This area of the Nugaal has over the past decade been the scene of fighting over prospective oil discoveries between three governments; Khatumo, Somaliland and Puntland. Off course the byproduct of this is that settling in this area has become a political conundrum. The fact that none of the previous commentators have acknowledged that fact makes me feel that i should add balance to this discussion. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Dutch article points to El Uaesed which is also picked up by OpenStreetMap when you search for Acqua Uadi (possibly because of the Wikilink?). SportingFlyer (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can find no reasonable claim of Notability. The only reference has been removed by the host. The supposed official website does not relate to this product: it belongs to a bank with a similar name. Google News does not find any mentions of it.
To be fair, I do not speak Korean so there may be more notability in Korean-language searches which did not show up in my English-language search. Gronk Oz (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Fixed the problems that were mentioned. Missed that when I was creating the page but nevertheless, as mentioned before there is not that much information in English or any articles about the app to add more content. The information on this page comes from the Korean page and since there is a Korean page for this and the app is widely used in Korea, I don't think that the page should be deleted. Yes, I know there isn't much information but still. I encourage growing the page rather then just getting rid of it for minor reasons that won't exist in the future. AquilaXIII (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Lacks notability. He is mentioned in a few books as a relative to Rubens, but indepth information about him can only be found in the journal of the Antwerp Archivists, which is not an independent source (an organization writing about someone in the history of that organisation). City archivists do a valuable job, but not a very high profile one and thus get little attention, and this one, despite his family connections, is no exception. Fram (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any evidence for this? No one in Antwerp apart from a few archivists actually knows or cares who Hendrik de Moy is, he is a minor footnote in the city history. Fram (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence? The only source with significant attention for De Moy (not just a passing mention in one line) is the 19th century article in the journal of the Antwerp Archivists, which is not an independent source as he was an Antwerp archivist. If there is no other good source about De Moy, then the "evidence is very clear and proven" that no one really cares about Hendrik de Moy, at least not enough to write at some length about him. Fram (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep. After a source search I've found an academic article he was mentioned in [40] He also gets a mention here [41], in a bibliography here (from the 1860s) [42]. Also Belgian/Dutch sources I do not understand, and lots of genealogy websites, and had a street named after him in Antwerp. I agree it's a borderline case, but I fall on the side of him qualifying for WP:GNG since there were some diverse sources other than the city of Antwerp over a long time interval. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It would appear that this article fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSIC and any number of other policies and guidelines.
Addressing the references:
Simply being interviewed on the radio station WHUD would appear to be of very little assistance to an assertion of notability. Many people are interviewed on radio every day. For completeness, this is the mention of the interview from Mr Abella's personal website. The suggested interview itself404s
http://powerplaymagazine.co.uk/ doesn't have a Wikipedia article. While this does not prove it is not a reliable source, it does appear to be an online magazine that more solicits content from artists instead of publishing original content about them. There is no mention all of the subject of the article within a Google search for "Abella site:powerplaymagazine.co.uk"
There is a Wikipedia article Fireworks (magazine), but this obviously and trivially not is meant by "Fireworks Magazine". This would appear to be about the http://www.rocktopia.co.uk/ sub-site "Fireworks Magazine Online Section". Again, there is no Wikipedia article about this "online magazine", and that's most probably because it an internet discussion forum. A search within that website yields "Your search - "Renato Abella" site:www.rocktopia.co.uk/ - did not match any documents."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/WP:BLP1E. There are passing mentions of a graduate student named Tom Gray in accounts of the discovery of the fossil Lucy, but I can't find a single mention of the name after that. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 was twice deleted as A7, which was incorrect imho since the article does contain a number of claims of significance. However, after declining another A7 request, I noted that while claims exist aplenty, coverage in reliable sources apparently does not. Except the link in the article, I could not find a single source (and I tried all variations of the name). Fails WP:COMEDIAN, WP:WRITER, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Regards SOWHY10:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is such a horrendous and expansive case of advertising that deletion per WP:DYNAMITE applies. (Even the choice of the article's name seems to have been part of WP:PROMOTION by paid editors [47] like User:Jilldfisher [see Jill Fischer at edX: [48]].) This is not something that can be resolved by edits or rewrites as the entire article needs to be blanked and done from scratch and, probably, a new page name created, and then the leftover redirects individually RfD'ed. Deletion, with no prejudice for recreation, is the least labor-intensive and most feasible approach. Chetsford (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11:58, 19 February 2018 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page MicroMasters Program (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince of Thieves (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence of anything other then inherited notability (well for one of the two people it seems to be about). In fact half the article is about someone else entirely and does not even talk about Marianne Kreuz (apart from one or two throw away lines about her death, thus she was not even on this journey).Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in actuality most of it is about the journey to Paris, with only about the last three or four lines being about finding out about the death and coming home. I shall; remove the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy (assuming mainspacing mistake) Delete. Maybe even Speedy. Utter mess. Does not seem to assert notability, and beyond that it is a disjointed list of bullets - the bottom half of the article is not totally about a different person - it seems to be about Mrs Marx traveling back to Kreuz's funeral and the timing of the funeral. Regardless - BEFORE doesn't show that all that much was written about this handmaiden in the household of the esteemed revolutionary socialist.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Changiing to userfy, per 24.151.116.12's comment, and looking at Konsumtion's contributions/article-creation notes - this seems like notes for a draft and not something ready to be mainspaced. I'm not convinced subject is notable from my BEFORE - but I might be missing something (variant spelling, references to her by private name, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Helene Demuth, where the sentence about her that I just added to the article lede is reliably sourced to a bio of Marx by Jonathan Sperber and can be usefully added to the Demuth article as per WP:PRESERVE. Mariannne was the younger sister of Marx's housekeeper Helene Demuth.; Marianne worked as a housemaid for the Marx family for several years. Keeping is useful in part because there has been ongoing interest in the fact that Karl Marx kept servants, and in part because so many rumours surround these servants and the question of whether Marx fathered a child by one of them - historians disagree. I did not find enough about her to support a separate article; if soneome does, feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't see how this person warrants an article. Yes, she may have been mentioned in a book, however she was not the topic and here life was not particularly notable. She was the sister of someone that worked for someone famous. Possibly, the information could be moved to another article, but even that is questionable. 06:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete -- I too see nothing in this article meriting its preservation. The only possible interest is that she was a servant in the Marx household, but that is inherited notability, which we do not allow. Clearly NN, despite her employer's extreme notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added another academic book that includes her role in the Marx household. I continue to think that there is enough here to merit Redirect of a one-or two sentence bit about her to the Demuth article as per WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure she is ever going to come up as a search, if she is only mentioned in a couple of books in a few sentences. But certainly a merge is viable (not that it will be much).Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so, a redirect to the Demuth article, to which a single sentence now in the lede "Kreuz, the younger half-sister of Marx's housekeeper Helene Demuth, worked for the Marx family as a housemaid for several years in the late 1850s and early 1860s." with the two sources that the sentence now has.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 I was ready to have the article deleted until I did a search in Google on "Evelyn Adams lottery" and found dozens of sources, many of which were added to the article. Many of the sources that include her name are brief mentions, but the two sources from The New York Times are in-depth coverage about her, both from 1986 when she won for the second time (arguably a BLP1E) and in 1993 after she had blown it all. The coverage has continued over the decades, using her example as a two-time lottery winner who lost it all as a cautionary tale. I plan on nominating the expanded article for inclusion in DYK, though the AfD would have to end successfully for inclusion. Alansohn (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Violation of WP:BLP as notable for one event only (technically two, but even so). The only in-depth coverage came when she actually won the lottery. Articles after that were "where are they now?" human-interest stories about multiple people. And featuring the article as DYK would just further violate the "presumption in favor of privacy" in BLP.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to non-policy-based vote All you've done is make an assertion that the individual is not notable. I get, you don't like it; it's WP:NOTNOTABLE. No one has argued that winning the lottery is a claim of notability in and of itself. Winning the lottery twice and being the topic of sustained coverage over a period of decades a rather string claim of notability. The fact that you are unable to address the reliable and verifiable sourcing only detracts any credence from your vote. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As rare as it is, simply winning the lottery twice is not a strong claim to notability. And even though she one twice, winning the lottery is a routine event (hundreds of people win every year), so I still going to call it "notable for one event only". She has not been the subject of significant in-depth coverage since she won the lottery the second time. A few sentences in those "where are they now?" lottery winners stories since are not significant in-depth coverage. This type of coverage actually falls under WP:NOTNEWS. What is the purpose of this article anyway? To embarrass (or possibly shame) a woman who obviously has very poor money management skills and a possible gambling addiction?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E covers *ONE* -- and only *ONE* -- event. She is notable for *TWO* events, having been noted as the first person in the United States to have the distinction, and has received enduring and significant in-depth coverage since her second win. It's refreshing to see that you're appealing to mentions of Wikipedia policy, such as WP:NOTNEWS, rather than just arguing that anything you don't like should be deleted, and repeating that argument ad nauseum at forum after forum until you achieve your goal of seeing an article deleted. Unfortunately, WP:NOTNEWS makes mentions of four specific criteria: 1) Original reporting ; 2) News reports; 3) Who's who; and 4) A diary. None of those apply, and if you're calling thus based on a news report, that is described as "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.", which is not what these in-depth article are. The net result is hardly an argument for anything, let alone deletion. Alansohn (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is winning the lottery not a routine news event? Every single week I see a story on the local news about someone winning the lottery. She won twice, it made a nice "can you believe that happened?" story for the media and now its over. And as I said before since then there have only been trivial mentions of this woman in what happened to former lottery winner stories. Yes, I know it happened **TWO** times, that's not **ONE**, but **TWO** times, I even said that in my last comment, but from previous experience I know you have trouble with reading. I'm not sure if its a comprehension problem or you just need new glasses (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, see an eye doctor).
However, it was the same event twice, winning the lottery ranks extremely low on the list of events ranked by notability. If we take a look at WP:EVENT & WP:ROUTINE, it clearly falls in line with the other routine events there. "This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories)." (emphasis mine) If winning an award is not notable, I doubt winning the lottery is. (even if you do it twice) Adams winning the lottery twice does not meet the requirements of having a lasting effect or duration of coverage.
