Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 10 March	12 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Stanton (ice hockey, born 1984)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:NHOCKEY. SportingFlyer talk 23:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY, as there are no notable Ghits to prove notability. Sources provided in the article itself don't seem to constitute notability either. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, appears to fail WP:NHOCKEY Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, fails WP:NHOCKEY. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:24, 18 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DAGames

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was soft deleted previously but I can find no evidence this meets inclusion criteria as there is no coverage in RS to be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as it does not seem to meet WP:WEB and certainly not WP:INHERITWEB. The content itself has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works whose source is independent of the site itself" while the website and/or its content have not "won any well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He has over a million subscribers which is a lot, but the article is terribly referenced. Szzuk (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 million subscribers is pretty meaningless and isn't even noteworthy let alone notable...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He may have 1 millions subscribers, but that alone is not enough to substantiate WP:NOT. There is no RS to establish WP:Not, and article does not meet WP:WEB, as far as I can ascertain. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reliable sources on and about DAGames. You just need to dig deeper. Dannyyankee12 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. If there are reliable sources that have significant independent coverage of DAGames, WP:PROVEIT. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All coverage I could find was passing mentions and non-independent sources. Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:MUSICBIO. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Ahecht. In so far they relate to video game, WP:VG/RS custom search doesn't find any meaningful hits covering the channel indepth either. -- ferret (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had a look with Goodsearch and couldn't find any good independent sources. The article's trumpeting of such little league claims to fame as appearing in a convention panel also makes me doubtful of the subject's notability.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:59, 16 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fur Eel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and not nearly enough strong reliable source coverage to claim WP:GNG in lieu. This is so poorly updated that an album "expected to be released in the spring of 2012" is still "upcoming" six years after 2012 has already passed into the rear view mirror, and the only genuinely plausible notability claim here ("featured on CBC Radio") is referenced only to their own PR bumf on Sonicbids, not to any reliable source verification that they actually got any national network airplay. And the sources here aren't enough to get them over GNG, either: three are primary sources that cannot support notability at all; one is a university student newspaper, which is a class of sourcing that NMUSIC makes a special point of deprecating as invalid support for musical notability; and three are just local coverage in their own home region which is nowhere near enough to make them "the most prominent of the local scene of a city" under NMUSIC #7. So the strongest real evidence of potential notability here is a single article in an alt-weekly from Calgary -- but even it just verifies one show in one Calgary bar in 2011, not anything that would actually pass NMUSIC's touring criterion. So there's no strong notability claim here, and not enough solid sourcing to carry an article. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. SportingFlyer talk 21:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A hard-working band that also participated in a contest in Canada. But, unfortunately, nothing that would meet the relevant criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not notable, does not pass WP:NMUSIC Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't argue with the nominator's solid research. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:26, 18 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Orgasm

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability? Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this has been kept before, and I see no rationale to say why that consensus should be changed. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was kept in 2006 but I am inclined to believe the inclusion criteria has become more strict since then. The sources in the article itself is week, and nothing beyond routine press coverage. I do not see evidence of general notability. I could be wrong here, and am open to changing my vote if the community decided that it is in fact notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first debate, in December 2006, was very, very much in the "keep for now" vein — 2006 coverage was pervasive but there was no way of knowing if the event would gain traction and coverage would continue. It does not seem to have done that. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it comfortably passes the threshold of notability. The article needs improvements, for sure, but even as it is, it should stay up. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps the subject of the article is ridiculous, but when an article's sources are as diverse as the Sydney Morning Herald, Fox News Channel, and the SF Chronicle, it's hard to say it doesn't meet WP:GNG. A title change might be appropriate - perhaps "The Annual Global Orgasm for Peace", which appears to be the actual organization name? Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've done a search on Factiva, and despite the bizarre name, there is substantial international RS coverage, including articles from "The Times", "The Toronto Star", "The Telegraph", "The Guardian", "Associated Press", "Sunday Times", and others - some going back 10 years about this event. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Close your eyes and think of world peace." Okay, a joke that bad means I need to get the newspapers.com machine going to come up with a serious opinion... Carrite (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Should redirect from the original name, Solstice Synchronized Global Orgasm for Peace Day... Carrite (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It got a big splash of coverage in 2006 as silly filler, but no after event coverage (which would have been truly amusing, come to think of it). I'm just not seeing multiple events here. Just a few seconds and it was gone, the event spent. While both orgasms and world peace are notable, in my opinion this so-called annual event is not. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. That the "event" ends quite fast is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 16 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Reynolds (ice hockey)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after looking through awards, fails WP:NHOCKEY. SportingFlyer talk 21:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing the relevant criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Reynolds fails to satisfy WP:NHOCKEY (a shame he never got to play for the Leafs and was 9th round pick, 1st & this AfD either wouldn't have occurred or would have a different outcome). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:28, 18 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Logan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable emerging artist. No depth of coverage and also WP:Toosoon Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take it then that, as a declared paid editor, the nominator would not have accepted the subject as a client. Mduvekot (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see anything that meets the WP:ARTIST criteria; just another artist.TheLongTone (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's probably true, but what is really intriguing about this nomination is that an editor who created an article about a bakery from Niagara Falls that is supposedly known for its biscotti, and must have made an considerable effort to make the trivial look notable (for pay, nota bene) can't be bothered to invest a similar effort into researching an artist. I understand that our levels of interest vary depending on the subject, but if that variation is correlated to remuneration, then something is off. Since this article was written by a good faith editor who took the effort to attend an edit-a-thon to learn about editing Wikipedia, I propose that we help her instead, and that this AfD should recommend to Userfy the article. Mduvekot (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice thought, but suggesting we draftify something on what is clearly a non-notable artists is just plain bad practice.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I guess not. I'm already looking forward to my next edit-a-thon where I get to explain why recent grads are almost never notable. We need a note in a notability guide somewhere that explains that people are notable artists because they have had a notable career, something emerging artists almost by definition have not had. Or simply say "Emerging artists are not notable". It's probably more in line of consensus to say that of emerging, mid-career and established artists, only established artists should receive serious consideration for an article and mid-career artists only with rare exceptions. Unless, of course, you can find two human-interest/trivia/actually-not-really-about art stories in supposedly reputable newspapers and bingo! your no-name, no-career artist passes AfD, courtesy of the GNG. Mduvekot (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly know the score there, perhaps you should write an essay! Not kidding. I would say something like "Emerging artists within five to ten years of finishing school are rarely notable." I do know a few who would actually be notable within that timeline (e.g. of Maya Lin quality), but in their cases the notability is clear as there are many sources available.104.163.147.121 (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with remarks above by Mduvekot. -The Gnome (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, not notable... does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST. Little RS here, and yes probably WP:Toosoon. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a recent university grad who has had a few routine shows. Nothing at all notable here, and no sources to prove otherwise.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for future recreation, but until then TOOSOON. --Theredproject (talk) 00:48, 18 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anila Singh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines, no depth of coverage. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a PR person for a political party is not enough to grant default notability, and the sourcing is not enough to pass the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a spokesperson for a political party can be a valid notability claim if she can be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG for it — but the sources here just briefly quote her as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things, which is not the same thing as sources about her. Not even one of these sources cuts it in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Spokespersons from any political party at state-level, in the Indian circles are seldom encyclopedic-ally notable.Also, per Bearcat.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Coverage proves that she exists and verifies her role, but is not about her (per Bearcat). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:31, 18 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tape Notes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable British music industry podcast. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Also quite promotional. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator that it is probably WP:TOOSOON. I would say to redirect to the founder article, however, it is not mentioned there. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:36, 18 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Skateboard Kid

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article consists almost entirely of a plot summary. It makes no claim to notability. I can find nothing about it that meets WP:NFP and it certainly doesn't meet WP:NFO. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable Ghits, fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails all relevant notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Melvoin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know Los Angeles is a big media market, but this is still just a local school board member. I don't feel he passes our notability standards. Orange Mike | Talk 19:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, and not otherwise WP:GNG notable. SportingFlyer talk 20:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ultimately I will probably agree with this nomination, but in fairness to the discussion it could be noted that Melvoin's campaign and election got more attention than the norm for a school board election because of its perceived importance in the nationwide charter school debate, including national attention such as The New York Times [1], Washington Post [2], NPR [3], and The Wall Street Journal [4] (this last one's an editorial, but it shows the national scope of attention to this election). There ought perhaps to be some mention of the issue and this pivotal election [5] at Los Angeles Unified School District#history and Charter schools in the United States#Los Angeles. As a general proposition, though, I agree that we don't generally have separate bio articles for people whose notability rests on school board membership, even when it's the second largest school district in the country.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- It's bad enough we have tons of articles about small town mayors and city councilmen, but I don't see any school board member being notable in any usual circumstance. Clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN--Rusf10 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's plenty of coverage of his campaign, but it's been very quiet since. I think there may be enough here for WP:GNG (it's a huge district, with numbers of students roughly comparable to the entire population of one of the smaller states) but if all we can cover is the campaign then there's a WP:BIO1E issue. Now if the subject had been his fellow board member Ref Rodriguez... —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing all notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. School board trustees don't clear WP:NPOL just because they exist — and no, the fact that he serves on the school board of Los Angeles, rather than Palookaville WY, is not in and of itself enough to make him a special case, because most other school board trustees in LA don't have articles either. Candidacy-related coverage does not help him clear WP:GNG, because some degree of that is simply expected to exist for all candidates in all school board elections everywhere. There is a potential claim of preexisting notability here for his work as an education advocate before he ran for school board, but it's not sourced well enough to get him over GNG for it: it's stacked mainly onto one piece of his own writing, one Q&A interview in which he's merely being quoted talking about himself, and a couple of additional sources which verify stray facts about the outcome without mentioning Melvoin's name at all in conjunction with it. So literally the only source here that's doing much at all in terms of qualifying Melvoin for a Wikipedia article is The New Republic's "The Layoff Epidemic", because it's the only source that satisfies all the required conditions — reliable, predating the election campaign itself and more than trivially about him — but one solid source isn't enough to drop the mic. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 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 result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rinaldi Group

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Recently WP:REFUNDed article, complaint was that not enough discussion at previous AfD. The references are either direct PRIMARY sources, mentions-in-passing (failing WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely extensively on interviews with company personnel (failing WP:ORGIND). It's essentially a run-of-the-mill construction company with no apparent notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a review of the sources was originally leaning keep until I realized most of them talk about the founder and not the company, who already has a nearly identical article. Any company mentions appear trivial or primary. Possible merge candidate to the founder's article, if that meets WP:BLP. SportingFlyer talk 20:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above comments, coverage is run-of-the mill and not significant enough to meet the threshold of WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent notability. Then, Merge with article about founder all material not included in that. -The Gnome (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. It also looks like this page and the founder's is being used as WP:NOTNEWS. I would say merge but I am not so sure about the founder's notability either. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks WP:CORPDEPTH --Theredproject (talk) 00:52, 18 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 speedy keep. I'll withdraw this out of respect for Cullen, who I am sure will rework the article as if it was his own, and make it good for the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jū-Ni (Japanese restaurant)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repeatedly deleted article created by undeclared paid editing sock farm. Probably notable, but that’s irrelevant given the concerns here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is widespread consensus that Michelin starred restaurants are notable, and there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources for this restaurant, which has a star. I added a quote from the Michelin review so the article is no longer entirely the product of paid editors. The encyclopedia is better off with this article than without it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability doesn’t matter in this case. It’s a direct recreation of Jū-Ni (restaurant) and Ju-Ni (Japanese restaurant), and based on the SPI, likely creates by freelancers at direction of the company. I know there is disagreement on how to deal with these, but we don’t just let people pay their way to inclusion. If a good faith editor wants to recreate it, that’s fine, but the proxying and TOU violations can’t be allowed to remain. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability always matters and I have expanded the article, adding three additional references. The topic is notable, the article is no longer only the work of TOU violaters, and accordingly, it should be kept in its current form. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - We disagree on that point: notability is only a guideline, and whether or not something is notable shouldn't prevent deletion when keeping the subject would be harmful to the encyclopedia, as I believe it would be in this case. It's why it is only one of 14 reasons for deletion. I of course understand your view here (it's why I tagged it instead of deleting myself), and respect it, but I think there are some things much more important to our credibility and thus the value of other articles than just notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a project to build and improve this encyclopedia, not a venture to tear it down because we do not like the motivations of some of its contributors. I am in favor of deleting obviously promotional articles about non-notable or borderline topics but I will always oppose deleting articles about notable topics when good faith editors (myself in this case) have made significant contributions to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, I respect your view, but I disagree with it quite strongly. By deleting this article, we are raising the value of every other article: spam makes us lose credibility, even if it is notable. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a advertising directory of notable companies. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is significantly different, can't pull WP:G4 here for that reason, making this deletion attempt null. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument is not G4, but G5. Also, no, it wasn't different at all: it was a direct recreation as anyone with admin goggles can tell you. Cullen has added to it, but that doesn't change the fundamental flaws of this article being created for the explicit purpose of advertising. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - G5 says: "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others." I have made seven edits to the article, adding significant new content and removing unreferenced content. G5 is now irrelevant to this debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:07, 11 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. Consensus is that the theory expounded here has not received enough coverage to have its own article. Whether the theory is scientifically legitimate is a topic for scientists to answer. Whether the theory should be discussed at spiral galaxy can be decided over there; I emphasize that this AFD does not disallow inclusion over there in any way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral galaxy dynamics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains Original Resaerch as it describes a theory of evolution of spiral arms proposed in a research paper. Moreover, it briefs some outcomes of the theorized model in article sub-sections. The theory presented on origin of spiral structure in the article has not attracted wide spread attention from others in the field, and so it fails notability criteria (can be verified from google, for example). All sources, except one, are self citations; problem with other citation is described on the talk page. Some sentences are copy-pasted from the publication (eg. in section "Bisymmetric spirals"). Creator and main contributor of the article seems to have conflict of interest (images in the article, taken from the publication, are declared as "own work" by the article creator, so article creator seems to be author of the publication). UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 18:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Science is not based on research papers. It is based on data and on mathematical analysis from the known laws of physics, and is thus entirely objective. The article describes the unique model of spiral structure in keeping with both observation and the mathematics of Newtonian gravity. As such it deserves to remain as a matter of science. RQG (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Science is not absolute. Any theory can be disproven by observations. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A model may be unique, may be correct, may be a groundbreaking discovery, but still can not be worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia because of Wikipedia policies. Anyone can propose and even publish theories, but if they have not received considerable attention/coverage, they can not be included. On the other hand, an incorrect and debunked theory can be included if it is widely known and discussed in media (technical or general).--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 20:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually a reasonable amount of coverage for the original papers, although it is hard to find much of it on the internet after this time period. http://science-wired.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/where-did-you-get-those-lovely-spirals.html http://news.softpedia.com/news/Milky-Way-Needs-to-Be-Remapped-129321.shtml https://phys.org/news/2012-03-stellar-superhighway-milky.html. One may agree with inclusion of widely known but incorrect theories if it is also clearly reported that they are not established, if alternatives are properly considered (which is the function of this article) and if their content is accurately reported (which is not the case for the diagram of spirals from ellipses in the article spiral galaxy which is shown from a rotating reference frame: Stellar orbits are not centrally aligned. It actually shows one spiral twice). Another site showing that diagram is incorrect, and with an independent description of the model http://playtechs.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/spiral-galaxy-hack.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs) 09:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only reason to keep this would be as an example of all the things that a Wikipedia article should not be. Apparent WP:COI, lack of WP:GNG, no secondary or tertiary sources (except a gratuitous link to Hipparcos data), looks more like an WP:ESSAY than an article about a tangible and well-defined subject. Admittedly the author was advised several years ago to shovel all the crap out of a more conventional article into something like this, but if it actually described spiral galaxy dynamics in a complete and non-partisan way then likely nobody would have objected in the first place. Did I mention we should get rid of it? Possibly, as such a general term, there would be no harm in redirecting, but it is hardly a likely search term. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was just redirected to spiral galaxy dynamics by someone else. That could be undone. One may observe that it has been accepted as scientific by five reviewers in respected journals. RQG (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is, in fact, possible to google for independent work supporting the result that stars move along spiral arms, contrary to accepted belief. I have added a paragraph with a reference to a press release from the Royal Astronomical Society, which also references the importance of the work to astronomy RQG (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a journal of every scientific paper, only those of groundbreaking, controversial or otherwise notable significance. This is none of those. See how sparsely populated Category:Academic journal articles is (there should be more than that though). Also, COI is a no no, though a secondary issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of the article is as described in the referenced News bulletin of the Royal Astronomical Society. To be honest I don't think this should be classed either as original research, or as a description of a research paper. The description of a spiral potential is absolutely standard Newtonian dynamics. To make a comparison, if it were an invention it would not be patentable because the model is sufficiently simple and obvious that any competent dynamicist working in the field should have been able to come up with it. I have given references to two others who did just that, one of them prominent in the field. My contribution was only to compare stellar velocities in the Milky Way with those of the model. I do not see a conflict of interest, only a desire for correct science. It is surely desirable that Wikipedia articles are written by those who know something about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs) 11:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a partial merge to Spiral galaxy#Origin of the spiral structure on the order of one paragraph. I sympathize with the author in that this discussion may feel like a rejection of the theory covered in the paper; that it is not, nor are Wikipedia editors qualified to do so. Rather, as an encyclopedia, we are working under guidelines that require for scientific theories to be widely covered and accepted before they can become article topics in their own right; and it does not appear that this theory has cleared that hurdle yet. As for notability of the article per se (if that argument was intended), that bar is even higher and applies to outright seminal stuff like The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour. - I don't think COI is much of an issue here, except when it comes to assessing topic notability (naturally :p). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found the policy guideline that scientific theories are widely covered and accepted, and indeed one wants an encyclopedia to be able to look up that which is recherche. Indeed there are many topics in Wikipedia on material which can only be found in academic journals. I do not see why this should be different. I have found that "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist," together with the statement "In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals....". but four such references are given, together with a News report from the Royal Astronomical Society. A partial merge makes some sense, but I was previously asked to make a separate article.RQG (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we have a special policy for scientific theories; what is used are the general notability guidelines. In essence, if the article is about the theory per se, it needs to have received substantial coverage in unconnected secondary sources. If the theory is presented as an explanation within the framework of the article about its subject, it needs to be widely accepted to avoid giving undue weight to non-mainstream explanations. I think that whichever one of these ways one turns in the current case, there are some issues. But I believe the objections would be less substantial when discussing the theory as a section within the larger article. - If that has been hashed out before, eh. Don't want to go round in circles here, naturally :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against succinctly summarizing the research in another article. Phys.org churns press releases and is not a reliable source for science news. Softpedia is more about game reviews than science; I wouldn't count it either. The only source that clears the reliability bar and can be considered independent is the ScienceNOW story. This, and the fact that the original paper has received only a smattering of citations in almost a decade even by the permissive standards of Google Scholar, indicates that the subject does not stand on its own, and the way to give it due weight is to cover it concisely as part of a larger whole. For purposes of comparison, Francis and Anderson (2009) has 7 citations on the Web of Science; checking one of those, Zuker et al. (2015), we find that not only does it have 12 WoS citations accumulated in less time, but it only gives Francis and Anderson (2009) a passing mention and does not consider that paper's results conclusive. These theme holds in all the papers by others that cite Francis and Anderson (2009) on WoS: a brief mention among multiple other references. In addition, as mentioned above, the current article is a copyright violation. Compare the following two passages, the first from Francis and Anderson (2009) and the latter from the "Bisymmetric spirals" section:

Thus, a two-armed gaseous spiral can be stable, whereas multiarmed gaseous spirals cannot. Outgoing gas applies a pressure to the inside of a spiral arm with an inverse proportionality to radius (figure 15). If one gaseous arm advances compared with the bisymmetric position, the pressure due to gas from the other arm will be reduced. At the same time, pressure on the retarded arm due to outgoing gas from the advanced arm will be increased. Thus gas motions provide a mechanism to maintain the symmetry of two-armed spirals.

Thus, a two-armed gaseous spiral can be stable, whereas multiarmed gaseous spirals cannot. Outgoing gas applies pressure to the trailing edge of a spiral arm with an inverse proportionality to radius. If one gaseous arm advances compared to the bisymmetric position, the pressure due to gas from the other arm will be reduced. At the same time, pressure on the retarded arm due to outgoing gas from the advanced arm will be increased. Thus gas motions preserve the symmetry of two-armed spirals.

This is why I say "delete" instead of "partial merge": the research is legitimate but the text is bad. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The science is legitimate. Just probably not notable enough for its own article, and certainly not for this article as written. Lithopsian (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) finds 253 citations for Francis and Anderson. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PRE&qform=AST&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&adsobj_query=YES&aut_logic=AND&obj_logic=OR&author=Francis%2C+Charles%0D%0AAnderson%2C+Erik&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=200&start_nr=1&jou_pick=ALL&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1

Excluding self citations, there are 222 citations. This is hugely greater than the typical number of citations for scientific papers. For the three papers by Francis and Anderson referenced in the article, there are 46 citations. Excluding self citations and restricting to citations in refereed journals, There are 36 citations. Again this is much greater than typical. RQG (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...honestly? Not sure that is such a good indicator of notability. I've got 50-odd citations for a specific bit of modelling on penguin populations, and no one in their right mind would consider that stuff worthy of a standalone article in an encyclopedia. With high-profile topics like galaxy formation, I imagine the threshold is somewhat higher still. That's why I'd say, include in another article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes honestly. Many journals run with a citation index of less than one citation per paper. Even an important journal like MNRAS has an impact factor of less than five. A very few papers obtain large number of citations. Unlike penguins, hard science is dull stuff. In the case of these particular articles, the number of citations actually might be expected to be lower, because once one has a correct analysis of spiral structure, there is not much more to say.RQG (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, my models have, like, actual formulas and stats and shit. Who you callin' Not Hard Science over there :# --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I don't make the terminology. It might be fair to say that so-called "soft" sciences are statistics based, but statistics is often more rigorous than applied maths and theoretical physics (at Cambridge it is in the same department as pure maths). Certainly my experience is that economists now learn much more useful maths than physicists! RQG (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Total number of citations your publications have is irrelevant. The point is that is your theory notable? If it is, PLEASE bring substantial evidence of discussion of your Theory of development of spiral arms in galaxies in other sources. As people have mentioned here, your paper describing your theory has just over dozen citations, half of them are your own, rest mention some minor aspects from the paper, eg. star distances etc, but not your model. Whenever your model gets widespread attention, it will automatically make into Wikipedia, do not worry. We are always eager to create articles.--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 11:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already mentioned that the referenced papers have far more citations than that, that it is a calculation based on data not a theory or a model, that it is not unique to me, and that the result is described by the Royal Astronomical Society as important. The Wikipedia guidelines do not require "widespread" they require "significant". Please see my response below. RQG (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To ascertain whether the article meets Wikipedia criteria, I think we must use the criteria as set out by Wikipedia itself, not personal assessment. I have therefore given careful consideration to those criteria described in Original Research and in general notability guidelines. As described above the article does not fail the "original research" guideline, as the material is contained in four papers published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

It has been suggested that the article describes theory, with the suggestion that it may be some kind of personal theory. In fact the velocities of stars are calculated from observations using data from publically available databases. According to the criteria "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." This is demonstrated by the number of times the calculations have passed peer review

The alignment of orbits is also verified in independent studies as seen in the reference to the Royal Astronical Society News report. This also shows that a significant minority accept the existence of these alignments, although it may indeed be the case that the majority do not. The generally accepted theory was formulated in the absence of data, and as Thomas Kuhn remarked, when theories are disproven by data the adherents by and large are not converted but eventually die off (or words to that effect).

The second section on spiral potential is not personal theory or original research, but is a simple application of a Gravitational potential. This is well covered in numerous text books. The principal is described in potential well "The graph of a 2D potential energy function is a potential energy surface that can be imagined as the Earth's surface in a landscape of hills and valleys. Then a potential well would be a valley surrounded on all sides with higher terrain, which thus could be filled with water (e.g., be a lake) without any water flowing away toward another, lower minimum (e.g. sea level). In the case of gravity, the region around a mass is a gravitational potential well...". This material is sufficiently well known that particular sources should not be required.

The section on star formation also invokes only standard physics and standard knowledge of star formation in molecular clouds which is also well documented in Wikipedia.

The notability guideline requires "significant coverage" and defines what is meant by this. It actually does not require "widespread coverage" which might be considered to include some of the less reliable blogs mentioned above. The Royal Astronomical Society News bulletin does constitute significant coverage for the alignments which are the main topic of the article, as well as emphasising the importance of the topic.

I agree that the current title of the article is not particularly suitable, but I did not choose it. The old title was also not good. I think the title should be be something like "The alignment of stellar orbits". This should help to make clear that the main content of the article is about calculated results, and should give more weight to the independent results reported by the Royal Astronomical Society. RQG (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks secondary independent coverage that we would look for in WP:SCIRS. Something would have to pass muster in Spiral galaxy before seriously considering splitting it off into a separate article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the definitions as given there

"A primary source in science is one where the authors directly participated in the research. They filled the test tubes, analyzed the data, or designed the particle accelerator, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, journal articles are primary sources—particularly original research articles."

"A secondary source is a source presenting and placing in context information originally reported by different authors. These include literature reviews, systematic review articles, topical monographs, specialist textbooks, handbooks, and white papers by major scientific associations. News reports are also secondary sources, but should be used with caution as they are seldom written by persons with disciplinary expertise. An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed."

As it seems to me, according to these definitions, our articles are a secondary source, not a primary source. That is to say, we had no part in any of the teams who took the observations. As far as orbital alignments are concerned, we simply did routine calculations on the data produced by numerous astronomers (noting that routine calculations are not regarded as original research) and presented it in context. It was then peer reviewed and published by reputable publishers. RQG (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calculations are original research. If these papers made no original contributions, why did peer reviewers accept them, and why did reputable publishers then publish them? XOR'easter (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the Wikipedia definition or the purpose of the policy as described on the relevant pages. Nor is it necessarily the case that policies followed by journals use identical terminology to those specified by Wikipedia.

The routine calculations had not been done on those databases before, but the calculations are no less routine for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! The peer-reviewed papers contain original research (Wikipedia definition, perhaps not the one you are thinking of) and hence they are primary sources (Wikipedia definition again). Sources, usually web sites and books but possibly stuff like review papers, that repeat the "original research" or add additional commentary, are secondary or tertiary sources (Wikipedia definitions). Secondary and tertiary sources may not add more claims but establish notability. This distinction is slightly strained in the context of scientific artciles where peer-reviewed primary sources are heavily cited, but please make the effort to understand these critical Wikipedia policies. Lithopsian (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can only understand what is written on the Wikipedia policy pages. The links you give confirm what I have said, not what you have said. Please will you ensure that you impose Wikipedia policies, not a personal interpretation which is not written on those pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs)

Anything, except review articles, that publishes in journals is primary source. Your article is not a review article. You have proposed a model and discussed its implications, you have contradicted Density wave theory in your paper. This is no secondary source.UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 00:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was not I who contradicted density wave theory, but the data produced by others. This was already known to the most influential people in the field. Their response was to try to discredit the data, even before I entered the field. There is now too much data for that, and the result has been corroborated in N-body simulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQG (talk • contribs)

Note that "routine calculations", as described in the No Original Research policy, are things that no one would get a journal article published for. Converting a result from one system of units to another would be a "routine calculation". XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if one has a measurement of the radial velocity (towards and away from us) and proper motion (across the sky) and distance, it is a routine calculation to work out the velocity in any coordinate system. It is also a routine calculation to ascertain what proportion of those velocities are aligned in particular directions. The same routine calculation has to be done many times over, but these are things which almost anyone could do with modest math skills and competency with a spreadsheet. RQG (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have it both ways. Either it's a routine calculation, or it's a significant contribution to the science. XOR'easter (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not having it both ways. Most of the time, normal science advances by carrying out huge amounts of routine "drudgery". The only extraordinary thing here is that this work had not already been done. But that is because the field was in a state of pre-science (as described by Kuhn). RQG (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you are implying that new (ie. not done before, for whatever reason) interpretation of existing data, is not original research?--UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 19:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, only that that appeared to be the implication of the Wikipedia definition. I would find it somewhat galling to think I did not do original research. However, the Wikipedia definition is clear that it is only original research the first time it is published in a reputable source. The second, third and fourth times it is no longer original research, but a report on material contained in the previous source. Thus the Wikipedia article is not original research, although the article in Proc Roy Soc A was. The republication of the interpretation in articles in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical society and in Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy was not original research, although those papers also contained other material which was original research. The acceptance of those papers indicates that a significant proportion of astronomers do indeed accept the finding. RQG (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the science presented is interesting, and deserves a paragraph in related articles, the lack of buzz both within astronomy circles and in the wider media makes the suitability of a dedicated article doubtful; the case made by XOR'easter is compelling. ☽Dziban303 »» Talk☾ 07:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason for the lack of buzz is that it is profoundly embarrassing that they have been teaching false science and that they failed to do the calculations themselves, as was their job. You need only look at their conflict of interest to know why they do not want this work to be more widely recognised. Nonetheless, I think significant numbers of astronomers do recognise the validity of the calculations (or it would not have been possible to get them passed by five reviewers) but they prefer to stay silent rather than offend those most influential in the field. RQG (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but assuming that to be the case, that's not something that can be rectified via a Wikipedia article. We summarize what has already received coverage; we do not try to provide coverage where someone perceives that it is due but has been withheld. You can see how that approach would lead to a perfect storm of special interest advocacy.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, insinuating a discipline-wide conspiracy to ignore your results is not the best way to go about defending your research. ☽Dziban303 »» Talk☾ 23:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a defence, and nor is it something to be rectified by Wikipedia as such. It is just an explanation for why there is less coverage than might be expected for something which is an important enough topic to be included in undergraduate level courses. It is also the reason Wikipedia policy requires "significant" attention, rather than "widespread" attention (with quite a long and detailed description of what significant might mean). It is actually significant that those who oppose it remain silent and do nothing to refute it, the reason being that they cannot. RQG (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: evident case of original research and lack of notability. MaoGo (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the Wikipedia guideline Original Research " The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", and below "In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals...". Four peer reviewed journal articles are given. As for notability, the result found independently by another researcher is considered notable enough for the Royal Astronomical Society to publish a news report, http://www.ras.org.uk/1967-new-theory-of-evolution-for-spiral-galaxy-. There may of course be other sources which I have not yet identified. RQG (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A press release is not independent coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was independent, as it referred to the independent finding of the same result by another researcher. RQG (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR also states that secondary sources are needed. I think enough discussion about this point has already been made. MaoGo (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It states that secondary sources are desirable but that primary sources can be used with care. However, in this case the primary sources are publicly available databases. RQG (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - it's almost entirely original research. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should OR be kept by merging it with something else? If it is OR, then obvious solution would be deletion. What do you think? UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 03:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable (peer-reviewed) sources to verify much of the content in the article, so it isn't really OR. However, there is a lack of secondary and tertiary sources to establish notability, or equivalent scientific references to the subject from non-involved authors. The content of the article is hardly a rounded summary of "spiral galaxy dynamics", but an in-depth description of one aspect of that subject, written by involved editors, so again fails. As such, a short mention of the subject within a more general article could be supported, but the article as currently written is too deeply flawed. Lithopsian (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It remains that it is not original research according to the Wikipedia guideline, both because it is published in a reputable source and because of the specific exclusion of routine calculation. The criteria to be used should be those set out by Wikipedia. RQG (talk) 12:26, 18 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puja Joshi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor source. Not reliable source and not notable. Fail to WP:BLP. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 18:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing the criteria for notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 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 result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taylorology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unnotable fanzine. Yintan 18:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. Barbara ✐ ✉ 23:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for utter lack of notability by itself. Worthy of inclusion in the article about William Desmond Taylor, in the section about his death. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 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.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mansha Bahl