Let's try another example here. Let's say someone makes the news twice for committing two separate, but similar crimes (let's say it was murder and there were witnesses so we know who did it). And then this person still has not been arrested and five years later they appear on America's Most Wanted or some similar show. Didn't they get coverage for two separate events? Didn't they also get coverage a few years later? Would they also meet the requirements for an article? Unless their crime was murdering some famous person, I doubt it. It would still be routine.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What an ass -- "from previous experience I know you have trouble with reading" -- but let's try to take your ludicrous arguments at face value. The question is not whether you arbitrarily decide that a person is notable, it's coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, a topic that you have studiously ignored. The coverage about Adams has been anything but routine, as a search for sources required by WP:BEFORE would have shown, had policy been observed in this case. One person killing two people is not an independent event; one person winning the lottery twice, an event described in multiple reliable and verifiable sources as a one on 15 trillion occurrence (even if you disagree with the calculation), is anything but WP:ROUTINE. That's why there's no coverage of Adams winning the lottery the first time, but *LOTS* of coverage of her winning twice in the span of four months. Your example of murderers undermines itself and proves the exact opposite of what you argue.When you write WP:BLP2E and get it approved as policy by consensus, you might have a case. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:BLP2E actually became a policy (instead of an essay), it would support your argument, not mine. Again, I highly recommend that you **READ** things **BEFORE** you post them. The fact that the BLP2E essay is not policy seems to suggest not everyone agrees with such a literal interpretation of BLP1E.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Alan especially the New York Times sources which is a clear sign of passing GNG, also two wins = two events, clearly. Also on it's own this means nothing but i'm not even in the same continent of this woman and i know her name, for a lottery winner in the 80s to get 36,217 [49] views on here, shows there's interest. GuzzyG (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is tabloid journalism. There's a long history of people winning lotteries, becoming sports stars, etc, and then squandering their fortunes because they never learned how to manage money. I'll admit it's a stretch to call winning the lottery twice one event, but it kind of is. We don't need this article, and we certainly don't need it on the front page. If you want to call it WP:IAR, I'm OK with that. -- RoySmith(talk)19:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to easily pass WP:GNG based on the current sourcing of the article. She has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" over the course of many years, not just for the lottery wins themselves, but also for how her life went afterward. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page has been significantly improved since the AfD was created due to Alansohn's edits introducing solid refs to meet GNG. This is not a BLP1E article as she is mentioned in full pieces over at least the span of 7 years as shown in the refs included on the page, then additionally 20+ years later she is still being mentioned. (Though these passing-mention refs wouldn't be appropriate for establishing GNG, they show an interest in the subject decades later, plus GNG is already proven with the refs from 1986 and 1993.) The article also receives tons of hits so there is interest in her still in 2018. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: Another example of a pre-Google-age actor who had enough significant coverage in her time, but not all sources will have been digitized and available to us now. Happy Days and Wonder Woman were major shows in their time with very high ratings. A similarly-situated show today would have such cast members clearly covered at a level to easily meet notability. Montanabw(talk)21:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cohen played a very minor character in Happy Days (not "starred" by any stretch of the imagination) and was only slightly more prominent in a single season of Wonder Woman. On the Happy Days Wiki, she gets only one paragraph "About Marsha". Even if you stretch hard to call her Wonder Woman role significant, NACTOR requires more than one such supporting part. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added several additional sources including from newspaper archives. Passes WP:NACTOR per "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She has an extensive list of significant parts in many films and shows. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 roles are far below what is required for actor notability and sources are not at all showing notability. IMDB is not a reliable source at all, and it is high time we purge it from being so widely linked to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Via WP:ENTERTAINER ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"). She's in A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, and in the Canadian movies Matinee and Quarantine. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
per WP:PROMO, WP:COI and WP:FRINGE. The article was written by, and is about a theory by, Ralf-Peter Behrendt, who did not disclose his COI. Also, the theory has no consensus within the field. There is a paper, written in response to his theory which says 'Where Behrendt’s and our models diverge is in our hypothesis that neurotypical subjective experience (NSE) does not take place within the hippocampus itself. We, like Behrendt, see the hippocampus as an experience generator, the node in which ‘news-worthy’ information from around the brain is bound together into a comprehensible memory. But we assert that the hippocampus is only capable of creating a complex coded output, the episodic memory engram, but that the event of experiencing that new memory must happen elsewhere.'
and further
'Behrendt’s proposed role for CA3 sounds like such a cul-de-sac, and thus seems implausible.'
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.
In its current state, this article rather ticks me off; it's a deliberately misleading treatment, in that it represents a disputed minority view as "the facts". Given the CIO issues noted, that's not surprising. I would suggest a partial merge (being discussed here) since there clearly exists some discussion in proper scientific channels, and with appropriate caveats this should provide some useful content within the larger topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the above: the paper from which these quotes were taken: ... 'Where Behrendt’s and our models diverge is in our hypothesis that neurotypical subjective experience (NSE) does not take place within the hippocampus itself. We, like Behrendt, see the hippocampus as an experience generator, the node in which ‘news-worthy’ information from around the brain is bound together into a comprehensible memory. But we assert that the hippocampus is only capable of creating a complex coded output, the episodic memory engram, but that the event of experiencing that new memory must happen elsewhere.' and further 'Behrendt’s proposed role for CA3 sounds like such a cul-de-sac, and thus seems implausible.'
... did not in fact contain an explicit discussion of previously published articles on the role of the hippcampus; it only referenced one of the later papers (the Frontiers article), but did not in any way deal with the content of that paper or the arguments for the theory proposed. I strikes me as possible that the Article for deletion suggestion came from the authors of that article from which these quotations were taken (Whiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science). I did discuss in two Editorial commentaries in that journal the 'cul-de-sac' objection specifically and also the idea that 'the experience of the new memory must happen elsewhere' specifically, but no mention of this is being made here. I did acknowledge the existence of this alternative view point in the Wikipedia article, as you can see. I invite everybody who wants to support deletion of the Wikipedial article to try and read the Faw and Faw paper (from which the references where taken) and the Editorial Commentaries dealing with that paper (in the same issue).
I don't think that removal of this Wikipedia article is justified on the basis of the above quotations taken selectively from an article that otherwise makes no mention of (and did not critically discuss [as you will find when reading that article in Whiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science, referenced and acknowledged nevertheless in the Wikipedia entry 'Hippcampal theory of consciouness']) the preexisting and multiply peer-reviewed (in higher impact journals) hippocampal theory of consciousness that fits well with a large body of evidence concerning hallucinations, dream imagery, anticipatory imagery and other forms of conscious experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.152.202 (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs). [reply]
The request for removal of the 'hippocampal theory of consciousness' article seems to be coming from authors of a rival theory that has less support in the scientific community and that is more philosophically (speculatively) argued than based on relevant scientific evidence. The request for removal, in my view, is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.152.202 (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs). [reply]
Regarding the other concern raised by those who want remove the article, the authorship of the theory outlined in the Wikipedia article is made very clear by explicitly referencing the theoretical aspects of the overall description. The article is identified as a theoretical piece, and any theory will have had somebody who first proposed it (those references to serious journals dating back to 2010, whereas the alternative, rather idiosyncratic (and certainly not accepted in any recognized 'field' [as was implied in the justification for removal]) theory of hippocampal simulation of reality was published without explicit discussion of the preceding work in 2016 (nevertheless it was afforded a subsection in the Wikipedia article, where the critical differences mentioned by the advocates for removal were actually pointed out). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.152.202 (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs). [reply]
The idea of merger is being discussed separately, and the majority view, when I last checked, was against such merger. If already the accepted article on 'Hippocampal theory of concsiouness' 'ticks someone off' and causes them to declare it 'deliberately misleading treatment', then the reasons for such sentiments could be given on the relevant talk page. As is looks to me, the person who felt 'ticked off' by the article and called it a misleading treatment and disputed minority review is biased by pursuing his own theory, which in itself is not even reflecting a minority view and is rather patched together and vulnerable to criticism from multiple angles, as pointed out in a more moderate and diplomatic language in the Editorial Commentaries on their theory published alongside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs) 11:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me request the continued existence of the article 'Hippocampal theory of consciousness' on grounds of the apparently dubious motivation behind the request for its removal and on grounds of the importance of the contribution to the ongoing and so far frustrating search for the neural correlate of consciousness, which is a topic of keen interest among neuroscientists and philosophers alike.Ralf-peter b (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's very clear that this is WP:promotion of one person's theory by that one person, and Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion. My previous suggestion of a merge to Consciousness has been met with some reasonable objections, and I now think that deletion is the better option. That should of course not prevent any non-connected editor from including referenced discussion of this theory in existing pages according to the WP:weight that it merits. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the article, it does much more than promoting a particular theory. The theory bit is only a small part of what should be an instructive article on hippocampal function, drawn from multiple authoritive sources. It offers some elegant integration, if you are familiar with the hippocampus and the debates about its functions. Furthermore, an alternative theory on the role of the hippocampus in consciousness is explicitly acknowledged and given a separate section, which my well be extended for the sake of balance. Novel theories that are recognized in reputable journals should be reflected in Wikipedia, I dare to suggest, therefore please do not delete. And let's hear what others have to say please.195.226.152.202 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs). [reply]
Also, a distinction should be made between the promotion of opinion pieces, propaganda or self-promotion, on the one hand, the promotion of scientific theories that have gone repeatedly through rigorous peer review processes and have been published in reputable science journals. Therefore I would like to dispute that what we are dealing with here is a clear case ofWP:promotion.Ralf-peter b (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tend towards delete. (1) The theory is novel and as a tertiary source, Wikipedia should be careful with adding novel theories that have not (yet) gained mainstream recognition. (2) There is a lack of scientific papers endorsing the theory. This may be due to the newness of the theory, or because the theory has severe problems. We cannot know at this moment in time and therefore should not publish on the theory for now (but I think labelling this is fringe theory (WP:FRINGE) is too harsh, (3) The introduction of the theory by a main author in the field does indeed cause conflict of interest concerns WP:COI (and has some element of self promotion - see WP:Promo). The case that the theory were indeed notable and important would be much better made by an editor with no relation whatsoever to Ralf Peter Behrendt. Altogether I see an article that does little harm in itself but also adds little to nothing in the current form. Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the theory had severe problems it would not have been published in the type of journals it was published. It is relatively new (first publications in form of book of chapters actually predating 2010, if I remember rightly) but we all know that new theories tend to be shunned especially if they purport to deal with an issue of major importance and try to fill an important gap in our knowledge. I know this sounds somewhat grandiose, but if you look at the referenced papers you will find that the case is carefully argued and based on a vast array of evidence from behavioral neuroscience, neurophysiology, and biological psychiatry. I disagree that it 'adds little to nothing' to the debate (and I am surprised a little by the brushing-aside language used in this debate generally). Rather, it brings a new perspective to a debate that has made little or no progress over the last 20 years. I wish an expert in the field of consciousness research or in hippocampal matters would have an unbiased look at the entry. Thus far I get the impression that deletion is seen as the easiest option, one that does not require much reflection. It is generally easier to ignore somebody than to look at the issue in its own right and try and give it some justice.195.226.152.202 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs). [reply]
As I said above. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, making it somewhat slow on the adaptation of new scientific insights. Since about 2.5 million scientific papers are published each year, and since many academics build a coherent set of papers on a topic, the simple fact that there are papers is not enough to judge value. Not even if one of these publications is in a journal with a high impact. It is simply not the remit of Wikipedia to judge quality or relevance of topics based on its contents - that is the job of the (so far missing) secondary sources endorsing the theory. As tertiary source we really need these endorsements of the theory. If you think this theory should be included just make sure substantial support in the broader field appears in ranking scientific journals. Once that is done Wikipedia should be happy to include the theory. (PS note that in the past accusations of "rival theorists" and "Wikipedia shuns new ideas" have often been indicators of editors trying to push a fringe point of view into the project - so in my view these arguments do any case more harm than good). Arnoutf (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete This article is informative and introduces the reader to one of several extant theories on the nature of consciousness. It is logically constructed, well referenced and cites alternative points of view on the subject. As such, in my opinion, it provides a service to the public and should not be deleted. I believe the article could benefit from making the manner of presentation more accessible to non-specialist audience, but I see no grounds for outright deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.175.226 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I extended coverage of the alternative, more recent theory on the link between hippocampus and consciousness, which was proposed by authors who appeared to have initiated this discussion about a possible deletion of this (previously accepted) Wikipedia article (please see the first several lines on top of this debate). I hope that I have thereby provided the article with greater balance and rendered it a fair reflection of the present debate about the role of the hippocampus in consciousness. I hope this will convince the initiators of the move for deletion and others that the article should be kept alive.Ralf-peter b (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first line of WP:YFA is 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and our mission is to share accepted knowledge to benefit people who want to learn.' (my emphasis). As it stands, it would appear that this theory is not accepted knowledge. It would appear to be the theory of one person. It doesn't matter how brilliant that person is, or how many papers or books that person has published. What matters is that it is widely accepted within the scientific community. At present, the article does not cite any other publications that specifically, and unambiguously, endorse the theory. The attempt to 'balance' the article is counter-productive, as it only further emphasises the lack of acceptance within the scientific community.
What I find rather distasteful in this discussion is the attempts to smear me with unsubstantiated, and to be frank, quite ridiculous accusations of bias or a conflict of interest. I do not have a 'rival theory', nor am I an author of any publications. I simplify cited a response to one of the authors papers as an example of the lack of consensus towards the subject. I do not 'endorse' any of the competing theories. On the other hand, it is the author, Ralf-peter b, who has failed to disclose his WP:COI.
I came across this article in the AfC process. I declined it twice, first for reading like an essay, and then second, for WP:FORUM, WP:PROMO and WP:COI. So per WP:FORUM, it says 'Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information', and 'Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge'.
So after it was rightfully declined, the author, ignoring the html comment 'Do not remove this line!', removed my comment, and without declaring his conflict of interest, resubmitted the article. Yes it was accepted, but this does not give full endorsement of the suitability of the article. Any article created may be subjected to a deletion discussion. Once I saw that this article was being discussed as a possible merge candidate at Talk:Consciousness#Proposed_merge_with_Hippocampal_theory_of_consciousness, I felt it necessary to raise the possibility of deletion for the numerous policy violations. This was later supported, and so I nominated the article for deletion.
I also notice that one of the participants of this discussion, IP 195.226.152.202, was rather unsuccessful in adding the theory to the Consciousness and Hippocampus pages, and was actually admonished with 'the sources quoted by this anonymous user are mainly from one person, which is not desirable, indeed rather suspicious. Also the other sources do not see to confirm the hippocampus as the source of self consciousness, or of consciousness itself.' Also at Talk:Consciousness#Hippocampal_theory_of_consciousness there was 'There are two basic problems with the material: (1) it is not written neutrally (see WP:NPOV); (2) it is not notable enough to belong here.' and 'Fully agree. For such a complex and much discussed topic we should cover the main approaches and not spend too much (if any) space on novel theories supported and developed by only few scientific authors. Also I agree the tone of writing is more like a persuasive pitch than a neutral presentation and for that fact alone the text would not be acceptable.' The IP was also warned about violating WP:3RR. Then at the same time of this kerfuffle Ralf-peter b appears with the Hippocampal theory of consciousness draft. (and being an active AfC reviewer, came across my desk) This can't simply be a coincidence, and so it would appear that there is some form of sock puppetry or undisclosed close association involved. Either way, it's very suspicious.
So, to those participants with 'skin in the game'. If you wish for this article to survive, you must demonstrate that the article does not violate WP:NOR, WP:COI and WP:FORUM. This is done by, and I quote 'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.'. So first off, remove all of the references to Ralf-Peter Behrendt's publications. (this would satisfy WP:COI). Next, provide university level textbooks (or other similar secondary sources) and published papers written by other established and reputable researchers that explicitly endorse or have expanded upon the theory. If you are unable to follow these directions, then the article will continue to violate Wikipedia policies and must be deleted. Thank you David.moreno7201:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to detective david.moreno72: 'Ralf-Peter Behrendt's publications' are reliable, published secondary sources, published in reputable journals and peer-reviewed and endorsed by specialists in the field of behavioural neuroscience! There is nothing in the preceding extensive polemic that deals with the content of the article itself, nothing that suggests that david.moreno72 is in a position to evaluate the content of the article or has even read it carefully. Let us please ask the person who kinldly accepted the article in the first place to have a look at this debate and offer a comment!
Yes, versions of the article were initially unsuccessfully included into broader topics ('consciousness' and 'hippocampus'), but but this should not be seen as a 'crime' and held against someone who had never before tried to contribute to wikipedia (and who had at that point no knowledge of any of the rules or conventions and what constitutes a 'violation' of such rules and conventions). In any event, I accept it better stands on its own. In an ongoing process of improvement, the article has become more balanced and there is only a small portion within the overall article that hinges on references to Behrendt, although this is a crucial portion. The overwhelming majority of the space is devoted to referenced factual information that is widely accepted but that may not yet have been seen and appreciated in this context.
With regards to the issue of bias, it seemed to me that authors of the quotations on top of this discussion or someone closely associated with them have initiated this motion for deletion. These are quotations that I personally know and that someone concerned with policing Wikipedia doesn't just happen to come across. This discussion was clearly initiated as a polemic against a theory established in the literature, although not widely known, rather than as a technical criticism of the article itself (please go back to the beginning of this debate and have a look). The conflict of interest issue was already being dealt with separately (an acknowledgment of authorship has now been added as the first reference in the article). Again, summarising a scientific theory that has been in the literature since before 2010 (including some book chapters in authoritative volumes) should not be readily confused with promotion of personal interest.
But as it happens, the articles from which those quotations are taken are precisely the ones that have explicitly endorsed or expanded on the theory, despite the appearance of disagreement given by the quotations themselves (see Faw and Faw's paper quoted in the article and a closely related one in the same issue of the same journal). I hope somebody other than david.moreno72, who is rather heavily involved in the fight against my humble contribution to an area of wide scientific and philosophical interest (a contribution that has been quoted more widely in the literature than just Faw and Faw's articles), will make the ultimate decision as to whether this article should remain or not. Can I ask who will make the decision (will it be those with 'skin in the game' or those who have a specific interest in the topic)? And when will it be made?Ralf-peter b (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS to response to david.moreno72: How can you call for all references to Behrendt's articles to be deleted, if a hippocampal theory of consciousness only came into being and entered the scientific debate through my writings? I included into the article a new reference to Howard Eichenbaum's latest and sadly last paper (2017) which too points to a link between episodic memory and the experience of time and space, further supporting the ideas outlined in my 2013 Frontiers paper, in particular.Ralf-peter b (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Ralf-peter b. May I remind you of the Wikietiquette when contributing to deletion discussions at WP:AFDEQ, specifically 'Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool.' and 'Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor.'.
First, Ralf-Peter Behrendt's publications' are not secondary sources, they are primary. Please read WP:USEPRIMARY. Second, your unsubstantiated accusation that 'that authors of the quotations on top of this discussion or someone closely associated with them have initiated this motion for deletion' is totally baseless. So how is it that 'someone concerned with policing Wikipedia doesn't just happen to come across', actually come across such quotations. One word. Google. This might come as a surprise, but I have reviewed over 8,000 AfC's and have over 60,000 edits to Wikipedia. Before reviewing a complex subject I will take the time to not only read the AfC, but look at the web presence of the contributors and research the topic by searching Google Scholar.