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable actress with some minor roles. Fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG guidelines. There is no significant coverage by any independent reliable source and none was found on search except this published in 2011 and this in 2014 and both reads like an interview. This appears to be a typical actress with some minor roles at the start of her career. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing all the relevant notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably WP:TOOSOON as no prominent roles in notable productions so does not pass WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 17:47, 14 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 and redirect to Joe Conason. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The National Memo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claims of significance or importance. Was dePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Non notable web content. The plethora of sources - which are not about The National Memo - does not support notability. Notability is not inherited from its contributors. Fails GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An online publication is notable if it is the subject of reliable source coverage about it. But that's not what the sources here are: with just two exceptions, the references are either the primary source web presences of its own contributors or glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things or people — and the two exceptions are its Alexa ranking and a Q&A interview with the publication's own founder in which he's talking about it himself. Which means that exactly zero of these are notability-supporting sources at all: it has to be the subject of a source, not just named in sources about other things, for that source to count as evidence of notability. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bearcat I suggest to check Google News and not just look at the references at the article. Disclosure - I contributed to this article as paid editor. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know quite well how to evaluate notability, thanks. What I get on a Google News search is not coverage about The National Memo, but coverage of other things published by The National Memo. Which is, for the record, also not evidence of notability — a publication has to be the subject of coverage, not the creator of coverage of other things, to pass WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are unreliable for notability--mentions, publications by its own staff, and a self-serving interview with its founder. Bbarmadillo, If there's anything in GNews except their own postings, I can't find it. If you can, put it in the article. Isn't making an effective article what they paid you for? DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG I am done with this article and will not contribute to it. You can check January 11 version for more references. There are also some additional references at suggested edits at the Talk page. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is work by a well known American journalist and author. The publication passes the relevant notability criteria having been mentioned in third-party, reliable, major news media. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Conason, founder/editor. Concur that brief mentions presently on page do not suffice. I am not finding enough SIGCOV to support an independent page. I tried a couple of news searches that sometimes work for sourcing small publications, one on "The National Memo is" and the other on "The National Memo" + "founded by", hoping to find brief descriptions in WP:RS publications, but failed. Feel free to ping me to reconsider is anyone manages to source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment E.M.Gregory Joe Conason is not the only contributor to this website, he is the editor-in-chief. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the sort of sourcing on The Federalist (website), or Mondoweiss. I'm not asking you to admire them, I'm only trying to help you understand the sort of sources that you might usefully bring to this discussion to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Disclosure: I am among those who have worked to remove trivial and promotional content from the page, and also (most unwillingly) engaged in extended discussion with the paid editor. I was in two minds about notability – it's not easy to find news about a news site, because a search tends to be flooded with results from the news site itself, as Bearcat has pointed out. I chose four major free-access English-language news sites which I believe to be among the most respected on both sides of the pond. I got:

one hit in the New York Times, about the death of Peter Kaplan (in use in the article), mentions Conason
two hits on the BBC, both "... writes the National Memo's Joe Conason"
three hits in The Guardian, one about the death of Peter Kaplan, mentions Conason "who is now editor-in-chief of the political website The National Memo", one mentioning Greenberg, one false positive
six hits on the Washington Post: two mentions of Sattler, one of Conason, two discussions of articles published by the website, and one bit of real coverage ("Check out Joe Conason's and Avi Zenilman's new Web site").

That is not in any way an exhaustive search, but seems to indicate that this website has not achieved any significant level of notability. Conason is notable, merge and redirect this to his page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per sourcing problems or merge two sentences into Joe Conason. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:26, 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 result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kuniva (rapper)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was created to skirt around Kuniva redirecting to D12. The redirect "Kuniva" has now been redirected to this namespace. I propose deleting this article and re-redirecting "Kuniva" to D12. Notability is not inherited by being a member of a band. Unlike other D12 members, he has no notable solo discography. Sources do not indicate WP:GNG. The article as it is, is basically a history of D12 and a list of non-notable mixtapes. As the article on "Kuniva" has been repeatedly redirected and recreated, I also propose full protecting it, as happened in a similar case for Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song) Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Agree with nominator's move proposals. -The Gnome (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move/protect/salt as suggested by the nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:18, 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 result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qaiz Khan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. No significant coverage online in WP:RS, just passing mentions about him having appeared in one video, and WP: Notability is not inherited from this. WP:TOOSOON at best. Proposed deletion contested without comment by anonymous editor. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing all notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, he needs to have prominent roles in notable productions which will generate coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 14 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Institute South Africa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this article giving the reason "Pure promotion. All the sources are either the society's own website, or press releases and the like, and the article consists of in-universe text about what the society says about itself. E.g., you don't get to say in Wikipedia's voice that the society "trains individuals and groups in critical analysis" without a secondary source confirming that that's what people are trained in by this religious organization. It may well be a fine organization, but there's no indication of notability."

My PROD was removed by an editor who added a third-party source, In Africa's battle against AIDS, a key player hits a crossroads from the Christian Science Monitor. So there is now one source not affiliated with the Institute (even though we are still lacking any not overtly religious source). I don't see that this new source supports notability even a little, though. It's a long, detailed article about the health care work of the Catholic Church in Africa — that's the "key player" referred to, not the Jesuit Institute of South Africa, which is mentioned exactly once, very much in passing. That's extremely shallow coverage, see WP:ORGDEPTH. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like advertising The Banner talk 17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Society of Jesus, which is what we typically do for associated entities that aren't notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately--I think Bishonen is correct. Shame; I looked to see what I could find cause I'm all for articles on religious organizations, but for this it's not there. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source does not provide enough coverage to show notability. However I have to object to multiple statements by Bishonen. First off, a source being "overtly religious" does not disqualify its use on Wikipedia. Secondly, the Christian Science Monitor is not an "overtrly religious" source, it is a standard newspaper that publishes for a general readership, the issues of its ownership are not the same as its function and operation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the comments made above by John Pack Lambert about the nomination text. -The Gnome (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect that there are offline sources that would establish the notability of this organization, but I’ve been unable to locate them. I deprodded in hope of finding such sources, but but since none are available, I accept that deletion is the appropriate outcome. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:51, 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.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ASUIsTalking

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local university thing, not for WP. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage by sources other than press releases. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. insufficient sourcing for notability .Al lthe refs about to PR, some even unashamedly labelled as such. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 18 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Reunions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fandom with no real-notability. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Princeton University#Traditions There appears to be no standalone notability, but a highly condensed version should be merged into the Traditions section of the university article, with an accompanying redirect. Alansohn (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "Fandom"? Anyway, this easily meets the GNG. Just see NYT and GQ and Princeton Magazine and Media Research Center and WSJ (sorry, paywall) and Washington Post. An extraordinary failure of WP:BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's one more to add to the list of reliable secondary sources: [6] The NY Times has at least half a dozen articles of varying length on the reunion. Adding a summary of this material to the Princeton University will just contribute to making it a WP:TOOLONG article. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a critique of the 1967 P-rade from Edward Said's book Orientalism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The really major annual events of famous universities are appropriate for articles, and the references support that. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC) .[reply]
Keep but improving sourcing and referencing. As per the above !votes, there is RS about this topic, but it hasn't made its way into the article. Chetsford (talk) 18:53, 18 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 redirect to Margaret Steuart Pollard. The old article text is still available in the history, so if somebody wants to mine it for further material to merge, that's an option. Note that there's no need to bring an article to to AfD if your goal is just a merge; that discussion can take place on the article talk pages with less process overhead. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bewnans Alysaryn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NO evidence of notability apart form it's author, suggest a merge. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination, without prejudice to recreation if the merged section can be referenced and substantially improved. The prize awarded at the Gorsedd is significant, but for now I can only find a passing mention in one self-published book and in a linguistics journal. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Margaret Steuart Pollard, where an appropriate mention already exists, and I have just sourced the mention to the obit, so no merge needs to be done, just redirect the title, which is an arcane but plausible search term. The sole hit that I find searching old newspapers is a mention in Pollard's obit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 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.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southfork (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. The article is entirely unreferenced and it was created by an SPA that circumvented the draft process. I could only find this one brief mention that only confirms a band by this name existed at some point. The subject isn't a new band so with zero media coverage, I don't see how this band could be considered notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND.BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND per above. SportingFlyer talk 18:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stonkingly bad music. Per above. scope_creep (talk) 10:29, 15 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Fyfe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ARTIST. References are from a local newspaper, a pub, and a self written blurb. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 19:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources that appear to be available are the ones in the article, which do not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST, and also fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Simply being a working artist is not sufficient. I searched google, google news, newspapers, scholar and books. In the latter two, false hits come up for someone names Amber Fyfe-Johnson, who is a different person. It's difficult to determine how long she has been working as an artist since university, but this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice on recreation, if deleted, if and when sources become available. freshacconci (✉) 19:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search turned up the same sources used in the article. The first is an unreliable source. The second is a membership listing. The third is an actual good source. However, one source does not a notable artist make. Fails BASIC and ARTIST.104.163.147.121 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep My search also brought up an archive bio on CBC.ca, and something in Galleries West magazine (which appears to be a major arts magazine) which unfortunately I can’t see and does not appear to have been kept on the magazine’s website as it dates from 2004. My thoughts are that it may simply be a listing or review covering her Victoria Art Gallery exhibits. I appreciate this barely brings her into notability but this is made doubly difficult by the gallery no longer existing and press being hard to retrieve so I wonder if we should not assume good faith on this occasion. Mramoeba (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got a real chuckle out of the "major" line. Galleries West is a very minor publication that is essentially a listing of shows with a few articles hacked in. It is given away for free in most west coast galleries. It covers the western and northern provinces and exists largely to sell ads and make money. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mramoeba: I found a scanned copy of that Galleries West issue. She's mentioned on page 68 and I'm afraid it's just her name listed as one of the artists represented by the gallery. The CBC listing appears to be a list of artists for an exhibition as part of Canada Reads 2005, although it's not 100% clear. freshacconci (✉) 15:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, had a feeling it might be that. In my (limited) experience coverage of women artists is woeful. I will take another look around. *Edit: The (not at all notable) Facebook post says “She was featured in the Friday, August 12 edition of the Regina Leader Post and on the CBC morning show the following week.”Mramoeba (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not gunning for delete and would be happy to change my !vote if sources turned up. It's hard for women artists to receive coverage and in Canada it's all the more difficult with limited media outlets. freshacconci (✉) 15:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@freshacconci Source for that? It is not any harder for women artists for receive press coverage in Canada than it is for male artists. I know dozens of female Canadian artists who have received excellent press.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the dozens of female Canadian artists you know, here is a cite for that ““Taking the Measure of Sexism: Facts, Figures and Fixes,” she showed statistically a vast gender imbalance in terms of museum exhibitions and permanent collections, prices, gallery representation and press coverage.” It is a worldwide problem, as the original article tried to address. Mramoeba (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of those articles, and of the problem. However, this AfD is about a Canadian artist, and both of those articles deal with the United States, not Canada. While I would agree there are significant barriers to Canadian artists getting press and inclusion in US Markets, it is not the same situation here. Canada is still a country where someone with smarts and enough determination can make it onto the national news, into Canadian Art Magazine or have a serious gallery show. Sexism and gender biases still exist in curating and promotion, but it's a entirely different kettle of fish. I trust you will not mix up Canada and its southern neighbour again. :) 104.163.147.121 (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the three sources listed above --an archived bio posted on CBC, a Galleries west item published in ISSU, and a Facebook post (not claimed to be valuable)-- amount to absolutely nothing, notability-wise. Bios are written by the artists, and the Galleries West magazine is a commercial publication meant to sell ads.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are just too thin to establish any impact.--Theredproject (talk) 00:47, 18 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Younjosh

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NMUSIC. Source 1 is an WP: INTERVIEW and even the questions look like they were written by the interviewee. Source 2 looks like a blog and the article isn't signed source 3 is a social media site/blog that is not a RS. Source 4 is a what's on as for a set he played in a bar. Source 5 is not useful to prove notability. Source 6 is user generated as it says at the bottom of the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The first AfD for this DJ got no votes and that is apparently why the article survived. For now it might be worth noting that he has received some notice in the Atlanta scene (e.g. [7], [8], [9]) so that might sway some voters, but he has not achieved much significant coverage beyond his local scene, and it might just be too soon for a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 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 result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Park (Oviedo, Florida)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable park, fails WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NGEO named natural features are notable. The park is home to Clifton Springs and the park entry is where the springs are covered. The park and springs also have very substantial coverage so pass GNG. They are historically and geographically significant. Keep FloridaArmy (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is not a named natural feature, whatever legitimacy WP:NGEO has. city parks lacking coverage outside the area are routinely deleted. Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Clifton Springs are a named, notable geographic feature. If this is a dispute about article title, start a wp:RM to move coverage of the geographic feature + park which includes it to the feature name, rather than the park name. Personally, I think it is obvious that the park is larger and the natural title for the article is the park name. Also, municipal parks are IMO usually found to be notable, from experience with many other AFDs, though being with a major urban area instead of relatively remote usually helps. --Doncram (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, heres a book that discusses the spring - Touring the springs of Florida : a guide to the state's best springs, that is held in 50 libraries, note this book covers the best springs (oh no, coola, does this mean we are going to have an article on every spring in the book?:)) but happier to see more references (FloridaArmy, Doncram, can you provide some more cites?), or could we consider a merge/redirect to Oviedo, Florida, btw, (love their chickens:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider expanding and renaming to an article about the park in which this spring is located, as per DonCram. Although my searches also turned up sources mentioning and describing this natural spring, which is, unsurprisingly, older than the park.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- the article is supposed to be about the park, not the springs. The argument is now being made that the springs are notable. However, there doesn't appear to be many sources to back that up either.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The springs are a major feature of the park. And they are covered very substantially in reliable independent sources along with the park. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:00, 19 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 redirect to Mullanpur Garibdass. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Chandigarh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not needed because an article with another name already exists. Mullanpur Garibdass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullanpur_Garibdass) was renamed to New Chandigarh and due to this reason 2 separate pages have been created for the same city. I have edited the original article to New Chandigarh in accordance with the renaming done by the Government of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquoniX (talk • contribs) 15:45, February 5, 2018 (ITC) (UTC)

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @SquoniX: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 15:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. See WP:MERGE. There is no reason to delete. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a duplicate of Mullanpur Garibdass and there's nothing to be merge except some sources so I think it's better to just Redirect. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mullanpur Garibdass after adding relevant sources as said above. MT Train^Talk 06:42, 15 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. The noms assertion that the list is indiscriminate is not accepted. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult films

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too vague, due to lack of definition. Thus testified by the ridiculous size.
As seen in the articles Cult film and Cult following, there is no accepted definition of the word cult in this sense, and even less of any academically applicable definition. For this reason, the list has grown extremely big - WP:SIZERULE puts a guideline that articles bigger than 100 kB should be divided, and this one is almost 500 kB(!). I believe no Wikipedia article, list or not, has a reasonable excuse to be 475,415 bytes in size. However, this is not because of lack of maintenance or addition of unsourced claims - this is because this list and its title cannot be checked to any kind of standard of cult definition - it was more or less "doomed to fail". This article is a playground of obscure favourite films.
And all while there's no Category:Cult films! Seriously??
I'm sure we can all agree that the article is morbidly obese in size but some may say that deletion is not a solution. In this case, I suggest create bulletproof inclusion criteria and rewrite from scratch.
But one thing at a time. For now, delete. Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 15:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 15:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 15:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large size is not a justification for AfD. Not when articles can be split into several articles. As for rewriting it, you're free to do that on your own time and then swap the two lists when you are confident that your list is more accurate. However, there is certainly a definition for when a film is "cult" - if a reliable source cites critics as saying as such. I agree the inclusion criteria could be a lot tighter._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTESAL because this list topic is valid and per WP:BEFORE because AfD is not clean-up. One should not nominate an article for deletion if they acknowledge that there could be a more presentable list with better inclusion criteria. Size is also irrelevant because lists can be split up, either by alphabetical range or release year. We have multiple lists of films by genre, which I'm sure can be challenging to define at times, but we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. No reason to do that here either. I suggest having a discussion on the talk page for refining the inclusion criteria. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup, tightening the inclusion criteria is a job for the Talk page, and this list would be easy enough to divide up (e.g., by decade). XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. I raised on the talkpage about splitting the article last year, and it is something I intend to do at some point, to make it more easy on the old pageload. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response Looks like my point was unclear. I'm not nominating because of large size, and certainly not solely because of large size. I'm only pointing at the size as the symptom of the article's inherent and unfixable problem - there's no way to define what is and is not "cult". Frankly, we may as well write List of films that people unexpectedly liked and watch it grow indefinitely - it feels like this list is exactly that.
I think the designation of cult film should be done solely on the film's own article, and perhaps also in a category. This list, however, feels INDISCRIMINATE and I can't say otherwise until each film on the list has a non-empty column called "Notes". If an ENCYCLOPEDIA are to list cult-films and not a thoughtless free-for-all index, we need to elaborate each and every entry. Gaioa (t,c,l) 18:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Size is irrelevant to discuss here. We could easily discuss size with other broad list topics that are readily acceptable and come to the same conclusion, to engage in splitting up and/or to tighten inclusion criteria. Not to mention that any list of films of any predominant genre is always much bigger than this list. It is a fair point that it can be a challenge to identify what film is a cult film, but we can establish common selection criteria in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, academic books about cult films would have more weight than only one newspaper review calling some film a cult film. I would support adding context wherever possible. If context is not available, then sources should at least be more numerous than usual. Still no reason to engage in deletion. It's still a perfectly viable clean-up task. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cult films are basically films that have a cult following, as cited in sources - simple enough. If several critics say "Film X has a cult following", then it's a cult film. I don't see what's so undefinable about them._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a cult film if sources say it is. (Where's Joe Versus the Volcano??? Rolling Stone[10] and DVD Savant[11] "cultify" it.) Needs cleanup though. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the entries have references. If reliable sources call it a "cult film" then it should go on that list. The length of the list is not a problem. Best to have everything on one list so you can sort by alphabetical order, by year, or by director as you see fit. Dream Focus 17:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a well-sourced and interesting list, and being large isn't a valid reason for deletion. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 05:41, 18 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Marina Gallery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A7 does not apply because there is a claim to significant as representing two notable artists. Nothing in the article asserts that this defunct gallery is particularly noteworthy or interesting or had a significant impact. Almost all commercial art galleries show a variety of different works in different mediums. The only source says that "info on the gallery is scarce". That certainly does appear to be the case. There is insufficient sourcing to base an article on. Mduvekot (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. Defunct gallery, defunct website. One small ref. Not enough. Szzuk (talk) 13:20, 18 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 redirect to America's Next Top Model (cycle 23). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India Gants

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was DEPRODDED a dozen of times and that indicates does not meet with WP:NBIO guidelines that fails WP:NMODEL. Prefer to redirect to America's Next Top Model (cycle 23) for no specific reason. ApprenticeFan work 12:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to America's Next Top Model (cycle 23) – coverage indicates she is only notable for one event. No prejudice against deletion, but redirecting is preferable per WP:ATD-R. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 13:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and ATD-R L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Non-notable beyond participation in series, but this could change in the future. Trafalk09 (talk) 03:54, 15 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. This has had three weeks, and nobody other than the nominator is in favour of deletion. Michig (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plane Finder

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral When I first saw this I was convinced I had seen it on the news somewhere, but it turns out it was just being used by a reporter. It is mentioned in various sources such as the BBC and this. It has been full page featured by CNN, lifehacker and the next web. It is clearly quite popular since it is namechecked regularly. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Awful article. Notable subject. Keep. Refer to a plane technology or app project for improvement? Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Product gets a full review at places like CNN. [12] and Nerdist [13] Dream Focus 17:31, 15 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 merge to Quetta Gladiators. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Omar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks notable. Perhaps a detailed nomination rationale was required. samee ^talk 15:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No notability outside of owning a notable team, and notability is not inherited. The sources name check him but does not discuss him in detail but his cricket franchise. Maybe merge would be more appropriate if not deletion. --Saqib (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Quetta Gladiators. Has no notability on it's own and all references mention him in association with the PSL team. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I saw enough in two of the sources to believe he qualifies for having had reliable significant independent coverage and that it is likely that an interested wikipedia editor would be capable of finding more. It is a mediocre wikipedia article, but it is about a notable person. I comment that owning a sports team makes you neither notable, or non-notable. What it often does do is make you worthy of being profiled by sources that will give you enough coverage to be considered notable. George Steinbrenner has a very long article for example, and the only things he ever really did that would be considered notable was own the New York Yankees. But he owned them for nearly 40 years and acquired enough coverage to be easily notable as an individual. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quetta Gladiators: not independently notable; does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 19 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular computational identification

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google returns no obvious sources for this topic by this name. This article has had almost no content since 2006. The one source cited is a dead link and I cannot find the article archived on the publishers' own website.

No evidence is available that this concept meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep GScholar shows 191 cites for the seminal paper, as well as plenty of other papers. That said, I'm not convinced that the current stubby description is accurate. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Hmmm... okay, I see this in gscholar, and it has 191 cites.

Prasanna de Silva, A.; James, Mark R.; McKinney, Bernadine O. F.; Pears, David A.; Weir, Sheenagh M. (3 September 2006). "Molecular computational elements encode large populations of small objects". Nature Materials. 5 (10): 787–789. doi:10.1038/nmat1733.

Now we have a source and a lead on other sources. I am also not sure that anything about this article matches that or other sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion discussions ought really to confine themselves to whether the subject is notable, not how good the content written about it is at the present moment. In this case it's shoddy. But it takes no time to find articles like this, this, this, this, and this, this which suggests it probably noteworthy. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm finding some reviews that cite the seminal paper, so it passes my initial science sniff test at least. This may only amount to a stub though at best since a few of those seem to be minor mention. Maybe it's a stub at best, but I'm not entirely opposed to deletion either unless someone can show a source that has something more solid than passing mention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a GF AFD since the article is of poor quality to the point that retention is right on the line. However, based on the rationale advanced by Kingofaces43, I think it is just over the edge. Chetsford (talk) 18:56, 18 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. ...for now; I'll recommend reassessment of the sources on the talk page of the article; no prejudice against an early renomination if the discussions result in sources being downgraded. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preciso de Ti

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 20:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 16:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep: It appears to qualify as a notable album based on WP:NALBUM Criteria 3 (Certified Gold or higher). How would one go about confirming the album being certified diamond in Brazil? Note that there is also a statement regarding notability only being appropriate if there is enough material to warrant a detailed article. Right now it is scraping the barrel of being a detailed article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a strong keep since the notability is in a different language, but a keep nevertheless: based on the sources, appears to meet WP:GNG (as the best-selling album of all time in that genre, if I understand correctly). SportingFlyer talk 22:06, 11 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PAC 14

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local community access tv station. Does not pass WP:GNG. The article is mostly sourced to the station's own website and local school district website. The only independent coverage that exists is [14], which is not enough to pass GNG. Rusf10 (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If consensus is towards removal, this should redirect to Wicomico County, Maryland as a channel mainly put together by the County or the school district article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Almost all the sources are from their website. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New information and sources added to the article since nomination. Should not merge into Wicomico County, as it is one of the three community partners, while the school board is one of the many users of services. Also, since all of the content the station produces is original and serves a public interest, shouldn't notability be presumed per WP:BROADCAST? David (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daveplot:While WP:BROADCAST technically is not a guideline, I think it provides some good information. The relevant part would be "Cable television - Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable. Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable. A "governmental access" feed that runs a text generator of community events plus city council meetings for a population of 50,000 is not generally presumed notable, but can be conferred notability by meeting the standards set forth in WP:CORP." (emphasis mine). So if we go by that, no this is not a notable network as it would not pass WP:CORP--Rusf10 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Non-notable. A handful of procedural sources from the local government authorising the existence of the channel does not make it notable. Google search for News on the channel found nothing. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:57, 11 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 no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AU Small Finance Bank

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article had no sources when I found it. I added one, thinking that perhaps a ranking on the Fortune 500 might give some indication of the subject's notability. There are some sources that might be usable to verify some uncontroversial statements, but there is no significant in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most of the potential sources I found are rehashed press releases. Mduvekot (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching under previous names, I think there is enough just about enough coverage ([15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]) that don't look like straight reprints of press releases Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Border line either way - note that this is the Indian Fortune 500, but I'm not even sure that it's publicly listed and traded. If the above references check out and there were accessible financial statements showing that this was a real company, I'd be much more at ease saying keep. But checking the company's website (almost no info there) and this article, I can't even tell if it's real. Probably, but ... Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? There are numerous - 100s - results of articles in newspapers considered RS (though perhaps reprinted press releases), and it had an IPO a year back ish IIRC. [23] is its profile in reuters, showing it trading on the bombay stock exchange Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've done a lot of work on this. If you'd like, please check out the sources in detail and then write it up. That way we could all be able to tell if it's notable. I'm not personally interested in being part of WP:BOGOF. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST, I checked out the sources and selected the best in a list, the only reason I put any effort to finding sources because it didn't look like it was paid work (though it is possible that it is) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Complete lack of "significant coverage from independent, reliable sources". Searching for news shows occasional references to the company as a banking entity but routine discussion about what a corporation does as it's 'job' doesn't equal significant. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've linked the best coverage in my !vote, I don't think its all routine or non-independant, you can examine them if you like - not going to argue more if you disagree Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Per Galobtter.Notable by a mile.Good sources~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with any public listed company, particularly Fortune 500, it's easy to find sources with this bank's name in the headline. I added three citations. This is a commercial bank with hundreds of branches (maybe that should be in the first paragraph). Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe WP:LISTED is established. There's plenty more: you might own some AUBANK shares and not know it, but relax because Morgan Stanley says it should be a good investment. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:22, 17 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. Gentle note: It's important to not allow deletion arguments wade down to accusations. If an editor feel someone is a sock, take that to SPI. The Afd is not the place to discuss; and it would be mostly considered a personal attack if anyone continue this line. Having said that, I would recommend discussions on the talk page of the article and at RSN to confirm significance and reliability of sources. Follow WP:DR if need be. No prejudice against an early renomination if the said discussions result in any reliable sources being downgraded. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Harling

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has recently been cleaned of unreliable references and citations. It appears upon reviewing the content that this actress has had a number of fairly minor non-notable roles with some minimal press coverage. I do not believe this passes the notability threshold. Shritwod (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is disputed that the references and citations were unreliable. See discussion below. Jack1956 (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was a member of the RSC and has had a long acting career for someone so young. Notability clearly established. Jack1956 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you think so, please add more sources.

Delete: Articles that include her because she plays a role in a film or play that is reviewed or previewed does not equal "significant" coverage of herself as a notable person. A quick search didn't find any articles that dedicate significant coverage to herself as a person. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs are trivial mentions. Szzuk (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was updated as noted below with lots more refs. They don't indicate notability in my opinion so I'm not changing my vote. Szzuk (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I am adding what I hope are acceptable references to show her notability. In addition to her acting credits she is also the Founder of two award-winning acting companies. Jack1956 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being involved in two non-notable companies does not infer notability. Shritwod (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And her acting credits...? Jack1956 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Some minor parts so far. Don't get me wrong, those are the sorts of parts that a lot of notable actors have taken in their careers. But it doesn't seem to add up to much at the moment. Shritwod (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - strikes me as fully justified for inclusion. Tim riley talk 19:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was previously proposed for deletion and kept. Since then, the actress has played additional major roles. Harling has appeared in both Britain and the US, with the Royal Shakespeare company and other notable companies, and at the Royal Opera House, as well as on TV. She has also done significant producing work. Her acting career has already spanned more than two decades. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any significant coverage of herself though? Do you have sources that show significant discussion of her as a person/actor? We're not IMDB, we don't need to keep an article on an actor just because they have done acting gigs. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ssilvers: sufficient evidence is already present to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've twice tried to remove a number of inappropriate and/or non-reliable sources from this (I was brought to it by an unreliable source it was using). The first time they were stuck back by Jack1956, the second time my edits were reverted by Ssilvers with the summary "Please do not remove refs until the deletion discussion is concluded". Ermm, why not, Ssilvers? Why exactly are you permitted to edit the references while I am not? The deletion discussion notice says "Feel free to improve the article". Unless there is some policy-based reason why I should not do so, I intend to remove those poor sources for the third time so that those interested in this discussion can see more clearly what has been said about this person in independent reliable sources, and so form an opinion on whether or not she is notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the point is we think they are independent reliable sources and you don't, so by removing them you are not improving the article in our opinion. Jack1956 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The website of a theatre producing organization is a perfectly good source to verify the fact of who the founder of that organization is. The source should not be used to make an "exceptional claim", like "this is the best theatre producing organization in the UK". See WP:SELFPUB. Removing sources during a deletion discussion is exactly the opposite of what you say: it is hiding the sources so that participants in the discussion cannot review and discuss them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I doubt if arbitrary deletion of citations is good practice, particularly when several editors think them appropriate. Unethical would be too strong a word, perhaps, but not quite the thing. Tim riley talk 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am surprised to see an experienced editor defending what appears to be stuffing the article with citations from non-notable sources in order to fluff it up. In my opinion Ssilvers is merely following established guidelines. Shritwod (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that my old friend and Wikicolleague Ssilvers is, as Shritwood explicitly concedes, "following established guidelines". Shouldn't we all? If you disapprove of a cited source, good practice is to discuss it on the article talk page rather than arbitrarily and repeatedly delete it. Tim riley talk 19:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability clearly established - especially with the recent additions. Dreamspy (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - curious that you haven't made an edit for seven years and then pop up for this debate, especially to support the thinnest of sources being added. Shritwod (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Classic stuff: lose the argument and switch to ad hominem (or ad feminam) slurs. Tim riley talk 20:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I thought these debates were supposed to be concerned with the issues rather than attacking editors who don't agree with you. Jack1956 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an ad hominem attack to point out what looks like sock puppetry. Shritwod (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the sock puppet? This is starting to get ridiculous. Jack1956 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is a serious accusation. I really think, Shritwod, that you need to apologize to Dreamspy and whoever else you are accusing of sockpuppetry. Do you have some conflict of interest here that is motivating your behavior in resurrecting this AfD and then attacking the Wikipedians who are participating in the discussion? Shame on you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that there's a user with such erratic editing behaviour who turned up to vote on the AfD after a break of several years. When I've seen that before it is usually a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I apologise if this is not the case. However, I still stand by my assertion that the citations here are very thin indeed and am frankly surprised that experienced editors seem to think otherwise Shritwod (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR with notable theatre roles for RSC, Royal Opera House and others as confirmed in reviews by reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 17:37, 14 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic Community Mental Health Team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced essay. I assume it relates to the USA, but it doesn't say so. Rathfelder (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: A quick google search says it could be from the UK, or several states in Australia. No news articles on anything that I could find. Speedy Delete candidate under WP:A7: No indication of importance. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Describes the job of some people, no refs, no assertion of notability. Szzuk (talk) 13:08, 18 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#6. If you want to make a nomination, wait for it to be off of the main page. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Lynch

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is of good quality but no reason is given for Catherine Lynch's notability. The arguments given so far are that she represents a stratum of British society in the early 20th century, used as an example of this stratum by a reliable source and so is notable. I observe that such an argument can be applied to virtually everybody (aren't we all examples of some segments of society?), and while social history researchers naturally rely on such examples for their studies, the examples chosen themselves are not necessarily notable.