In regards to WP:COI, the method of disclose is detailed at WP:DCOI. I notice that it is only today that you have decided to disclose your COI, but still, without the proper template. Thank you David.moreno7213:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to that response by David.moreno72: The 'detective' bit was meant humorously (not sarcastically), sorry if offence was caused. Thank you for clarifying how you came upon those quotes, but if you read the articles themselves (two of them), you will see that Faw and Faw endorse and develop the original idea, just as you require. Insofar as there are differences of view, those were addressed and clarified in Editorial commentaries published alongside their papers (and touched upon in the article under scrutiny). I still have a feeling though that those quotes were utilised by yourself specifically to cast doubt on the theory, not to point out violations of wikipedia policies. In any event, the article was changed in response to those very quotes, as you will have seen in the last section covering the Faw and Faw source.
Those referenced papers of mine I regard as secondary rather than primary sources because they are review articles that summarise and tie together a large body of hitherto scattered evidence that points to a critical role of the hippocampus, in general, and of CA3, in particular, in the production of hallucinations, dreams, internal imagery - all varieties of conscious experience. Thank you too Ralf-peter b (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: With regards to the reminder not to 'not to make unsourced negative comments about living people', I hope this did not refer to me having said 'his sadly last paper', because sadly indeed Professor Eichenbaum, the visionary scientist who clarified the role of the hippocampus in the formation of memories [codes] of events as they happen, passed away recently.)
(one last PS: I feel silly now for having allowed myself to believe [on the basis of those quotations used as a rationale for deletion] that the motion for deletion of this article was initiated by Faw and Faw. My sincerest apologies to Faw and Faw! I always had constructive and fruitful discussions with Matt Faw in particular and I am grateful to him for those!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment on the above (sorry for disrupting the timeline). Ralf-peter b please be informed that tying together a large body of evidence, is literature synthesis, which is perfectly fine scientific practice. But it also involves a creative act in bringing forth a new theory which does make those conclusions primary. Arnoutf (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David.moreno72, please notice that the article is not called "The final truth on the hippocampus and consciousness," it is called "Hippocampal theory of consciousness." It presents valuable information and an elegant set of arguments that enrich the field of neuroscience and contribute to the discussion of this very poorly understood subject. Therefore, as I mentioned in my previous post here, it does a service to the public, which Wikipedia should support, not suppress. I read various Wikipedia articles all the time, and many of them are full of mistakes, tendentious presentation of the subject, cherry-picking of the sources, or the use of incomplete or unreliable sources. And they all happily survive and thrive under your editorship. Why this useful article on the hippocampal theory of consciousness is singled out for deletion is beyond my ken. I would recommend to take a step back, let the article be, and allow the actual specialists in the field gradually to weigh in by editing it or commenting on it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.175.226 (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to 67.99.175.226. Please read WP:OTHERCONTENT, WP:VALUABLE. The main argument against the article is not that it's a theory, but that it's a theory that does not appear to have widespread support within the scientific community, and most importantly, does not appear to be notable. At present, the leading theory is Integrated information theory, and yes, it is not perfect and there are criticisms, but it is most definitely notable. Any theory of consciousness will need to be ambitious, and will have it's detractors, but before it's inclusion in Wikipedia, there should at least be references in textbooks (ie. secondary sources), perhaps an entry in 'The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy' and mentions in more broadly scientific journals such as Nature or Scientific American. All of which has happened for Integrated information theory, but not for Hippocampal theory of consciousness. So, when it is comfortably demonstrated that the theory easily satisfies WP:N, then yes, Wikipedia should have an article about it. Until then, no. Thank you David.moreno7204:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, David.moreno72. This should serve as a suitable summation of most of the expansive back-and-forth above. The article gives undue, and insufficiently critical, prominence to a "newcomer" theory. Which is desirable and indeed vital in scientific discourse, but not in a general encyclopedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to remove some of the WP:COI sources, but I'm just not finding appropriate WP:MEDRS/WP:SCIRS secondary coverage. None of the seemingly independent secondary sources even use the term. This appears to be promotion by the author of the term (who is much too close to be writing the article) as a WP:NEOLOGISM. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No indication of notability. Being member of an internal council of 15 people in a minor political party is hardly notable per WP:NPOL. It seems that one of the council members has an article in English Wiki, another one in Greek Wiki, both of those are members of parliament. Anastasopoulou is not even member of local governing body. T*U (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a member of the organizing council of a political party can get a person into Wikipedia if she can be referenced to enough reliable source coverage about her work in that role to clear WP:GNG for it, but it's not a role that guarantees her an article just because a list of the entire council and her own self-published "staff" profile on the website of the political party technically verify that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:POLITICIAN. As far as I'm concerned sourcing is not existent. Two sources are "Minutes, Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders" without a giving a date that's not even verifiable and the second is called "Second Middletown Town Book" which is something I cannot find any record of existing. Rusf10 (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. County freeholder is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, and the sourcing is not strong enough to make him a special case under NPOL #2 — that requires significant reliable source press coverage, not just verification of his existence in the county freeholder board's own primary source minutes of its own meetings. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that this article, sourced only to primary sources, has existed for over 9 years, shows our review of articles is pretty lousy. To be fair, there are some articles I created back before I fully understood Wikipedia inclusion guidelines, mainly in 2007 but a few in 2008, that still exist and have no sources. I'll see what I can do about those.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 county politician, does not meet WP:NPOL. Also I'd consider this unsourced. The lone source is "Minutes, Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders". For all we know its a made-up source, even if its not available online, the least they could have done was provide a date. Rusf10 (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find much in my BEFORE beyond a genealogy and list-style coverage. There is a more notable fella with the same name ([50]) who lived in the same period who is not this guy. And there are a few mores - filtering down to name + Shrewsbury/Monmouth did not lead to much.Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. County freeholder is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, and the sourcing is not strong enough to make him a special case under NPOL #2 — that requires significant reliable source press coverage, not just verification of his existence in the county freeholder board's own primary source minutes of its own meetings. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Even if we had an accurate and complete source, we would still have the problem that it is a primary not a secondary source. What we need to justify this article is secondary source coverage from reliable source that is completely lacking. Not every head of the governing board of every county in the United States is notable. I just shudder at where that would take us.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - In particular he is profiled in this book which seems to be an assembly of local heros of the neighborhood (not sure if this is elevated above the status of a local news source just because it has been published as a book). He has similar small profiles and passing mentions in some other books. Unclear to me if this all counts as "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources..." I think this is a borderline case and would be interested to hear the opinions of others. Ajpolino (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete He's active in his community, but I couldn't find any notability criteria for community activists. I couldn't find the significant independent coverage of him that shows me he meets WP:GNG. I find passing mentions and his name on some lists but that's not enough. It seems like there might be coverage out there, but my search didn't find it.Sandals1 (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Asides from the fact there are no sources (and haven't been for the past decade), this page doesn't seem notable. There don't seem to be many articles published relating to it. New Zealand is pretty indifferent to American Football, so this article seems to lack notability. — Tuxipεdia(talk)07:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment -- this has the feel of a local church (probably NN) trying to be a denomination, perhaps due to a diaspora of members. Is this really notable? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
For the record I created this article, however that was over 10 years ago. Back then I did not understand the need in Wikipedia to include references, and both my understanding and consensus on notability for politicians has changed since then. The current guidelines say that unelected candidates are rarely notable. In the decade the only sourcing shown is in coverage of one of his opponents. Not all candidates for the US house are notable, and Joseph does not seem to overcome this truism. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Foner 1993 and Suggs 1983 both have in-depth entries about him which allow for the article to be NOR, NPOV, and V. Many other sources provide more details. Smmurphy(Talk)06:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So John Pack Lambert is saying that this reasonably relevant African-American civil rights activist from the 1800's should be deleted because "unelected candidates are rarely notable" despite having made the effort to write the article and it having stood for 10 years? I am suprised, but considering the diffrence between how the article looked when submitted to AfD and the current version I think it's pretty obvious that Smmurphy deserves some credit here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 19th century African-American history is my specialty on wikipedia, so while I would prefer the article not to have been submitted to AfD, I don't have an opinion on whether Johnpacklambert should have been able to find the sources and improve the article himself and was happy to make a contribution last night (which I was too tired to properly copy-edit, for what its worth). Smmurphy(Talk)13:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smmurphy's improvements and sourcing. Seems he did quite a bit more, that was covered, than just failing in his election bid. I commend JPL's integrity in nomming an article he himself created, which I agree did not establish notability (in text and in sourcing) prior to Smmurphy's improvements.Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC) missing not fixed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it's true that we don't keep unelected candidates just because they were candidates per se, an unelected candidate can sometimes have preexisting notability for other reasons that would get them kept under other inclusion criteria besides NPOL itself — and Smmurphy has done a very creditable job of substancing and sourcing this into a much stronger and more keepable article than it was even at the time of nomination. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw The article clearly establishes notability. It did not at the time I nominated it, and the fact that so few sources had been identified in the decade plus of the article existing made it seem unlikely it would be. I have to object to the misuse of the english languge in the above discussion. "themself" is not a word, it clearly should be "himself" and I take offense at the abuse of the language in such a wrong-headed way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and remove stub tag). While the subject does not meet the criterion of being elected, he appears to have been a significant human rights campaigner and seems notable for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Yet another geonames "locality", not a town, with nothing in particular at the coordinates. Also seems to be spelled "Qori Xabaalan".Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious. The US military seem to think it is something, but naturally it's unclear what they were looking at when they entered it into their database, maybe some tents? No idea. There may have been some citogenesis also. However there is a real town called Gori Rit[55][56] right next door that has no article (yet). So perhaps just rename it, this current title is probably erroneous. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the UN map I'd be willing to have an article on that, but first we need to go through the other articles to see if it hasn't been created with some slightly off name. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do see there is a real nearby population center called Gori Rit and support having an article about it, I just don't thing that is what this title is referring to. There are frequently multiple Latin spellings of non-Latin character names, but "Qorixabaalan" just seems too different from "Gori Rit" for them to be the same. --Oakshade (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever closes this AFD should ignore the above evaluation by oakshade since its obvious he has no idea what he's talking about. In the Somali transliterations the letter Q and G are often interchangeable. Therefore the first four letters are the same. The only difference is what follows. In fact, I'm surprised so many people comment on Somali-related issues while simultaneously being clueless about anything Somali-related. Since the two places are more or less the same it should be renamed Gori Rit imo. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I knew the English "q" is frequently substituted for "g" in Arabic words. Is "-xabalaalen" interchangeable with "rit"? And why are coordinates attributed to Qorixabaalan's location miles away from Gori Rit? --Oakshade (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Somali and Arabic are two totally different languages. I speak both fluently. Secondly, yes, xabaalan and rit are interchangeable since the names mean roughly the same thing. Gori rit means "put down weapon". Qori xabaalan means "buried weapon". So yes, a name change to Gori Rit is in order. As for coordinates, that can always be manually changed. 92.19.179.136 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite OK with an article about the other name, but it's at a completely different location as well. I did not find another name which could be matched with this, so I think we're good to go for the move/rewrite. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 argued against the deletion of this article over a decade ago, but I have revisited it, and no longer believe that it can survive in accordance with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. The article remains a mix of several unrelated ideas for which the available sources are poor and anticipated better sources were never found. I would now delete. bd2412T03:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment Almost all hits for this clearly mean what is more commonly called polytheism. I need to take a little time looking at the cites, but my sense is that using it to mean multiple, non-intervening deities is a coinage which hasn't really caught on. Possibly merger is the solution. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article only demonstates that a very few people have ever advocated the idea, and some of them clearly never by name. It is not a widely studied or accepted idea and shows no sign of meriting its own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep, the presentation of the ideas in this article is a bit off, but it can certainly be improved, whether in this article or at the Polytheism article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2116 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge a brief description of the concept into the polytheism article. I couldn't find anyone who supports actually takes a polydeist position, save a parody facebook page. Alex (Talk) 20:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. There's a potentially valid notability claim here as artistic director of a theatre company, but that's not an automatic inclusion freebie — he has to be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNGfor that, but the referencing here, which is dependent primarily on the self-published website of the theatre company itself and a piece of his own writing in an academic journal, is not getting him there. And furthermore, part of the article is an advertorialized promobumf for his most recent play (or at least the most recent one that anybody's bothered to add here at all — there's been at least one new play since then, according to Google.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source it better, and write it more neutrally, than this, but this as written ain't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Although the points about systematic bias have merit, we do need reliable sources confirming that the subject actually exists if we are going to have an article on it. I'm happy to userfy this if someone wants to work on it. Hut 8.522:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The parade of questionable Somali placenames continues, in this case with an article name which Geonames doesn't recognize at all and a name within the article which Geonames claims are some hills. The latter might be true, but there's no town at the coordinates given. Mangoe (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rationale for deletion seems at least to be a strawman fallacy and when taken as a whole with other comments, possibly an adhominem fallacy. Furthermore, in these areas Somalis are known for being nomadic, hence no fixed population figures are going to exist. Also, periods of drought occur which could also cause population displacement. Furthermore, dispersion is also very likely because of militia groups which do operate in these areas. Another reason why it is difficult to find sources for this locality is because of the lack of a standardised Somali. This is not the fault of the local community. It is the fault of the weakness of the Somali government. Most of these places are transliterated in a myriad of ways, hence will not be useful when doing a google search. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nomadic people by definition do not have cities, so an article about a city for a nomadic tribe is a clear mistake. And Geonames, which is normally happy to list every unverified site of a tent as a populated place, doesn't even list it! Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This is the kind of AfD where nobody seems to have been acting entirely sensibly. For a start, while one purpose of Wikipedia (among others) is to act as a gazetteer and while notability standards may be slightly relaxed to let Wikipedia achieve this, we still need to have at least basic verifiability and a reasonable certainty that sources are reliable not just for their original purpose but also for providing currently correct information to Wikipedia records (which does not mean that outdated information can not be used - but does mean that it needs to be clearly indicated as historic). The creator(s) of this and other Somalian substubs do not seem to have taken account of this - at least some of the sources used were not only up to several decades old but also their top priority seems to have been to achieve a geographically comprehensive set of places, even if this meant using historical or (as a very last resort) made-up names. (We would like to be geographically comprehensive, but verifiability has to come first.) In this case, the creator's carelessness seems to have caught the nominator out twice - first, by using the Arabic version of the name (which, in Somalia, was fairly common among 20th-century colonial powers) for the article title rather than a Somali version (as has been fairly universal for at least the past 30 years), and secondly, by using the coordinates of some hills given on maps by the Somali name rather than the place of the same name ten miles to the north-east. However, while geographical articles need not be about permanently populated places but can also be about natural features or (particularly in areas without a settled population) intermittently populated ones, this does not completely vindicate the Keep !voter's arguments against the nomination. Neither do the variety of competing (if similar) Somali orthographic standards (though the nominator and other contributors should probably be taking a bit more account of this than they seem to be doing). We still need some assurance that the subject is correctly described (as a hill if it's a hill, as a regularly reused campsite if it a campsite, and as a city if it is a city), and that it is something important enough to its area that even outside visitors should be expected to be aware of it - and currently we don't have that assurance. If there are some current or historic details that would give that assurance, we need to know of them. PWilkinson (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For most of these the first step as been to get the feature ID out of the reference and then plug it back into geonames to get the current listing and coords; then I go to the aerials. It's not terribly uncommon that the current names in geonames don't match what's in the articles now: if I can find the place and it is consistent with the description, I have on occasion moved the article to the current verified name. If I can find references to the place in news/etc., I have as a rule not nominated the name.
I'm certainly open to consideration of hills as notable, though personally my standards for these things tend to be on the higher end. But everything seems to say that the current text of the article is incorrect. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PWilkinson: very thorough assessment, but does by using the coordinates of some hills given on maps by the Somali name rather than the place of the same name ten miles to the north-east mean that there is a real village close by that this article could be changed to refer to? Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least part of the problem in this is that either there has been a substantial change in the geonames data since these articles were created, or the person who created them was extremely sloppy. Almost all of them claim that the name in question is a town, but it's looking as though at least a third of them are now tagged in geonames as "localities", with a few "hills" and "water wells" and even a couple of "areas". There are also consistent typographical problems: for one thing, a lot of the names are made up of multiple words, but the article names usually leave the spaces out. At the very least, the articles need to stop saying that these are "towns". I'm not willing to care about the difference between a town and a village, but I have to say that "localities" aren't notable without some textual usage that gives some context. Hills and wells, we can discuss them: in this case if we are good with hills, the article can be moved and rewritten. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That someone would probably have to be you. The original author is long gone. I'm willing, if people are set on the notability of hills, to rewrite it in place to match what geonames says, but I don't see how putting it off to the side as a draft is a good solution. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Per Lee, this is far WP:TOOSOON. Even the reddit that they source only has 136 subscribers-- there's absolutely no coverage, notable or not, about this that I could find anywhere in the usual searches. Nomader (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There seems to be a real concept of "work content" which has to do with people doing things, and which has nothing to do with what the article says— and the text of the article never uses the term it is supposedly explaining. In short, WP:TNT for the redlink. Mangoe (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the page is just an group of statements and equations about various aspects of energy and thermodynamics which are better stated on their respective pages, so a merge is unnecessary. I don't recall ever hearing the term 'work content' being used in this context, so a redirect would not seem to be useful. Agricolae (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:NSPORTS does not have any specific guidance for darts nor is there notability guidance at WP:DARTS so WP:GNG applies without any presumption of notability. I see no indication that this person passes WP:GNG. There are a few passing mentions on the web and he shows up on darts stats sites but that is not sufficient. Nor has he won any major tournaments from which he could derive notability. A single article discussing his debut is not sufficient. Jbh Talk05:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPORTCRIT suggests that a sports figure is likely to meet WP:BASIC if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level; which North, as a competitor at the 2018 PDC World Darts Championship, has. Furthermore, North has received coverage, both about him as an individual ([57][58][59]) and as coverage of his performances in professional tournaments, including reaching the final of one tournament ([60]) and qualifying for a number of major tournaments ([61][62]) OZOO(t)(c)11:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though just barely enough. He's appeared in tournaments where all the participants are generally notable, and the coverage OZOO found is enough for me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - Though poorly written, she is very notable singer in India. "Just Chill", "Desi Beat" and "Character Dheela" are very notable and chart topping songs. This article needs to be improved by adding sources from news, interviews or online books. Ratsama (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources I'm able to find are her Apple Music page and an India Times article about her having a baby. Not nearly enough to warrant an article. Jdcomix (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to easily pass WP:GNG using just the sources that are written in English. She's received continuing coverage since at least 2011, including significant coverage in The Times of India and Indian Express. Additionally, she is much more popular in India than in English speaking countries, which means there are likely many more sources in Hindi. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is inadequate to establish notability. I did a search and it appears the article includes much of what is available, so sourcing is not likely to improve.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least 6 sources talk about her in detail, but still inadequate? Passes notability as per WP:MUSICBIO. There is no music chart in India, else a couple of her songs would've made it up there.MT TrainTalk03:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST says "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Considering the fact that she's far more popular in India than here, and only speaks Hindi yet has received enough coverage in English to satisfy WP:GNG and possibly WP:MUSICBIO, there are certainly far more sources for her in Hindi. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added additional sources to the article. Passes WP:MUSICBIO She "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician." She "has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album" as she's written music for several notable Bollywood films. She "has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" and although India doesn't have official music charts, in many profiles on her, her music is referred to as a "chart buster," "climbing the charts," or something along those lines, which indicates they were widely popular in the country. For example, this article in the India Times says "Amrita Kak, who has chartbusters like 'Just Chill' and 'Character Dheela' to her credit"[9] or "Kak's heart pumping numbers 'Character Dheela Hai' and 'Dhinka Chika' in the recent Salman starrer 'Ready' became a rage in the country" [10] or "Her latest number, 'Character dheela' from the upcoming Salman Khan-Asin starrer Ready, has been steadily climbing the charts. And the same was the fate of almost all of of Amrita Kak’s previous numbers." [11] or "Amrita, who gave Bollywood hits like 'Just Chill-Chill' from the movie 'Maine Pyar Kyun Kiya' and 'Character Dheela' from the movie 'Ready'" [12] Nearly every bio on her that discusses her music says something along those lines, indicating her music is extremely popular and well-known in the country. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
^Cordell, S. A. (2005). Women's liberation movement. In W. Kaufman, & H. S. Macpherson (Eds.), Britain and the Americas: culture, politics, and history. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. "Also known as “Second-Wave Feminism,” the Women’s Liberation Movement (WLM) was a grassroots movement"
^Evans, Kathy M.; Kincade, Elizabeth Ann; Seem, Susan Rachael (2011). "Feminist Therapy: Roots and Branches". Introduction to Feminist Therapy(PDF). SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 4.