If the source(s) believe strongly that this particular Catherine Lynch is notable, then the reason should be stated in the article and the article kept in consequence. Otherwise, I recommend deletion. I encourage the reader of this note to observe that I am not arguing that all "non-elit" people aren't notable, I am arguing solely about this Catherine Lynch. I hope we can have a discussion with the article's main author Iridescent and Gerda Arendt who reviewed it for DYK. See also Selina Rushbrook and Lily Argent for the same reasons.

[EDIT] There is a single scholarly source for Catherine Lynch, and it appears to be self-published.

Iry-Hor (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar concerns apply to the similar articles on Selina Rushbrook and Lily Argent. 31.75.77.137 (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly even CSD A7. Article is sourced entirely to Swansea's 'Bad Girls': Crime and Prostitution 1870s–1914[24] by Elizabeth Belcham and to (what are probably her sources) local news reports and court proceedings. The Belcham book does not seem RSey, and regardless, this individual clearly fails WP:PERP even it was - very local coverage and one book (which is not available online, but from the citations in the article - from 8 pages in said book).Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC) modified some of the rationale here to reflect this is 8 pages in this possibly non-RSey book + very local news coverage from the time (from The Cambrian, Cardiff Evening Express, The Cardiff Times, The Glamorgan Gazette, Cardiff Weekly mail. Her father's death (which does not mention her) is sourced from two other local papers).Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the book and the author, little is available online however there were some local Swansea area events such as this one that describe it - [25] Drawing on photographs, mugshots and contemporary newspapers accounts this book explores the crimes of theft and of violence, often through drink or other social causes, which filled the police courts and prisons, and tells the stories of the lives of these extraordinary women who survived through adversity.. Per [26] the author was Inspired by mugshots of female prisoners from the Swansea Prison collection at the West Glamorgan Archive Service, author Elizabeth Belcham was inspired to delve into the lives of these women and discover how they had come to end up on the wrong side of the law. So basically written a century later by collating accounts from contemporary newspapers.Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent definition...of a secondary source :D —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A self-published one it would seem. The author herself worked (until retirement in 2013) at the West Glamorgan Archive Service and holds an MA.[27] Has not published much [28] - mainly local history.Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject clearly passes the general notability guideline, which reads If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list, and since it contains secondary sourcing it fulfills the requirement of at least one secondary source within it. Both academic texts (When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources) and contemporary newspapers("News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact are reliable sources, and provide the sole sourcing of the article: Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
It's worth remembering that notability on Wikipedia does not require a person to have been notable in their lifetime, or even to have done anything notable.
Incidentally, the perceived quality of the article is irrelevant: if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Over all, the nomination seems to be confusing notability with individual significance, but of course, notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.
A7? Really?! —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue this is a case of the opposite - this is a superbly written and referenced article - on a non-notable subject. The writing is good. Referencing (to Belcham's book which seems non-RS, and to local newspaper coverage) appears good. Even has photographs. Frankly - just looking at the article form-wise it seems like a notable subject (and hence - made it past DYK) - until you look at the particulars - who the subject was and where exactly this is sourced from (a few pages in a single book, and local reporting from the time).Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A7 deals with WP:CCSI, not notability. Other than that, you're right on every point. As for a CCSI, prostitute and petty criminal are a dime a dozen so none there. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the nom, while Iridescent can speak for themselves, Gerda Arendt has absolutely no need to respond here at all if they do not wish to; they certainly do not need to justify their acceptance of a DYK hook which, as part of the process, has had at least two other pairs of eyes on it subsequently (and frankly, considering Iridescent's—high profile, shall we say—I'm not surprised to discover it's had over a hundred views in the less-than three week period it has existed: even before appearing on the main page). —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 First, shall we argue about the source itself then ? The publisher "Heritage Add-Ventures" is the publishing arm of a ventrue investment fund which might be best described as predatory publishing exacting extortionate fees from authors and readers. Second, this argument is a bit dangerous following it to its logical extreme means that any person mentioned in any book is notable enough. Just for Ancient Egypt you would have to include tens of thousands of additional article on nearly everyone because you will always be able to find a reliable source which published the original ancient source talking about this person.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary to reply to every comment as you seem to be doing; please read WP:BLUDGEON. Whilst only an essay, it reflects community consensus regarding etiquette during proceedings such as these. Many thanks —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 Just so I understand, me politely replying on a discussion page created for this purpose is bludgeoning ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand the nominator's view, but "the arguments presented so far" as summarized in the nom are persuasive to me. This is a valid form of history and enhances our coverage of how part of society lived during the period. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad This can be said of the life of everybody! Your life and mine are just as illustrative as hers, only of a different stratum and era. How does that make us notable ?Iry-Hor (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the subject is from a different era is precisely the point. After all, if we had this level of detail about a person from the period you specialize in, wouldn't you want to include it? I understand that this approach could be taken to extremes, but thus far it hasn't been. If we ever become overwhelmed by historical articles about "the life of everybody" then we can reconsider the position. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad Fair point but early 20th century and Ancient Egypt may not be a good comparison after all (my bad). The distance in time means that far more is known about random people of the early 20th century than of the 20th century BC and so the importance of recent individuals in exemplifying a wider society is diminished. However I am sensitive to your argument when I think about some decrees and letters mentioning corruption cases and the likes in eras of decline. Yet, in such case, the article is almost invariably dedicated to the source and what it says about the wider society, not on the person mentioned by the source. In general, litteracy was rare, writing costly and sources wouldn't talk about someone at length unless he/she was notable in some special way.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning delete - I did a google search for both the author and publisher of the secondary book source, it's really the only one that is relevant since the rest are over a century year old newspaper listings and the other 2017 source isn't making any mention of the subject, and came up with... almost nothing. I found nothing about the publisher after ten pages of google listings, and even in quotes I'm linked only to two sources both published by the same author. I can't tell if the only secondary source is a self-pub or not. A search for Elizabeth Belcham only tells me that she's an author and does not give me any credentials. I'm surprised somebody as experienced as Iridescent would use the source, unless they knows something I don't in which case please tell me. I'm amenable to change my mind on this point if somebody can give me something solid about either the publisher or author. As it stands, I don't support SN's assertion that this meets GNG given the lack of a verifiably reliable secondary source. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've conducted a mass ping of the editors who were involved with questioning the notability of the article on the talk page. It is expected that somebody will notify them. I've also notified the IPs on their talk page as they contested the deletion. I'm going to suggest that somebody notify all the wikiprojects that may be interested in this article. I don't know how to do that myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep or Keep - Per article appearing on DYK right now. AfD nom is not appearing on article page as well. Anyway, per above passes WP:GNG.If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.BabbaQ (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD nom has been taken off the article because it's currently on the main page. That was intentionally done. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to put a current DYK article up for AfD... Period.BabbaQ (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ The article will be kept until the end of the DYK. AfD not appearing precisely for this reason. Article does not pass the WP:GNG argument because the only source is itself not reliable. DYK only offers proatection on the day the article shows up on the main page and does not constitute an argument for keeping the article on the long run.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been better to hold the nomination until tomorrow, but we're here. Actually, I suppose this article might never have been noticed for possible deletion if it hadn't been for the DYK blurb, which is an irony I'm sure Iridescent will note when he sees this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iry-Hor was asked not to nominate this article while it appeared at DYK might I add. Did it anyway. But it is what it is. It will likely be kept anyway cosidering the rationales so far.BabbaQ (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ Your statement is false, I nominated the article and then Cwmhiraeth told me to keep it while it is DYK (see my talk page). Only later did Sagaciousphil further intervened on the talk page of the article.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; subject passes general notability guide. As mentioned by others here, the subject's life provides an important insight into the history in that era. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC) BabbaQ, although the AfD nom is temporarily not appearing on the article itself, a note has been left on the talk page explaining this.[reply]

Sagaciousphil I would genuinely like to understand how the subject's life provides an important insight into the history in that era and more precisely how it does so in a way that the life of anybody else from that era and social stratum does not ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the subject meets GNG and, in my view, no benefit is to be obtained by deleting the article. In the early days of deciding what topics are "notable" it was agreed that we would not decide on whether, in our own views, a topic is important but on grounds of what external sources write about. These sources are not required to explain why they decided to write what they did. So, the reason Catherine Lynch is notable and Iry-Ho is not (it seems) is simply because people have written about Lynch. (BTW I think articles like this are important even if Lynch personally is not but my point of view here is irrelevant). Thincat (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iry-Hor is indeed notable. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, my mistake. We require Category:Wikipedians who are Pharaohs. Thincat (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we do :) Mr rnddude (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thincat Aha ! I actually laughed at that (in a positive way, I am not being sarcastic). See Catlemur's argument below refuting your points.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article relies heavily on newspapers of local significance as such she cannot be considered notable even outside her hometown (WP:NOTNEWS). As such the person described in the article is not different from any other common early 20th century British prostitute. She is not related and had never interacted with any people worthy of an article. Had she been a man or were born later into the century the article would have been speedily deleted without a single objection (WP:NOTOBITUARY), yet people want to keep it simply for the quality of its prose. With a variety of sources available one might write millions upon millions of articles on people of her caliber, we DO NOT need that to get an insight of her profession or era when articles such as Prostitution in the United Kingdom exist.--Catlemur (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like that we have articles like this, which personalize a historic social reality and make it better understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might I draw your attention to the guideline WP:ILIKEIT? Robofish (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, Lynch has no presence on the internet besides this Wikipedia page. Not a good indicator of notability. This information belongs on a blog or genealogy website, not an encyclopaedia. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that i have already advised the nominator against bludgeoning, but such poor arguments such as this cannot be allowed to pass. HappyWaldo, please see WP:PAPERONLY which notes that your requirement for internet presence is an argument to avoid in discussion such as this, as it has absolutely no basis in policy. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think her complete lack of internet presence (besides the article and this discussion) is incredibly damning. She wasn't even notable at a local level in the time she lived. I agree with Catlemur that Lynch is receive special treatment, probably because Wikipedia has been accused of gender bias. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The internet has been for a while now and no one posted anything about her until this article. To me, that is damning. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 I don't see how you take the right to allow or not someone argument to "pass" because you find it "poor". Appealing to Wikipedia regulations won't help your case on this. Nobody has the right to decide if someone's else argument "passes" the "test" of his/her opinion, except in cases of insults/threat etc. which is not the case in HappyWaldo's comments.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 while you're reminding people of ATA, could you also let Gerda Arendt know that her "I like it" vote is on equally poor footing. ~~You don't seem to have an issue letting bad arguments stand... just ones you don't agree with.~~ Strike reason: hostile, and not good faith. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointing; I expected more good faith from you. The fact that I hadn't commented on GA's post may well be because I hadn't seen it (not surprising considering the word swamp this has turned into). —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iry-Hor: Actually, all arguments made at AfD should amount to a fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy; when an argument is made that is not based thusly, not only is it likley to (as I have done) be caled out, but the closing administrator will ignore it when they weigh the consensus. It is not my test; it is the test of consensus-by-policy; I understand you are not particularly experience at AfD so don't blame you for wanting it explained. Incidentally, it's not bludgeoning either: as the essay I pointed you to clearly says (Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment). Cheers! —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I shall stop replying to comments, unless I am being asked to do so. That does not change my point that you cannot call someone's arguments "poor" and which should not be allowed to "pass". I don't see how you can invoke wikipedia policy on this, and this was my point (i.e. not that you invoke the policy on the discussion relating to deletion).Iry-Hor (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129: maybe I'm being unfair, but you have been rather hostile to both Iry-Hor and now HappyWaldo. I'll remove myself from here further, as it is quite apparent that I'm ticked off. Sorry, and have a good day. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent suggestion for me as well :) cheers! —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even in the annals of crime or the lists of infamous cases this really doesn't rate. If this case were incorporated into an article on Prostitution in Victorian Swansea or some such then the argument that her life was indicative of the wider society of the time might have some heft. Without a larger context (which wasn't given here) her's is just a sad private tragedy. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ μοι) 13:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you base this assertion on what guideline? BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" If you're arguing that her life is notable because it illustrates a larger class of people you would first have to define what that class is, i.e. place her life in a larger context. That hasn't been done. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ μοι) 14:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How does appearance in 8 pages of a single self-published book satisfy BASIC - received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.?Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Do we know it's self-published? —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would fail BASIC as being based on a single secondary source - regardless of being self-published - which we can assume it is as:

Inability to locate the publisher on-line in any meaningful way (i.e. a website for the publisher or some description of the publisher).
When locating books by the publisher("Heritage Add-Ventures"), it seems it only published 3 books by this author, as may be seen here - [29][30][31]. Publishers that are independent of their authors' will publish significantly more than a single author.Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Allow this and we may as well totally abandon the Notability Requirement. Aldiboront (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an interesting, well-written article and gives a little insight into an "ordinary" life. It is a welcome change to the fan-fiction bios of characters from Star Trek, etc. and the articles on here today, gone tomorrow so called celebrities. Plenty of "proper" encyclopedias and even the DNB include articles about people who are not household names. If they can do so, then surely Wiki can with its great resources of space and editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep (with a concern): The notability guidelines only say that multiple sources are "generally expected". It does not state that notability requires multiple sources. The source itself appears to be "reliable" and the Wiki article also includes links to archived newspaper articles that the source uses as it's foundation. I consider that the coverage in that source is enough to be reliable, significant and independent. As such I believe the article just barely scrapes into notability.Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: My major concern is potential copyright infringement. With only a single source, how much of the article is copied wholesale from the book? I'm not sure if it is a problem for an AFD, and may only become an issue if actively sought out by the copyright holder, but it's something I feel I should note here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Further up the page there has been some discussion about how an interpretation similar to mine may make anyone who has been written about in a book notable. I think that is an issue for the GNG not this article specifically. If there are issues with 'scraping into notability' on the basis of a single quite well researched, reliable & independent source, they should be taken up at the notability guideline itself for a wider discussion.Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the article is remarkably well-written and has numerous sources (as other participants in this discussion have noted), the article does not indicate that the subject is particularly notable. The article quality argument alone is inadequate, as I could write an excellent article about a topic I made up that obviously couldn’t be kept. Being mentioned in a few newspapers and the like doesn’t automatically make you notable. Plenty of criminals are mentioned in multiple news articles; do we need an article for every single drunk driver, thief, and murderer who ends up in the local paper? I doubt it (by the way, do we have a notability criterion for criminals? We need one). The “she reflects the society of the time” argument is not a particularly convincing one, in my opinion; I reflect modern society, so why can’t there be an article on me? Centibyte ^(talk) 14:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERP for the guideline.Icewhiz (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Looking at that guideline, I see no indication that this woman passes. She’s not a celebrity, and her crimes aren’t particularly shocking or noteworthy. Centibyte ^(talk) 14:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along the lines of the similar comments above, with apologies to those who've worked on this article and put time into it. It's reasonable well-written and somewhat interesting, but it seems to fail the basic inclusion test of notability. There's practically nothing in the article that even amounts to a claim of notability; this seems to be an entirely unremarkable person who mostly escaped the attention of the media and scholars. I have to agree that if the article wasn't so developed, it would arguably be a case for speedy deletion under WP:A7. Robofish (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet notability based on how I read it, and I like there being an article such as this. Rainfall10110 (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems to meet WP:GNG. Eric Corbett 14:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Most of the opposes are "Why not me" type arguments which surely are ludicrous because this lady does in fact have some sources reporting her life and the "Why not me" people never will. There's sex workers and criminals on Wikipedia and it is not out of the ordinary for one to be a notable figure. GuzzyG (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GuzzyG Eric Corbett It does not pass GNG because there is a single source on her. In addition this source is self-published.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG - a person does not have to be famous to be notable in Wikipedia terms. There have been some incredibly weak delete arguments in this discussion, such as citing WP:NOTNEWS for a subject that died 100 years ago, and “this is the only place I’ve seen her on the internet.” Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does a single source by a self-published author qualifies for GNG ? This is a dangerous precedent to set.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the guidelines at GNG don't specifically require multiple sources, only that they are "generally expected". Multiple sources being "generally expected" rather than "mandatory" suggests that there is room for single sources to qualify a person for general notability. I would also like to make a comment that you have repeatedly stated your views on the AFD, and perhaps it's time to take a break and let the AFd proceed? I'm not sure how much more you could add to the discussion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's only a single self-published secondary source, per Icewhiz William Avery (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Icewhiz, Catlemur, Centibyte, Robofish. I have the greatest admiration for the work Iridescent does, often on relatively obscure topics, but there is, as far as I can see, no significant notability, and other than a single source and local press, there is not enough coverage of this person. If someone can once and for all show us why this person is notable — not just the social side of it — then maybe I can change my position. BTW, I completely disagree with HappyWaldo above, and I am happy to be engaged in conversation here by anyone who disagrees with my position and is happy to persuade me. Aiken D 15:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the decline in local news, one has to be relatively more remarkable in modern-day society to receive the same amount of news coverage as someone 100 years ago. If Catherine Lynch was born in the 1970s, she would likely not be considered notable according to the WP:GNG. But due to the time period of her birth she does fulfill the WP:GNG. I think this article exposes a contradiction between the application of the WP:GNG and subject-specific guidelines, whereas the general notability guidelines are in reference to secondary sources subjective perceptions of someone's achievements, the subject specific criteria are in reference to Wikipedia's perception of someone's objective achievements. Strong Neutral as policy doesn't even seem to cover this article yet. Figuring out whether we as an encyclopedia want to rely on the general notability guidelines or some vaguely defined notion of objective notability is outside the scope of this AfD. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a good article and a worthwhile read. Wikipedia shouldn't become a dull, rule-obsessed site controlled by worthy, legalistic debaters. Nice to have a small article of someone unknown like this included amongst all the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.169.114.19 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Impeccable writing on an important topic, even if that topic isn't recognized by some of our editors who are either uninterested in the poor or simply follow the old idea of history as the enumeration of the biographies of famous dead men. "no reason is given for Catherine Lynch's notability" is of course nonsense--what, we always need a "x is notable because"? The article explains it well enough: the subject is notable for having been held up as an example of "her class", and these are the kinds of things historians have been doing for the last few decades. There's a plethora of newspaper articles; these are sources that need to be written up with care, of course, because they themselves are biased and not always factually correct, but the fact that they exist is evidence of passing the GNG. As for the book, I can't see it, unfortunately, but not every non-academically published book is automatically excluded, and since the creator is--as far as I know--a decent human being and a valued long-time editor, I will accept that they made the judgment to include it carefully. Now, if we start deleting shit because there's only a few newspaper sources, that's fine and I'm all for it, but that's hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles, and this wouldn't be first on the list. Keep. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The study of history has broadened in recent deceades, to include non-prominent people, and not only in the form of overviews and statistics. The cited book is an example of this, and makes a study of Lynch among others. The extensive newspaper coverage also counts toward notability, local though it is. And the final decisive element, in my view, is the coroner's choosing to make an example of her. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:07, 11 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobin Paul