^Freeman, J. (1998). Women's liberation. In W. P. Mankiller (Ed.), The reader's companion to U.S. women's history. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin."Women’s Liberation was the early term for the feminist movement that began in the 1960s. The popularity of the term declined after a few years because some used it to ridicule the movement."
^Women's liberation movement. (2013). In J. Myers (Ed.), Historical dictionaries of religions, philosophies, and movements: Historical dictionary of the lesbian and gay liberation movements. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. "The name given to the second wave of feminism, since its goal was to liberate women from the political, social, cultural, and economic oppression of sexist patriarchal society."
^The Women's Rights Movement (2007). In C. Brennan, K. J. Edgar, J. Galens, & R. Matuz (Eds.), American Social Reform Movements Reference Library (Vol. 2, pp. 373-405). Detroit: UXL. "The women's rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s sought significant improvements in women's legal, economic, and political rights. The changes brought about by the women's rights movement, also known as the women's liberation movement, have affected nearly every aspect of women's lives, including education, marriage, reproduction, work, and health."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Usually, I don't like third relists but in this case, more discussion of the sources presented today makes sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy10:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Although I have not much sympathy for those who think WP is a newspaper and should have articles on any recent event, there obviously is broad consensus to keep this for now. Whether anything should be merged can be discussed on the respective talk pages. Anybody wanting to revisit this in 6 months is, of course, welcome to do so, although in my experience this rarely happens if a movement fizzles (see the whole slate of "Occupy" articles that nobody ever edits any more). Whether that will happen with this movement is impossible to say at this point, of course. Randykitty (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but know that this will need to be revisited in 6 months or so, when notability will be clearer, as will our perspective on whether merging the material makes sense going forward.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, lots of coverage right now. But long term impact is yet to be determined. I think E.M.Gregory has the right idea to revisit it in 6 months and see if there is still lasting notability. PackMecEng (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, revisit when it falls apart, having accomplished nothing (if anyone remembers). It's a fine place to store all the stuff that would otherwise disproportionately blow up the main article. InedibleHulk(talk)11:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 until they make their debut in an international tournament. Though I find the accusation that I am an "editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations" somewhat offensive and uncalled for. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias: Completely uncalled for in fact, but not unusual from this user. He just copies that comment indiscriminately onto deletion discussions since it was made about him so don't take offense. We kept the UAE article for 4 years before they played an official game so I am not sure what the hurry is here, but I don't disagree with deletion yet. They have international club matches but I can't find any detail of national team matches. I suppose recreating in April if they register to compete is not a big deal, but I would like to try some foreign language searches before voting.18abruce (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite having a functioning junior system with international tournaments, I could find no evidence of an actual national team, only club teams.18abruce (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Redirect to Soziedad Alkoholika, the band who formed the label, and whose records form the majority of Mil A Gritos's output. There are some passing mentions of the label from Spain's El País newspaper [63], [64], but not much else. Only two other acts on the list of the label's roster have articles, both of which are unsourced and of dubious notability. Richard3120 (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, proposed for merge for a full year without any actual consensus being established either way, which consists of a single statement that the topic existed, followed by one of the biggest reference bombs that I've ever seen: fifteen separate references, each directly quoting enough of the source's content that it's dancing right on the edge of the line dividing "fair use" quotation from outright copyright violation, is a lot more than we need to support a one-sentence substub which just says "this topic existed, the end". I'd have no objection if a merge consensus were actually established here, although I'm personally in the delete camp because there isn't really anything to merge, as the content here isn't saying anything that isn't already in Orlando, Florida — but the original merge discussion has been going on too long without being resolved, so it's time for a quorum call. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like a verifiability and notability problem. This article is visually incredible to see the citation content vs. the article content, it clearly is not what Wikipedia is intended to look like, and a sign that notability cannot be met despite great efforts. Orlando's Summer of Citation: One sentence article and an army of lengthy notes..--Milowent • hasspoken16:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Despite the number of bolded keep-!votes, the discussion is less clear whether the painting's notability is sufficiently established to warrant its own article. However, neither the nominator nor the other participants have mentioned any reason why this should not at the very least be merged or redirected, so this should be attempted before a new AFD. SoWhy10:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most individual works of art by prominent artists from this period will have been studied by experts, subject to critical discourse, had their exhibition history and provenance traced, etc. In other words, each is likely to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, making them notable independent of the artist herself. This is no exception: see the Met collection page for the type of information that a standalone article could contain, as well as a list of references for further coverage. Υπογράφω (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a stub, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have sufficient notability to warrant a full article. Czar, if you expand "References" on the Met's site, you will see a list of a dozen times this work has been published by others. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doing so would be ignoring WP:NOTGALLERYWP:INDISCRIMINATE00:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC) policy, and I'm not convinced that WP needs a separate standalone article about every single piece of art that was ever created or that is on display in a museum. Atsme📞📧22:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to #4, stating that "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: ... Photographs or media files with no accompanying text"? If so, there is some accompanying text about the painting (not a lot), the Met's website demonstrates that there is much more that could be said, and the list of references on the Met's site goes to show that there is a lot of literature on it. It would be ideal if Henryshirley or someone else would flesh out the page, but I wouldn't see that as a requirement for not deleting the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my use of the redirect - it came to mind first. I struck and noted correct section, particularly (including only relevant portion for sake of brevity): To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be: Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art...Atsme📞📧00:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The references at the painting's Met catalog entry indicate sources used in the entry's description (about the artist's life, time period, style), and should not be assumed—nor are they likely—to be about this painting in specific. If the notable aspect of this portrait is a series or a style, those facets should be covered in the artist's article summary style until given warrant (by length or proven sourcing) to split into a separate article. czar17:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I'm not mistaken, this work was exhibited in the salon of 1781 and discussed by Denis Diderot in one of his Salons. I don't have access to the sources at the moment, but I do think expansion is possible. Mduvekot (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires ...significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That has not been satisfied. Per my previous statement, the image is already in the gallery of the artist's biography, so it's not actually being deleted from WP - it will continue to exist as will the information about the painting. WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTGALLERY should prevail over the keep arguments. Atsme📞📧19:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking: are you saying the MET is not sufficiently independent? If so, can you please explain why they are incapable of unbiased a critical assessment or analysis? If it's because they own the work, then let me point out that museums tend to acquire artworks only after they have conducted said assessment/analysis. In my opinion, museums are reliable sources for works in their own collection. Mduvekot (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not see that I withdrew the merge proposal? I added the image to the artist's gallery. Editors can add information about the piece in the artist's Exhibition section. Atsme📞📧20:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that, which is why I asked for clarification. I can see that that wasn't obvious, sorry. I'm not sure what you want; delete the article, but in your words it will continue to exist as will the information about the painting. As I see it, that's a merge proposal, only you don't call it that. So, do you want to a) merge, in which case the information is retained in Anne Vallayer-Coster or b) delete, in which case it is removed?Mduvekot (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why you would find it confusing, my apologies. I'm happy to try to explain more clearly. The image is part of the artist's Exhibit gallery on her WP biography. The information that is relevant to the painting is included with the image - all you have to do is click on the image, then click on "more details". There is nothing else notable about the painting that warrants it being a standalone article. For an individual painting to qualify as a stand alone, it must be notable beyond the artist's notability which requires verifiability in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This painting does not meet that qualification - there is no "notable" account that justifies it to be separate from the artist's biography. Hope that helps. Atsme📞📧21:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Diderot quote I mentioned above, here: [[65]]. In his review of the Salon of 1781, discussing "Petits tableaux Ovales de Fleurs et de Fruits", he writes: "I y a de la vérité; mais la touche est molle et froide: rien de la finesse particulière de dessin et de pinceau que ce genre exige. La corbeille de raisins est égale de ton et sans effet." That is a remarkable change in to from his critique 10 years earlier, when he was very enthusiastic about her work. Mduvekot (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it within a list would also make it harder to adequately include the provenance and exhibition history, let alone describe the work as an individual piece. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need subject-specific guidelines for every topic. Our main policy is the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The question is what sources in this case cover this particular painting in enough depth to warrant a separate article from the article's own biography or an article on the artist's oeuvre. No one has investigated the contents of the Met's bibliography. Of course the Met's own publications cover the painting, but that doesn't imply that every painting at the Met is independently notable because we require proof that a work has been covered in sources independent from the subject (in this case, the holding museum). The other sources in the bibliography could just as well be mainly about the artist or period and not this painting in particular, based on the work's blurb on the Met's website. This should be basic deduction. czar19:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite notable, has an image, and not too badly referenced. Its not because its a stub that it should be deleted. L293D (☎ • ✎)19:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anne Vallayer-Coster. I'm not finding any WP:RS outside of the Met's own catalog. There's a number of art dealers selling prints of this, and stuff like that, but nothing that I would consider an independent WP:RS which provides the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. -- RoySmith(talk)02:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 per AngusWOOF. Some information belongs there, and the redirect would be helpful for readers to find it. But there's no reason to have a separate article for each year. Smartyllama (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that a total of two articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America100001:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Similar to the Americas Group I page, this page is also redundant and is just repeating all the information that has already been created. For numerous years in Fed Cup zonal competition we create a Asia/Europe/Americas Zone main page and then create separate pages for each Pool and the playoffs. This page is just repeating all the information that is already in the separate Pool pages and as well includes numerous mistakes. Keroks (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the article sizes, surely it would be better for Wikipedia to keep these pages (and to fix any mistakes of course), and to delete the pool pages instead? The only additonal information I see in the pool pages is a standings table that can be merged upwards. Also, I'd direct the nominator to read WP:OWN. Iffy★Chat -- 11:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As of now, valid splitting of content (discussions about whether it should be split or not can be resolved on article talk page or on WP project talk with an appropriate RFC, not a rather limiting AfD). One could object on the grounds that's it's an indiscriminate list of match results but WP practice seems to be that this is fine, so I don't see any problem on that front either. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is redundant and is just repeating all the information that has already been created. For numerous years in Fed Cup zonal competition we create a Asia/Europe/Americas Zone main page and then create separate pages for each Pool and the playoffs. This page is just repeating all the information that is already in the separate Pool pages and as well includes numerous mistakes. Keroks (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the article sizes, surely it would be better for Wikipedia to keep these pages (and to fix any mistakes of course), and to delete the pool pages instead? The only additonal information I see in the pool pages is a standings table that can be merged upwards. Also, I'd direct the nominator to read WP:OWN. Iffy★Chat -- 11:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same as the other one: As of now, valid splitting of content (discussions about whether it should be split or not can be resolved on article talk page or on WP project talk with an appropriate RFC, not a rather limiting AfD). One could object on the grounds that's it's an indiscriminate list of match results but WP practice seems to be that this is fine, so I don't see any problem on that front either. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a notable sporting event. It was an amateur boxing event between Youtube celebrities. The only non-social-media references are to "Metro" [66], and that seems to be purely a gossip rag. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DISPUTE
Disputing the deletion nomination as the page contains other reliable news sources such as The Sun, The Times and The Daily Mail and the fight is notable due to its viewer count and its betting interest.
As mentioned, The Times did cover it. Furthermore, with more than 20 millions views (beating domestic views of the Wimbledon final according to The Times) [1] it is a notable event.JohnRoads (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I struck this comment because the history of this page shows the only edit with that timestamp was by TheMasterGuru, which means this is a case of him supporting his own vote. Papaursa (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While yeah, completely amateur and really just for YouTubers, this event still has generated a lot of interest and coverage, just look at the amount of hit one gets on google or bing when looking up this fight. If not kept than I would suggest a partial merge or redirect. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The number of ghits is not an indicator of notability (see WP:HITS) and I'm not buying the attempt to insinuate this was a bigger sporting event than the Wimbledon final. As I said below, I can go with a redirect. Papaursa (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fight wasn't on TV, so no ratings numbers to compare it to Wimbledon. End of the day; this was your average Golden Gloves-type amateur bout for a pretend title that a Mayweather-type name isn't going to compete for anytime soon, except between two YouTubers. Nate•(chatter)05:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute -- The definiton of notable is "worthy of attention or notice" and seeing as this fight has combined views of over 28,000,000 (check KSI[2] and Joe Weller's[3] channels to confirm this) I think this qualifies as worthy of attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMasterGuru (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Things are simulcast all the time on multiple channels to milk the ratings numbers. Again, that's literally just a counter without sourced metrics. It wasn't televised or Nielsen-sourced, thus the number could be 'after the fact' streams or F5'ed bots milking the numbers upward from the reality. Nate•(chatter)22:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There is nothing significant about this fight. WP:NEVENT says a notable event is "of lasting significance", has "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group", and receives significant in-depth coverage "beyond a relatively short news cycle" from a "diversity of sources". I don't see that this fight has any of those, much less all of them. I can see no reason for this event to have its own article. I don't have a problem with a redirect to an article on the individuals. It's already covered in detail in KSI's article. I see Weller does not yet have a WP article and this event is not enough to show he deserves one. Papaursa (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just added some coverage from more sources in the Further Reading section; hopefully these can be incorporated as references for the article. Umimmak (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete All the youtube sources in the world don't make this a notable event. Doesn't pass the GNG or WP:NEVENT. The fact that two youtubers fought doesn't make this notable. And what's with all these dispute votes? Sandals1 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a public figure and doesn't meet any notability guideline. Having won several non-notable awards such as "The IET Young Woman Engineer of the Year" doesn't make her notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article initially did not have enough sources but upon searching for her name, she has been widely covered in many newspapers and notable places including a profile in The Independent for winning the Institution of Engineering and Technology Young Woman Engineer of the Year award in 2007.[4] She's been noted as an influential woman in engineering in several newspapers as well as BBC News.[5] She has also won significant engineering awards from the Women's Engineering Society and the NICEIC. I have fixed up the article and added those citations. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states that notability is determined by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That has been accomplished here as Deacon is noted and significantly covered in BBC News, The Independent, and several newspapers. Additionally, WP:ANYBIO states that a person is notable enough for an entry if they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor." She received an award from the Institution of Engineering and Technology, which is the largest multidisciplinary professional engineering institution in the world. WP:ANYBIO also states that a person is notable if "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Deacon has been specifically noted for influencing the engineering industry.[1] Any one of these factors would be enough to make Deacon notable enough for an entry, and with all of them together it is well established she is notable according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:TOOSOON a topic might fail notability requirements if the contents of the entry are not "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources" or that verifiable sources don't exist yet. Do you have an issue with any of the sources? Why do you believe she fails WP:GNG? Lonehexagon (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BASIC. References has been improved since nom. Mentioned in several noted magazines etc. Any other strawman argument about the references is covered by WP:NEXIST.BabbaQ (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep -- The article is whitewashed and missing all the best sources because, I'm guessing, the author doesn't want to talk about the fact that Trimble was gay. Not only was he gay, but he and Gore Vidal were lovers and Vidal wrote about Trimble throughout his life and career both in his memoirs and, in a fictionalized account, his novel The City and the Pillar. Vidal dedicated a number of novels to Trimble, i.e. "J.T." Vidal used Trimble as the subject of writing assignments in classes he taught. Search for sources in Google scholar under "jimmy trimble" vidal, e.g., or in Google for vidal palimpsest trimble and you'll see a hint of what this article ought to be. Since notability is determined by the sources rather than by the (admittedly sorry) present state of the article, it's clear that this article must be kept (and thoroughly rewritten). 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
solved. As a collaborative effort, other editors can add information considered important but not added originally, whatever the reason. I added it, including references from notable sources. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be quite a lot of articles about Trimble online... and the article should be expanded with more info such as suggested by the editor above. Spanneraol (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
and if you found the sources, there is no reason you shouldn’t add them yourself. Save others from duplicating your search.
Delete. Not memorial. The tone "When told of Trimble's death, General Erskine was reported to have been "moist-eyed' is that of a sentimental memorial, not an encyclopedia article. Coverage such as the onestely nothing that could have substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gore Vidal I don't see that he meets any sports notability standards. I see one good reference but that's not enough to meet the GNG. His biggest claim to notability is his relationship and impact on Vidal.Sandals1 (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. It appears that folks on both sides of the argument critically looked at the references and came up with different opinions J04n(talk page)15:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even nearly 15 years later, this match is still referred to as one of the greatest in FA Cup history. City weren't the team they are now, and to come back from 3 goals down, while it isn't unheard of, is pretty bloody rare. – PeeJay10:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst this match gets a little sustained coverage as a "great comeback", this seems to me to be almost always in the company of over "great comebacks". I'm not really sure I am seeing the required level of significant, sustained coverage of this match as an event on its own to satisfy GNG and counterbalance WP:NOTNEWS. Fenix down (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the key issue here is there is not enough to suggest lasting notability. The game did not have any significant impact on that season's FA Cup or other competitions. While it is occasionally mentioned as a great comeback, so are plenty of other matches (eg Portugal North Korea in 1966) and I do not think there is enough sustained coverage of the match to warrant an article of its own. Moreover there is no evidence it has become any more notable since it was deleted in the past. Dunarc (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is always down to the citations provided and there are 29 of them, most of the citations are provided by the major UK news services of the day. This is inherent for GNG which I was say provides a strong case. Yes single games can have a wealth of coverage, but it's down to the legacy of said game. My first verdict would be to keep this. If an admin comes along and thinks otherwise, the other alternative is somehow merge some of this content and redirect to 2004–05 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season as to not loose the importance of the game as a historical perspective. Govvy (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I won't go into how I believe that this is notable and is not WP:NOTNEWS because as the article creator I feel it should be obvious that I believe it's suitable for inclusion. What I would like to ask those who have voted, however, is what criteria they are using to judge this article? Or to put it another way, when no-one has ever really agreed and put down in writing what is notable in an article then can this AfD be seen as a fair trial, or is it not something of a scattergun approach with everyone voting according to gut feeling and personal bias? Would a better test of public opinion not be to establish a consensus first and then come back to judge individual articles afterwards, especially since I would suspect that the majority of people who patrol the AfD debates would likely consider themselves Deletionists and therefore this AfD is likely to produce something of an inherent bias anyway? Falastur2Talk22:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of great football entertainment doesn't translate unless it is combined with a specific result (such as winning a trophy), it is just too subjective, for example I think county cricket is hugely entertaining and could think of dozens of matches which for entertainment value alone are deserving of a page (I could also reference them), do you see the problem? The article looks good so it has more chance than most matches of this type. Szzuk (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do I see the problem? Honestly, I don't. I disagree that great football entertainment doesn't translate unless it combines with a specific result (I feel that idea devalues the entire existence of the game) but that is inconsequential because I don't believe that this game is notable for being entertaining. I believe that it is notable because a team on a poor run of form coming back from a three goal deficit to win outright, in regular time, away from home, having been reduced to ten men while still three goals down, constitutes one of the more remarkable comebacks in football and the fact that it has continued to receive recognition for that in the press only serves to reinforce my belief. I also believe that it is no less notable than several dozen other match articles which exist on Wikipedia, yet none of which have ever been AfDed. It's this clear lack of consistency that leads me to question whether we should not be formulating policy first and then AfDing afterwards. Falastur2Talk18:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The key to keeping articles of this kind is highlighting the enduring notability of the match, if the match has been noted in reliable sources since then, for example 2009, or 2013, then bring them to this AfD. Szzuk (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Szzuk: Have you even looked at the citations on the article, as 3,4,5,13,16,18,19 clearly are far from 2004 where they are articles referencing the game as a historic comeback. I really don't understand why people don't even look properly at the article and come to a conclusion this conclusion, all the delete votes have failed to spot the historic inclusions and are disregarding pure GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to help, because the odds of this getting deleted are so high I agreed, so having a pop at me is a little unfair. I don't have time to read 29 references. So now you know what is wrong with the article, it reads like any other match summary. I'm unsubscribing from the thread say what you will. Szzuk (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To give an example, some years ago I watched my team win 4-3 after being 3-0 down with only 19 minutes left. Some of the match reports from that game refer to various flavours of amazing / greatest comebacks, a "...will be talked about for years to come" etc. Yet I doubt if anyone bar supporters of the two teams involved will even remember it. It was the second time in 7 years that we had won from 3-0 down as well, and I doubt if many people remember the first one either even though it was a Premiership game. In the case of this one, even though there was some journalistic hyperbole there isn't a source about the game that's less than 7 years old, one of those only rates it as #38 in the "50 greatest FA cup games", and even the list of "great FA Cup comebacks" only rates it as #6. Whilst it was an eye-catching game, we simply can't create articles for anything that catches a few headlines at the time. Black Kite (talk)12:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With respect, BK, if it had only had headlines at the time, I wouldn't have made the article. I only decided to put the article up because I felt that the sources I found were of sufficiently long time after the game to label it notable. Yes, the sources I have listed are several years old, but at the same time they date from multiple years after the game. In fact, several of them date to attempts by newspapers to tabulate the greatest games of the last decade, so what is to say that at least one or two of them will not do another "greatest matches of the last 20 years" at the end of this decade, and include it again? And if that happened, would it not therefore become notable again by your logic? But Wikipedia policy states that topic are either permanently notable or permanently non-notable, so this can't be the case. This is why I say that we need to agree on what exactly constitutes match notability here first, because no-one has ever defined it and consequently everyone is just making up their own ideas and claiming that their version is more right than anyone else's (and yes, I am perfectly aware that applies to me too).