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was dePRODed by creator without addressing the issue. Concern was: Seems a little WP:TOOSOON, not much more than mentions of him can be found in the news.[1]. Seems like his career is just barely starting to take off, with most of his work scheduled in 2018. None of the sources provided are about Nobin Paul. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very new actor, with most coverage generated by early stage marketing. Fails to assert WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACTOR and subsequently WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per original prodder.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I was the original PRODer). TOOSOON and fails GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyankalalan (talk • contribs) 05:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The name-checking sources in the article are insufficient to demonstrate WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC notability. I added a source for the Kannada International Music Academy award but without evidence that this industry award is notable it too is insufficient. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 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.

The result was keep, withdrawn. There was one other delete comment, but in light of the sources brought to light by the AfD I don't think it's substantive enough to block closure. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Koroteyev

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear notability, quick search does not bring up many sources. Kees08 (Talk) 08:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Non-notable. No sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in fact speedy keep. The sources listed in the EL section already confirm that he is a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which is more than sufficient to pass WP:PROF#C3. The Russian Wikipedia article has a lot more info and sources. Several national-level awards, starting with the USSR State Prize in 1982. He has been and still is working for the Soviet/Russian space program, which probably means that most of his publications are classified. But there are lots of sources regarding him in Russian if one bothers to look. Here are some journal editorships [32], [33], [34], [35], and some examples of news coverage specifically about him [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], etc. (For those doing googling in English please note that there are several variants of transliteration for both his first and last names: Anatoly, Anatoliy, Koroteev, Koroteyev.) Sufficient to pass both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92. Bit of a lazy nomination. Even without looking for Russian sources, the national prizes, presidency of a section of RAN, and significant contributions to several areas of science (all mentioned in the article) are strong indicators of notability. A "quick search" isn't enough to delete someone's contribution to Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above this passes WP:PROF and WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Thanks for those sources Nsk92, the sources I found last night were passing mentions. I added a couple of them into the article and did a bit of a copy edit, I think it was machine translated from the Russian article. The sources from the Russian article did not machine translate well, and I could not determine if they showed notability. Maybe I should have waited on this one until I took more Russian lessons :). Withdrawing the nomination, as the subject is notable and the article has a couple of citations to show that now. Kees08 (Talk) 21:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I've not renamed the article despite sensible suggestion to do so; any editor who is familiar with the topic may directly undertake the move to the new name (if it's not controversial) or take up discussions on the talk page of the article for the proposed move. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Corbin (colonist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not meet WP:BO or WP:GNG. A family history. Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Non-notable. No sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's not that cut and dry here. This early figure in Virginia's history appears in over a 100 books ([42]) - seems that he is the founder the Virginia Corbin family, and that he was an ancestor of Robert E. Lee as well as 2 signers of the declaration of independence Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lightfoot Lee, and governors Henry Lee III, Thomas Sim Lee. Also covered in this journal article [43]. I'm qualifying my !vote as weak as I have not yet vetted all these sources, however based on sheer quantity of sources (as well as being a founding member of an important family (yes, NOTINHERITIED - however this tends to lead to coverage)) - he's probably notable.Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coverage needs to be "significant". A large volume of low-quality 'stub' type mentions of a person who existed in history doesn't automatically qualify that person for notability. As an example, the junior staff under notable flag rank officers from World War 2 aren't necessarily inherently notable even if they had been mentioned dozens of times in sources like official reports, biographies or other sources like historical articles, as working for that officer. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit beyond a stub in some of them. It is definitely not at the "no sources" level you noted above in your !vote. I am still qualifying my !vote as weak as I have not assessed in detail enough of these sources (and while some seem strong, others are clearly low-quality "weeds") - however seeing that the man's name is present in sources authored throughout two centuries (as well as being an early colonist, first in the line of an important family, and carrying out a political role at the time) - he most likely is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL #1 "provincial legislature". The JSTOR reference cited in the article [44] states: "He was a member of the House of Burgesses for Lancaster at the sessions of March 1658-9, March 1659-60, and was appointed to the Council 1663." See also Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1619-1658/59, Volume 2. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That only suggests likely notability. For such an obscure legislature I don't think it really trumps his lack of general notability. I also note there is a list List_of_members_of_the_Virginia_House_of_Burgesses which is filled with many red links, and for those that have articles, they suffer just as much from a lack of notability that many of them could suffer from the same lack of notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that serving in the first elected legislature in North America may be more "obscure" than playing for, say, the APIA Leichhardt Tigers FC, but we all have our interests. Vive la difference. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NPOL as an elected member of a provincial legislature, however early said legislature is, it still counts. I would argue that this figure meets WP:GNG anyway due to the books and research which he features in. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Related to the entry from the The Virginia Historical Magazine, he has a full entry in: Tyler, Lyon Gardiner. Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography. Vol. 1. Lewis historical publishing Company, 1915 p 128 and in a numerous less reliable genealogy books, including Hardy, Stella Pickett. Colonial Families of the Southern States of America: A History and Genealogy of Colonial Families who Settled in the Colonies Prior to the Revolution. Wright, 1911. p172. The former discusses some other official roles he played, including justice of Lancaster and then of Middlesex, and commissioner in tobacco production regulation talks with Maryland. The later calls him registrar of Middlesex County from 1663-1667, gives dates for his services as Burgess, and calls him a member of the King's Council. This last claim is repeated elsewhere and seems to be related to the "family tradition" of his relationship with Charles II, but I can't find any sources that I'd consider reliable on that point. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: "Kings council" is probably the British honorific for barristers and judges, see Queen's Counsel (currently a Queen in office), if granted the subject uses KC or QC as a post-nominal. I think it's a kind of civilian honor. Prince of Thieves (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the history of Queen's Counsel says of King's Counsel "It became of greater professional importance to become a KC" and "The earliest English law list, published in 1775, lists 165 members of the Bar, of whom 14 were King's Counsel..." so early on there doesn't seem to be many of them and if Corbin was a KC it would probably of been quite a big thing. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it there ~1700 now, but that is still a very small percentage of British lawyers. I think it is an important thing to note if it is the case, but I don't know how to verify it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this colonial context, the sources appear to be referring to the upper house of the Virginia legislature, the Virginia Governor's Council whose members were appointed by the sovereign at this time. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC) He's mentioned as "Henry Corbyn" in Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, Volume 1 (1925) p. 536 but I can't see much in the snippet view. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also on further consideration, if it was the Queen's Counsel honor, he would have the KC post-nominal, which is not used in any source. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Postnoms were rarely used in those days. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Arguments about appointments as King's or Queen's Counsel have nothing to do with this: this is a senior rank of barrister. Even if he was a KC, it would not make him notable. What does make him notable is being one of under a dozen members of the Governor's Council. In view of the book cited Rename to Henry Corbyn, which may be a more appropriate spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 18 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mutha Records

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Released EP by one notable band, only sources are questionable ones. Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Non-notable. No sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even the "one notable band" on the label turns out to have no sources at all for its Wikipedia article, and is probably an AfD candidate itself. Fails WP:NCORP. Richard3120 (talk) 22:47, 11 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Spiteri

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. This remains valid. He has still not managed a football club in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. However WP:GNG in terms of covarage is almost at reach. Seeing as he is noted in Malta Newspaper for example. --Avaay (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:

Independent - noted above, lengthy interview in national newspaper
Times of Malta - article on him leaving club
Maltese FA - interview with manager
tvm.com - Maltese language article on individual

Would assume that there is more in Maltese language sources. Fenix down (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep He may pass WP:NFOOTY as he managed a team in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA as he was the manager of a club which appeared in the Europa League (three times). SportingFlyer talk 05:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 of WP:NFOOTY is about national teams, not club teams. The phrase international match context means a match between two national teams. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was probably in there for Guadeloupe and Martinique and the like but it's not immediately clear from the context. In any case, he may actually pass WP:GNG based on the review of the articles provided by Fenix down: WP:NFOOTY presumes notability due to the high amount of coverage one gets from playing in a fully professional league or an international competition, but Spiteri has done well managing in a semi-professional league and it appears the amount of WP:N is there. Also some routine Bosnian sources from the Europa league game against Željezničar, but ones that are all about him/his interviews: [45] [46] SportingFlyer talk 02:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the GNG is irrelevant as he fails NFOOTY, which we treat as de facto exclusionary if the only claim to notability is sports, as any coverage one would receive in the papers would be routine for sports figures, and thus wouldn't go towards the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually the case, as WP:NFOOTY creates a presumption the sportsperson passes WP:GNG. There's no presumption here, so the proper question is if the person passes WP:GNG in non-routine sources. SportingFlyer talk 01:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A 30 second google news search found multiple sources that qualify him for general notability. The article needs massive improvement but the sources to prove notability exist. If possible it should be referred to a suitable project such as one based for Maltese subjects, football subjects or a combination. Qualification for WP:FOOTY is just a consensus guideline adding players to Wikipedia if they don't have general notability.Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coach Oliver Spiteri managed Malta International Team Under 17 from 2007 till 2009 as per attached links

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2007-03-31/others/footballmalta-u-17-international-tournament-171373/ https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20060705/sport/spiteri-to-coach-malta-u-17.48605 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malacin (talk • contribs) 08:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Article about football manager who hasn't managed a club in a fully-pro league, but appears to be the subject of at least one in-depth article in a reliable source (The Independent article noted by Avaay above) and two routine (has was hired.../he was fired...) articles in The Times of Malta. Almost all of the other coverage are routine match reports (and the interview with the Maltese FA is effectively a primary source since his employer is a member of the organization). I don't think this article can quite satisfy the GNG, and if others think it can, I recommend they incorporate these sources and re-work it completely. Jogurney (talk) 20:10, 14 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. Michig (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties of strategic bombing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is an incomprehensible list which doesn't even have a criteria of what it lists, which was pointed out on discussion page multiple times, not to say sources for given numbers. Qbli2mHd (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A clearer criteria should be developed (I'll note that including the Gulf war, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Second Chechen War (1999–2009), and Libyan Civil War (2011) is somewhat dubious in my eyes. Inclusion of the Syrian civil war is possible (but borderline)) - but a list of notable strategic bombing raids with a casualty count above some threshold (or Wiki standalone notability) performed as part of a strategic bombing campaign - seems to meet WP:SAL.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split -- I find the implications of conflating all kinds of military activity that results in civilian casualties disturbing. Targeting civilians is a war crime, or would have been in WWII if the concept then existed. Targeting a military installation is legitimate, as is targeting a munitions factory, also transport infrastructure to disrupt military supplies. In WWII, there were no precision targeted munitions, so that their use was not an option. In the Gulf War, the case of a precision munition that malfunctioned and thus killed civilians does not represent a war crime, because the intended target was a military one. On the other hand indiscrimate bombing in Syria and rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza are not attacks on military targets and are potentially war crimes. It is not appropriate for WP to conflate these into a single article. I appreciate that there may be political disputes as to what is and is not legitimate military action against an intended military target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entire books are written about this topic – examples include Bombing Civilians: A Twentieth-Century History; Targeting Civilians in War; and Bombs, Cities, and Civilians. The topic is therefore quite notable and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. See also we had to destroy the village to save it and note that WP:TNT is not policy. Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (no opinion on splitting/merging as needed) - It's a subject well covered and I've not yet seen a more obvious article the content belongs in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:34, 11 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ishwarchandra Ramchandra Karkare

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At first glance this is already a horribly-written advert masquerading as an encyclopaedic article. Can't find anything that actually indicates notability - works cited are either pathetically unreliable sources or dubious-looking books that only so briefly mention him (and therefore not establishing any notability). Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nom.No non-trivial hits in RS.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:25, 14 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Pioneer Tours

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a very typical PROMO page, sourced almost entirely from the company website and social media, and with the requisite "in the media" section, which is appropriate for a company website but not for an encyclopedia article. Most of the article is about Otto Warmbier incident; notability is not inherited and outside of that what is there? This needs to be redone from scratch (if it even can be). N is marginal at best and per the talk page, this has been subject to promotional pressure from its creation. It should be deleted per db-spam but it was nominated for speedy back in 2013 and declined, so AfD it is. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable. Perhaps something could be merged into Tourism in North Korea. There are related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tongil Tours and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lupine Travel. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per nom. Setting aside the travel brochure stuff the only thing that has gained attention in WP:RS is the Warmbier incident and that really isn't about the company. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

Extended content

Articles published after the Otto Warmbier incident

Shih, Gerry (2017-06-21). "Gung-ho culture at tour agency Warmbier used on North Korea trip". Chicago Tribune. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2018-02-26. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
The article notes:

Since 2008, the Young Pioneer Tours agency built up a business attracting young travelers with a competitively priced catalog of exotic-sounding, hard-partying adventures in one of the world's most isolated countries.
...
Although many details of Warmbier's fateful trip remain unknown, interviews with past Young Pioneer customers or those who have crossed paths with the tour operator describe a company with occasional lapses in organization, a gung-ho drinking culture and a cavalier attitude that has long raised red flags among industry peers and North Korea watchers.
Founded in 2008 by Briton Gareth Johnson in the central Chinese city of Xi'an, Young Pioneer's fun and casual style was seen precisely as its calling card, a counterpoint to North Korea's reputation as an inaccessible, draconian hermit kingdom.
...
But in travel circles in Beijing, the staging point for trips into North Korea, Young Pioneer Tours, also known as YPT, has been associated with a string of cautionary tales, including of the tourist who performed a handstand outside the most politically sensitive mausoleum in Pyongyang where two generations of the Kim family are buried, resulting in a North Korean guide losing her job. During another tour, Johnson attempted to step off a moving train after drinking and broke his ankle, leading to an unexpected stay at a Pyongyang hospital.
Martyn, Amy (2017-06-19). "Booze, bribes and propaganda: The company that promises 'safe' travel in North Korea". ConsumerAffairs. Archived from the original on 2018-02-26. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
The article notes:

Even a superficial look at Young Pioneer Tours, the people who brought American college student Otto Warmbier to North Korea, raises serious questions about the practices of the company that advertises "budget travel to destinations your mother would rather you stayed away from."
...
Gareth Johnson is a 36-year-old British entrepreneur and tour guide who identifies himself as the founder of Young Pioneer Tours. In previous interviews and his social media accounts, he portrays himself as a hard-partying adventurer. He briefly put on a more serious face after Warmbier's arrest, telling Reuters last year that "I stayed back [in North Korea] when I heard Otto had been detained” in order to help Warmbier, or in his words, “to try and work out what the situation was.”
Law, James (2017-06-22). "Questions over boozy culture of tour company that took Otto Warmbier to North Korea". news.com.au. Archived from the original on 2018-02-26. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
The article notes:

THE company that took American student Otto Warmbier to North Korea before his detention and death advertises itself as offering “budget travel to destinations your mother would rather you stayed away from”.
And even after their customer died following a 17-month stint behind bars in the rogue state, the tour guide’s site still says that “North Korea is probably one of the safest places on Earth to visit”.
...
Now, attention has focused on the budget tour operator that brought Mr Warmbier to the country in the first place — Young Pioneer Tours.
The China-based company announced on Monday that it would no longer accept Americans on its tours, due to the high risk to those travellers, as it faces claims that its trips have a boozy culture.
...
Despite the suggestion of the company’s boozy culture, 96 per cent of the 511 customers who left a review on TripAdvisor gave Young Pioneer Tours an “excellent” rating.
Shearlaw, Maeve (2017-06-20). "Tour firm used by Otto Warmbier stops taking US citizens to North Korea". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-02-26. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
The article notes:
Young Pioneer Tours, which also promotes tours to Eritrea and Yemen, is based in the Chinese city of Xi’an. It was founded in 2008 by British expat Gareth Johnson, promising to take adventurous travellers to “the places your mother wants you to stay away from”, including North Korea and Iran.
...
Adam Pitt, a British tourist who travelled with Young Pioneer in 2013, told Agence France-Presse that he was given little warning about the risks and described a “lewd”, “binge-drinking” culture on the trip similar to what one might expect in Europe.
Konneker, Liz (2017-06-15). "Travel Agency Specializes in Countries Mom Would Warn to 'Stay Away From'". Voice of America. Archived from the original on 2018-02-26. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
The article notes:

Young Pioneer Tours, based in Xi'an, China, describes itself as “safe and fun.” Photos from the tour company’s website and Facebook page show selfies of happy, smiling, young Westerners in the North Korean capital, Pyongyang.
...
In addition to Pyongyang, Young Pioneer Tours offers tours to Antarctica; Chernobyl, Ukraine; Afghanistan, and Eritrea. The U.S. government has issued travel warnings to the last three locations.
...
The tour company receives five-star ratings on their Facebook page and review sites, such as TripAdvisor. But a few reported uncomfortable experiences.
One user said that she and her husband had a “horrible experience.” She said a friend of a Young Pioneers Tour guide withheld her husband’s passport as a joke while the group rode a train from Pyongyang to Beijing. When the couple was unable to produce travel documents, DPRK soldiers separated and interrogated the couple.
...
VOA made numerous attempts by phone to contact Young Pioneers Tours in China and emailed their offices in Cuba, Kazhakstan and Senegal.
Kurmelovs, Royce (2016-07-07). "How a Working Class Londoner Started Running Tours Into North Korea". Vice. Archived from the original on 2018-02-27. Retrieved 2018-02-27.
The article notes:

One of those responsible for bringing people in, and out again, is Gareth Johnson. He's the founder of a company called Young Pioneer Tours, which provides "budget travel to destinations your mother would rather you stayed away from." The company started in May 2008 after Gareth found a cheaper way in through Hong Kong the first time he visited and ended up getting drunk with a North Korean "in charge of stuff."
...
The next question is one of safety. Every year thousands of people visit, and most make it out just fine, though sometimes they don't. Such was the case with 21-year-old American student Otto Frederick Warmbier, who was sentenced to 15 years hard labour in March, for allegedly attempting to steal a sign from the hotel where he was staying.
Warmbier was travelling with Gareth's company when the incident happened. He was the only person in the group stopped while trying to leave the country. It's a situation I was curious about, but Gareth refused to discuss in much detail out of concern for Warmbier's safety.
Russell, Kent (2018-01-25). "The Disaster Tourist". HuffPost. Archived from the original on 2018-02-27. Retrieved 2018-02-27.
The article notes:

The negative press coverage, the group’s own tone-deaf communiques, motherloving Gareth—all of it pointed to YPT being a clutch of maladaptive nihilists who made good money escorting louche tools to the most politically and culturally sensitive locations on the planet. Even their name was off-putting. The Young Pioneers had been the Communists’ child indoctrination wing, something like the Boy Scouts (or Hitler Youth) for would-be apparatchiks. Yet somehow, this shoestring-budgeted company promising “to take you safely and cheaply through any place on the planet that your mother would like you to stay away from!” had earned a perfect 5.0 score on TripAdvisor.
Which is to say that somewhere along the line there, I signed up for YPT’s inaugural Caucasus Combo tour. I don’t know—it was late at night, and I was in deep. This two-week, $2,540 trip was part of a larger Summer Soviet package that would begin in Chernobyl, stop in Moscow (where I’d join up), ramble through the Chechen Republic and then drop into the diplomatically unrecognized Republic of South Ossetia. Come mid-August, the Young Pioneers would be the first group of international yahoos to have toured the latter two republics. Assuming everything went according to plan, of course.
And what a plan it was. Eight days after Otto’s death, my putative guide Shane, an Irishman one year my senior, was responding to my visa-application queries with answers like “You can use fake hotels” and “Handle that independently.” He enjoined me to present the Russian embassy with a bogus itinerary centered around bus tours in Estonia. At no point during this process was any peep made as to the State Department’s warning:[2] “Do not travel to Chechnya or any other areas in the North Caucasus region. If you reside in these areas depart immediately.” As for the South Caucasus, well: “U.S. Embassy personnel are restricted from travel to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, even in the case of emergencies involving U.S. citizens … There are no commercial airports in either region making air ambulance evacuations impossible during medical emergencies.”
In other words, it was profoundly stupid—nay, monumentally irresponsible—for an American to go traipsing along these geopolitical fault lines. I knew this journey was selfish to the point where I could very well affect international relations. That I could be justly portrayed on TV as one more callous and/or terminally privileged dingus who had viewed the prospect of his death as a feature and not a bug. I knew this—as I suppose Otto knew, on some level, the risks that went along with his own YPT trip.
Wright, Paul (2017-09-15). "Tour company offers Westerners chance to toil in North Korean rice fields". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2018-03-13. Retrieved 2018-03-13.
The article notes:

The six-day "Farming Volunteer Program" takes tourists on an agricultural-themed trip to the outskirts of Pyongyang, where they will get "down and dirty" transplanting rice by hand and doing "odd jobs" around the field.
...
the organiser, Young Pioneer Tours (YPT), says on its website.
...
At a price of €1,195 (£1,055, $1,430), YPT claims proceeds for the non-profit trip will be used to buy goods and petrol for farmers in the famine-ridden and fuel-scarce county.
It is the fourth such trip to be offered by YPT, with previous excursions said to have been a "wild success".

Articles published before the Otto Warmbier incident

Woo, Jaeyeon (2011-01-26). "Juche! NK Trip Features Ideology Lessons". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-02-26. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
The article notes:

That’s what’s on offer from Young Pioneer Tours, a budget travel company based in China, which is offering a week-long trip to North Korea called “March Juche Idea and Korean Language Study Tour.”
The spring trip includes one full day and two half day lectures on Juche ideology by North Korean Workers Party members, says Gareth Johnson, Managing Director of Young Pioneers.
...
Young Pioneers started in May 2008 and took about a hundred independent travelers and six tourist groups to North Korea last year.
Kang, Tae-jun (2014-03-17). "Tours to N. Korean border town now possible via two companies". NK News. Archived from the original on 2018-02-26. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
The article notes:
North Korea has allowed foreign tourists from a second Western travel agency to stay overnight in the border town of Sinuiju, the Washington D.C. based Radio Free Asia (RFA) reported last Tuesday.
Young Pioneer Tours (YPT), a China based company that specializes in tours to North Korea, told RFA last week that tourists would now be able to stay overnight in Sinuiju, to have a better chance of seeing what daily life is like on North Korea’s border with China.
The development makes YPT the the second company to offer tours to the seldom visited town: in December the Beijing-based Koryo Tours became the first Western travel company to offer visitors the opportunity of staying overnight in Sinuiju, a town located opposite the Chinese city of Dandong rarely visited by Westerners.
"NK Tour Operator Launches Iran Service". NK News. 2012-01-31. Archived from the original on 2018-02-26. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
The article notes:

Young Pioneer Tours, a British company that has been providing tours to North Korea since 2008, has just announced the launch its Iran service. Their inaugural Iran tour is set to take place the same week as North Korea’s much anticipated Juche 2012 celebrations in April 2012. But what is there in Iran that would be of interest to North Korea watchers – one of the group’s that Young Pioneer Tours is currently targeting with its new Persian itinerary. Well, beyond suspicions over the two countries’ nuclear and missile programs, NK News wanted to find out why Young Pioneer Tours had decided to move into the Iran market.
Wood, Drew (2013-06-22). "Vacations to North Korea Exist, And You Can Go On One!". Thrillist. Archived from the original on 2018-02-26. Retrieved 2018-02-26.
The article notes:

The majority of YP's offerings are guided group tours, both starting & ending in Beijing. Accommodations & some food/drink are included, as is the all-important acquiring of NK tourist visas.
Young Pioneer reckons they've got the first-ever North Korea fishing tour, and they'll take you to all the honey holes around Pyongyang, Sijung Lagoon, and Wonsan.
Turns out DPRK is loaded with solid booze, and one of the specialty tours Young Pioneer offers is all about that fact. You'll hit Sinuiju Micro-Brewery, Raekwon Beer Bar, something called "Bar Street", Pyongyang's only nightclub, and a casino -- in addition to partaking in a five-bar Pyongyang pub crawl.
Yu, Agnes (2012-07-24). "Across the border and into the North". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2018-02-27. Retrieved 2018-02-27.
The article notes:

Meet Gareth Johnson. He’s been to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) a.k.a. North Korea, 31 times and if you’d like, he can take you there. Tourist travel to North Korea is only possible as part of a guided tour and that’s what Johnson does ― organizes group or individual tours.
As the managing director and founder of Young Pioneer Tours which currently ranks the second largest agency taking people into the North, Johnson has so far organized over 200 tours and arranged for some 1500 people to visit the isolated regime just across the 38th parallel.
Johanson, Mark (2014-04-14). "How Pyongyang Marathon Highlights North Korea's Tourism Ambitions". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2018-03-13. Retrieved 2018-03-13.
The article notes:

Even if its ambitions don’t match its actions, North Korea has succeeded in one thing: piquing the curiosity of would-be tourists. Koryo Tours and Young Pioneer Tours, the two largest companies ushering foreigners into the country, report numbers up year-on-year. Both justify their controversial tours by explaining that face-to-face interactions encourage dialog and exchanges with everyday North Koreans that can lead to a more productive way of working together. Critics, however, aren’t convinced.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Young Pioneer Tours to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at all of those sources (many of the urls you provided are dead links, but most of the "originals" work). Each of the pre-Otto Warmbier sources is just mirroring a press release from the company, and we generally do not regard those as independent for company pages. The ones post-Warmbier, when read in their entirety, are all framed as negative portrayals of the company in the aftermath of his death. I suppose we could use them to justify a page about Criticism of Young Pioneer Tours, but I wouldn't want to do that. And to use them to present a neutral description of the company would not really represent the sources as they are. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding dead links, are you unable to access the archiving service WebCite? I am able to. None of the links are dead links for me.

The sources presented here contain a mix of positive and negative material. It is possible to write a balanced article about Young Pioneer Tours that is neither overwhelmingly negative nor overwhelmingly positive. The article would discuss Young Pioneer Tour's history and services (non-negative material) and the Warmbier incident and binge-drinking culture (negative material).

Cunard (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources to the list of sources I provided above. One source is from HuffPost's Highline (a magazine with "a narrowly focused goal: a single, nuanced, big-picture feature each week"). In the article, "YPT" and "Young Pioneer" are mentioned 43 times in total. At over 12,000 words, the article discusses the novelist Kent Russell's experience with Young Pioneer Tours. Here is an excerpt:

The negative press coverage, the group’s own tone-deaf communiques, motherloving Gareth—all of it pointed to YPT being a clutch of maladaptive nihilists who made good money escorting louche tools to the most politically and culturally sensitive locations on the planet. Even their name was off-putting. The Young Pioneers had been the Communists’ child indoctrination wing, something like the Boy Scouts (or Hitler Youth) for would-be apparatchiks. Yet somehow, this shoestring-budgeted company promising “to take you safely and cheaply through any place on the planet that your mother would like you to stay away from!” had earned a perfect 5.0 score on TripAdvisor.
Which is to say that somewhere along the line there, I signed up for YPT’s inaugural Caucasus Combo tour. I don’t know—it was late at night, and I was in deep. ...
Eight days after Otto’s death, my putative guide Shane, an Irishman one year my senior, was responding to my visa-application queries with answers like “You can use fake hotels” and “Handle that independently.” ...
In other words, it was profoundly stupid—nay, monumentally irresponsible—for an American to go traipsing along these geopolitical fault lines. I knew this journey was selfish to the point where I could very well affect international relations. That I could be justly portrayed on TV as one more callous and/or terminally privileged dingus who had viewed the prospect of his death as a feature and not a bug. I knew this—as I suppose Otto knew, on some level, the risks that went along with his own YPT trip.

The article contains factual information that can be used to expand the article:

"Until Otto’s death, trips to North Korea had made up some 70 to 80 percent of YPT’s business."
"Now, YPT is the second-biggest player in North Korean tourism behind Koryo Tours."
"the company has earned a huge repeat-customer business"
"almost every YPT guide has been drawn from its customer base"

This article was published 25 January 2018, over six months after Warmbier's June 2017 death. The extensive nuanced analysis by Kent Russell in a feature magazine article clearly establishes that Young Pioneer Tours has enduring notability.

Cunard (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so we have one - precisely one - very good ref, that is nonetheless "hooked" on the Warmbier incident. This bumps the needle but not much. Doesn't change my !vote. Thanks for bringing it though. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort to find more sourcing; I really do. And I recognize that this pushes the notability issue into a subjective zone, rather than a lopsided one. But I still feel similarly to what Jytdog just said. If I read what you quote as it was written in context, the indications of notability are consequences of the Warmbier incident: of your numbered quotes, #1 and #2 indicate that the increase of business was a result of that incident and the negative publicity it attracted. Whether or not it marginally satisfies GNG, we may keep it but we don't have to keep it. Note in particular that WP:INHERITORG, and to some extent WP:ILLCON by implication, indicate that coverage as a result of the Warmbier incident should be treated as less significant than truly substantial coverage would be. As far as I can see, it would be more encyclopedic to merge some of this new material into Tourism in North Korea and Arrest and death of Otto Warmbier. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "the increase of business was a result of that incident and the negative publicity it attracted", I do not get that impression from reading the HuffPost article and other sources. Quote #1 does not say anything about an increase in business. It just says "trips to North Korea had made up some 70 to 80 percent of YPT’s business" before Warmier's death. This does not say whether business increased, decreased, or stayed the same after the incident.