Oh, and just as a signing-off comment - I actually was inspired to make this article because I heard a match commentator for a TV station I don't recall specifically reference this game during an FA Cup match back at the turn of the year which I don't believe had anything to do with City. The people who are paid to talk about the game do still remember this game to this very day as a peak example of a comeback, it's just that it's generally referenced verbally, not in print. Falastur2Talk17:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Falastur2, as far as I've been able to determine, this was not the first time you made the article; you also created the last iteration of the article in 2010, which was deleted as a result of this AfD. Is that correct, and what has changed since then that makes it more notable? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: In my opinion the AfD last time shouldn't have been closed the way it was, that many admins would easily of closed it to no-consensus reached. As with every article, it's all about establishing GNG first. For single games in a season the rules aren't truly clearly defined. Every game could be tagged as historic, but what we are establishing here is how historic is the game. It's nature towards what happened on the pitch, the flow of the game, then establishing the historic context of why said game stands out. Every time Tottenham face Manchester City this game is now always mentioned on the media pack that the clubs give to the media for background context for the rivalry. This in turn is often picked up upon in game commentary, then that returns back out in news sources as Greatest comebacks. This will in turn lead people to look up the game on the internet and then what is wrong with having an encyclopaedic page for this? Govvy (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy, the first time this was at AfD in 2009, the decision was to merge to the 2003-04 FA Cup article. It may not help now, because a merger has already been done, but it's clearly a reasonable suggestion to make when individual Cup matches are being considered here. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: That's partly why I questioned Hko's merge suggestion, there is already a bullet-point paragraph regarding the game, you can't add anything else, all the context of this article would then be lost. It's not just me questioning some of the delete arguments PeeJay is also myth'ed by suggestion of WP:NOTNEWS as a deletion rational, and simply saying delete Non-notable match here is not a good enough rational. I find that people need to provide clearly arguments for deletion. Govvy (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@BlueMoonset: The easiest way to answer your question is to link you directly to a copy of what the article looked like the last time it was deleted, so please see here, which is what I had salvaged just before the delete. It should be fairly easy to compare and contrast, but basically the old version was undersourced, the match report section genuinely was pretty much a journalist's impression of the game (complete with POV, non-neutral descriptions), it was padded with quotations from various persons recorded at the time (granted I originally left this in on the new article but it was swiftly deleted and I ultimately agreed with the action) and lacked an Aftermath section. There is pretty much no section of the article I haven't cleaned up. I think I've put in somewhere between 6-8 hours work into this article to update it from the old version, although granted much of that was related to working on the citations. Falastur2Talk17:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Black Kite: Sorry to bring you back into this, BK, but regarding your comment that there has not been a single source mention this match less than seven years old - in some of the most propitious timing I have ever witnessed, FourFourTwo have just posted another article on their website listing, and I quote, "8 (genuinely) brilliant FA Cup replays that prove they're not always chores", and this game was top of the list. Just for the record, three out of the eight games predate the Premier League era, so it's not entirely recentist either. You can read the article here. Falastur2Talk19:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reply@Hhhhhkohhhhh: new report or news report? I really don't think a merge or redirect to the 2003-04 FA Cup article is going help, you're going to loose the context of the game as the current FA Cup article doesn't provide match reporting. It would be better directed else-where, but the amount of content on the current article is a decent size, so how and where would one merge it too? I don't mean to be rude, maybe you could rethink the outcome? Govvy (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree with this. The article is encyclopaedic in tone for the most part. The description of a match may read like a news report, but the lead and the Background and Aftermath sections are perfectly valid. I don't understand this objection. Furthermore, you acknowledge that the match is notable. If it's notable by Wikipedia standards, it should have an article. – PeeJay13:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to say that I progressively rewrote the match section not once but three times in order to progressively neutralise the tone and make it less of a news report. Honestly I can't think how I could further describe the details of the match in order to describe the nature of the game and why it became notable without talking through it in a chronological fashion. The only other ways I can see to write about it would be to either A) try to write an analysis of the game, which is even less encyclopedic and borderline WP:OR or B) to describe the game only in broad terms, pretty much sweeping all of the descriptions of the goals into one or two sentences, which would result in an incredibly short section which completely devalued the article and ironically would risk making it seem non-notable. If you can see another way here then please do let me know and I will seriously consider it. I have to assume that this whole discussion is based on that one section, because none of the other sections are even vaguely news-like. Falastur2Talk17:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Re: should this be merged? I can't support that view personally, as this article is too big to merge into the FA Cup season article without substantially unbalancing it, and requiring a massive re-write of that article too. The only way I could see merging working is by cutting out 80% of the content, to reduce it to a single section, but then I guarantee it would rapidly be deleted by other users who would argue that individual games should not be given their own paragraphs. Falastur2Talk17:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it was merged before, and the resulting paragraph has stayed intact since 2009, so the above argument doesn't hold up against the evidence. A new paragraph based on today's article could be crafted to replace the one now in the season article, if desired. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Number 57: Could you kindly comment on what you believe defines a notable match? As you can see from the above, there is basically no agreement on this topic whatsoever, and most of the people voting to delete have totally different concepts of what kind of match qualifies as the minimum includeable, so I'd quite like to tease this out here. Falastur2Talk19:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a notable match is one which is the first of its kind (e.g. the first international match) or one in which some kind of record has been set. The one in question was undoubtably highly entertaining (I watched it in a bar with one of my best friends, who is a Spurs fan), but there's no way it's worthy of being turned into an encyclopedia article. Number5719:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with your personal interpretation, but my point is, what you have just commented is not what anyone else here has said. Literally everyone has come here with a totally different impression of what notability is defined as. In that situation, I'm not sure how an AfD can be considered valid. We're not examining this article against agreed standards, we're just scattergunning it against the random opinions of those people who actually turned up to comment. If we conducted this AfD again in 6 months' time, we would get a totally different set of opinions here. Is it not better to formulate a policy on what is considered notable before conducting AfDs? And if not, will you or anyone else who voted delete put AfDs against the many, many other articles which don't satisfy your criteria? Falastur2Talk20:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd happily vote to delete any article that didn't meet the criteria I've mentioned. And turning your question on its head, would it not have been better to formulate a policy before you recreated an article that had already gone through two AfDs, neither of which had resulted in it being kept? Number5710:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I'll point out that one of the two votes actually voted to merge the article, which is closer to a Keep than a Delete. Secondly, it has been more than seven years since the article was last deleted, in which time there has been a growing number of match articles appear. I carefully examined what articles had already been published on the mainspace before I did anything, and decided that the evidence was that opinion was turning in favour of allowing such content. Then, because this was not enough assurance for me, I deliberately contacted PeeJay2K3, a far more reputable Wikipedian than myself who actually voted to delete these articles in the past, and he gave me his backing saying that he believed the article was now worthy - you can see his comments supporting keeping the article in this very debate. So I did examine the value of this article quite carefully before deciding to publish it. I didn't ask for a consensus on notability first because, primarily, I became convinced that one was not needed, but secondly because I considered my voice too insignificant in the community and I'd prefer that those whose voices count for more take on the mantle. I will point out, though, that I did attempt to raise a debate on this exact topic at WP:FOOTBALL shortly before this AfD was posted, and you yourself are the only one who responded to me, so I hope you understand why I don't consider myself capable of achieving this. Falastur2Talk19:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a lot of sources, but they're all general game articles; this article relies heavily on the match report of the actual game. Of the 29 sources: game reports (1 15), feature article immediately after the game (2), best comeback lists (3 4 5 17 18 19 20), unrelated to direct topic notability (other game match reports, et cetera) (6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29). Per events notability, general game sources are WP:ROUTINE. The feature article after the game is nice, but the ultimate question is whether a game is notable for being consistently included in best-of history lists? I don't think WP:DEPTH is there, and it certainly wasn't a notable game in the context of the tournament. The fact it was merged or deleted twice doesn't help the article's case as it's certainly not getting more notable over time. I'd recommend a merge, but there's already a small blurb on the FA Cup 2003-04 article, and I'm not sure where else to recommend putting it. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Even by the standards of these supposed Somali towns, this one is poor. No hits in Geonames, no coordinates, no meaningful GHits. If it exists, this doesn't appear to be what it's called. Mangoe (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