This 2012 article in The Korea Times said Young Pioneer Tours "currently ranks the second largest agency taking people into the North". So quote #2 applied both in 2012 before the Warmbier incident and in 2018 after the incident. The 2012 article noted that the company's founder "organized over 200 tours and arranged for some 1500 people to visit the isolated regime just across the 38th parallel".

I don't consider WP:INHERITORG to apply here. The guideline says in part (my bolding):

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable.

My reading of the guideline is that Young Pioneer Tours "is not notable merely because it is associated with the Warmbier incident". Instead, Young Pioneer Tours is notable because "the organization or corporation itself was discussed in reliable independent sources".

I do not consider WP:ILLCON ("Illegal conduct") to apply either because the sources do not allege that Young Pioneer Tours has engaged in illicit conduct. The sources just disapprove of Young Pioneer Tours' culture of binge drinking and its motto of "budget travel to destinations your mother would rather you stayed away from".

I agree that merging the material to Tourism in North Korea and Arrest and death of Otto Warmbier would be preferable over deletion. However, I think there is enough material to write a balanced standalone article, and I think that a merge would either result either in the loss of encyclopedic content or in undue weight in the merge target.

Cunard (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we just disagree and are probably splitting hairs. But I think you are missing the point on INHERITORG and ILLCON. For the former, I can illustrate it this way: There is no question that Otto Warmbier has been covered in more than enough independent and reliable sources to satisfy GNG. But we do not have a biography page for him. His name is a redirect to the page about the incident. There are good editorial reasons to do it that way. Just because we can have a page about something does not mean that we must. In this case, the fact that a lot of the coverage of the company results from the incident is a minus, not disqualifying, but a minus. (And The Korea Times is pretty much a local source. I'm pretty sure that most tour guide companies where we do have standalone pages get a lot more customers.) As for ILLCON, of course I understand that there was nothing illegal. That's why I said "to some extent... by implication". What I meant is that when the coverage is in many cases unflattering or critical, which is what we have here, the fact that the company has been portrayed negatively does not mean that all those portrayals demonstrate notability as a company. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned briefly that I thought that most tour companies that we consider to be notable have more customers, so I thought I should look to see if that is true. I did a quick scan through Category:Travel and holiday companies of the United States for pages that give specific numbers. Although this is obviously not a comprehensive analysis, I found that Adventure Life has 24,000 clients, Boston Duck Tours carries 600,000 per year, and Group Voyagers has 500,000 passengers per year. In contrast, Young Pioneer Tours has 1,500 clients according to The Korea Times. That's a tremendous difference, and is evidence against this company being notable as a travel company. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the page has been rewritten by Cunard, I went back and reexamined it with the improved sourcing. It does not change my mind. I've gone through every source, numbered as they are as of this version:

Wall Street Journal: a mirror of a company press release. Although the source is obviously a reliable one, they often run these kinds of announcements provided by companies.
The Guardian: coverage of the Warmbier incident, source would not exist on the basis of the company alone.
Vice: another routine mirror.
NK News: local coverage.
New York Times: about the Warmbier incident.
Thrillist: minor, niche source.
KM Group: local coverage.
Huff Post: about the Warmbier incident.
NK News: local coverage.
LA Times: about the Warmbier incident.
PRI: about multiple tourism companies, only a passing mention.
Voice of America: some specific coverage, but also in the Warmbier context.
Wall Street Journal: about the Warmbier incident.
Euronews: about multiple tourism companies, only a passing mention.
Chicago Tribune: about the Warmbier incident.
Consumer Affairs: warning about the company after the incident.

That's every source, after a rewrite intended to save the page. (The "original, archived from" URL links work, but the WebCitation ones are dead for me.) Even if one can cherrypick interesting lines from such sources, they do not establish notability. The fact that better sourcing could not be found really does convince me that the subject is not notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, I don't agree that NK News or The Korea Times are "local" sources (in the WP:AUD sense). NK News is a specialist website for North Korean studies. Yes, the very subject matter is geographically restricted, but the website is not, neither contributors or the audience. It would be illogical to claim that entire worldwide academic disciplines are unable to produce anything other than "local" sources. The Korea Times, on the other hand is a national newspaper. Because the paper is in English, its audience is both expats all over South Korea and specialist audiences abroad. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there is room here for disagreement. For whatever it may be worth, if I give you those two citations, that still leaves 14 others. Even setting aside the specific issue of these sources, I think my observation about the relatively small client base is valid, as is my view that the material would be better merged into those two other pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard who has demonstrated the existence of GNG sourcing. It's clear that coverage goes further than run of the mill business/travel news, with or without the Warmbier incident. Promotional tone and use of non-independent sources in the article should be addressed, but this is not the place for it; WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP.– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree with your analysis. The article has significant room for improvement in incorporating the sources I presented above and rewording and in removing any promotional material. Cunard (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am convinced by Tryptofish's arguments regarding WP:INHERITORG. Without the Warmbier's affair, the company's notability is borderline at best. We usually delete articles about borderline-notable companies where, as in this case, there are significant WP:PROMO concerns. This follows from the WP:ATD policy which states "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD".

It seems to me that it would have taken far less time to rewrite the article to a policy-compliant form than was spent on this deletion discussion. So either it is not possible to do the rewrite (subject not notable) or this is less about this particular article and more about the general principle of whether we should delete promotional articles, in which case I'm all the more firmly in favour of deletion. Rentier (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it would have taken far less time to rewrite the article to a policy-compliant form than was spent on this deletion discussion. – this is a very good point.
I have rewritten the article.
Cunard (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent keep - I'm not a fan of WP:BOGOF situations, but Cunard has done a commendable job at both finding sources and rewriting the article. I'm not terribly sympathetic to an argument that says essentially "if we discount these certain sources [which could otherwise be used combined with others to write a well sourced neutral article] then we can't write a well sourced neutral article". Fact of the matter is we can write it, as evidenced by it having ... been written (verb tense is hard). Many of the sources uncovered and currently used are not about the one incident directly and entirely, even though most or all of them may mention it, as one would expect them to. If these were all sources talking entirely about the incident that only mentioned the company in passing, that would be different, but that's not what we have.

Again, I don't enjoy rewarding paid editing by throwing volunteer time at it to gift wrap the article they wanted to begin with, but if I was unaware of that history, and we were talking about an article that Cunard started and wrote from scratch, I'd be hard pressed to find a convincing argument that we shouldn't keep it. I wish we had some broader solution that means we don't find ourselves in these situations, but I don't know what that solution is, and at least for the time being, here we are. GMG ^talk 12:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with "Many of the sources uncovered and currently used are not about the one incident directly and entirely, even though most or all of them may mention it, as one would expect them to", particularly with regard to the HuffPost article.

With regard to "I don't enjoy rewarding paid editing by throwing volunteer time at it to gift wrap the article they wanted to begin with", I do not think paid editors want a neutral article that discusses unflattering information about the company published by ConsumerAffairs, the Associated Press, and HuffPost.

Cunard (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo wrote that comment before I posted my analysis of the sources, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did. And I don't agree with your analysis. As a few of examples, the PRI source isn't passing mention, it's almost 400 words over nine paragraphs. I'm not sure how you dismiss NK News as local coverage... given that they are based in Seoul, with staff in DC and London, reporting on a Chinese company, founded by a guy from Kent, best known for trips to North Korea. I'm not sure what you base your assessment of Thrillist on either. They've not won any Pulitzers I'm sure. But, seems like a pretty run-of-the-mill mid-sized online media site. Majority owned by Discovery. Currently the 543rd ranked site in the US according to Alexa. A full page dedicated article in the WSJ is... a full dedicated article in the WSJ. Similar for the full article in Vice. It looks an awful lot like they wrote about the topic because they thought it was interesting. That's not quite the same thing as wholesale reprinting a press release with a tiny "from press release" disclaimer at the bottom you hope no one will notice. Both the WSJ and Vice pieces also predate Warmbier's death.

Beyond that, local coverage, niche coverage, partial coverage, and coverage about an event may not establish notability if any one of them was all there was, but they don't get wiped off the ledger for GNG as long as they're otherwise reliable, because they're still sources you can use to write a well sourced neutral article with. There's also a lot of additional coverage that I don't personally care to go through on searches where you filter out Warmbier's name altogether, including a lot of non-English sources we haven't addressed at all. But I suppose that's as much as I'll get into that, because I'd personally rather continue looking through old newspaper articles about a funeral that happened in 1913. GMG ^talk 19:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, we can certainly disagree. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of it. On the PRI source, when you say there are "nine paragraphs", most of those paragraphs are one or two sentences in a transcript of a radio report. And I never said that the WSJ and Vice pieces were not pre-Warmbier. But more to the point, in my opinion, even if a page passes GNG, that means that we may keep it, not that we must. The aspects of the WSJ and Vice pieces that you cite, as well as Thrillist for that matter, would make very good sense to merge into Tourism in North Korea, because that's very much what they are about. As a tourism company, this is one with a small client base in a small market. I think that if the page were written pre-Warmbier with only the pre-Warmbier sources, and if this AfD discussion were pre-Warmbier, editors would say that this simply isn't a sufficiently significant company for a standalone page, even with multiple sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add to the last point I made, that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tongil Tours and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lupine Travel have both been closed as "delete", and really the only difference between those and this one is that this is the company that Warmbier traveled with. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And for that you're probably right. But if the focus is on whether a neutral well sourced article can be written which would be of benefit for readers, on an article (I know page views don't count for N but they do count for purpose of making more knowledge more free for more people) which has received an average of 74 page views per day following the post news feed spike last June, the fact of the matter is that it can be written in a way that is policy compliant. So it should be written. That's foundational to the project, and doesn't have anything to do with whether it would have been deleted three years ago, and then subsequently kept if recreated in its present form now. GMG ^talk

And that's a valid point, about page views and reader interest. My argument isn't that it should be deleted because it would have been deleted three years ago, but that the fact that it probably would have been deleted three years ago means that we should evaluate whether what has transpired since then establishes notability for the company separately from the notability of the incident. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tryptofish's arguments, which are more well put together than mine would be, and which I endorse. Notability is not inherited, and what we have here is essentially inherited coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A company is not inherently notable just because it exists and does stuff. "Significant coverage" to me implies a level of detailed coverage about the company itself, in and of itself. Not inherited notability from an incident that happened to someone who used that company. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: none of the sources imply the company is notable on its own. SportingFlyer talk 22:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning delete I came here primarily to deliver the recommended (but not yet required) notification that this discussion has been linked to on the "Rescue List".[47] Anyway, I would imagine that if sources exist on this company that are not focused on the Warmbier incident (or providing "background" to that incident with superficial coverage inspired primarily by that incident), they would likely be in either Chinese or Korean, not English. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources provided by Cunard pass are requirements for WP:GNG, this company has received signficant coverage and in this esoteric field, makes is notable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has their people quoted in a lot of news articles about the North Korea tourists bit. [48] I see significant coverage in The Irish Times [49] having a full size article about Young Pioneer Tours. More significant coverage found at KentOnline [50] where they interviewed the founder. So it passes the WP:GNG Dream Focus 02:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above comment has been altered[51] and originally contained a really obvious and embarrassing misreading of the Irish Times piece. It still is wrong (the article is not about Young Pioneer Tours; it is about Shane Horan and his life/work in North Korea, and only names his employer once), but it should really be noted that the editor did not read the sources before citing them. The KentOnline source is also already cited in the article and has been for more than a week.[52] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"obvious and embarrassing misreading"? What is wrong with you? I had two news articles opened at once, and I got them mixed up while quickly writing this. A simple mistake. Why would anyone being embarrassed by a simple mistake? Dream Focus 16:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the tone. You didn't actually read either of the sources before jumping here and linking them. Incrementally "fixing" your !vote to obscure that fact doesn't change that. And this is a recurring, apparently chronic problem with your edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian piece is exactly what we mean by "passing mention". Interviews can count toward notability if there is a significant piece of independent reporting along with it; the Irish Times piece is just an interview so doesn't count toward N. Kentonline is local. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Irish Times interview would count towards notability. No reason why it shouldn't. And Kentonline is not some small local paper. The Wikipedia article for it says: KM Media Group's main consumer website is KentOnline.co.uk, launched in 1998.[7] The website offers local news, travel, jobs, motors, holidays and other features. As of 2017 the site attracts over 2.7 million monthly unique browsers.[8]. So millions of people use it as a source of information. Dream Focus 03:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say "yes" about the Irish Times? It is not WP:ORGIND. There is no independent reporting in it. And kentonline is local to Kent per its name - it even is chatty local "Meanwhile, in Lordswood, Gareth Johnson wants to show people a different side to the country. One that is friendly, tolerant and relaxed.". What the hell is "Lordswood"? Got me. I am not from there. . Whatever, some people want to be loose with the notability standards and will read hard against the guidelines. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count local coverage where they only report on local businesses. This isn't some small town talking about the local chicken farm or whatnot. Dream Focus 04:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Would you please read sources before coming here and saying "Look at these sources! GNG!"? Shane Horan is not "the founder" of "the company", and I can tell you from experience that the Irish media interviewing and profiling a Paddy who lives in Asia and has an interesting job is not enough to make his employer satisfy GNG. This is like the fourth time in the last month I've seen you make this kind of embarrassing mistake. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned Shane Horan. What are you talking about? The KentOnline source I linked to [53] talks to "Gareth Johnson" and says "The 34-year-old set up Young Pioneer Tours in 2008 after working as an English teacher in China". I see I had both sources open at once, and originally listed the other one is interviewing the founder. Simple mistake, now corrected. Dream Focus 09:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind striking your first two sentences, or at least adding "edited" to the time stamp in your signature? It's generally considered poor form to retract a response to someone without actually acknowledging that you are retracting it.[54] Your initial post, to which I was responding, explicitly referred (until you altered it after the fact) to the Irish Times interviewee (whom you did not name, but he is Shane Horan) as the company's founder. Right now, "What are you talking about?" doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless one looks at this AFD's page history very closely. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find more good sources such as The Routledge Handbook of Tourism in Asia. Andrew D. (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: That source appears to completely contradict our article regarding what "Young Pioneer Tours" even is, almost to the point of making me think they are talking about a completely different topic. Is YPT a North Korean product marketed by travel agencies as Routledge says, or is it a Chinese travel agency as we say? It would be very helpful if you would read the sources and report back on what they actually say, rather than just assuming they all provide significant, relevant coverage, copy-pasting the GBooks links, and auto-!voting "keep". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source is an excellent one for our purpose as it demonstrates that YPT is not just a particular tour company but is a more general tourism concept promoted by the Korean govt. By following such sources we develop our understanding and coverage of the topic. This is not a problem; it's our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]
"Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing."

So ... you are saying the article should be scrapped and rewritten, as the popular media sources (or our interpretation of them) are contradicted by the superior scholarly sources? Can you explain the discrepancy, preferably with sources that do so explicitly rather than, as you appeared to advocate for in another recent AFD, engaging in WP:SYNTH? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard has already done good work in expanding and improving the article, doubling its size since it was nominated. My point is that there is still more to find and do. Here's another good source which demonstrates the potential of the topic: China-to-North Korea Tourism. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The book source says:
A tourism product called "Juche study was permitted. … As it targets young Westerns, the tourism product was named "Young Pioneer Tours" and is sold by travel agencies.
...
In June 2012, "Young Pioneer Tours", a travel agency which specializes in tours to North Korea, posted an advertisement on its homepage promoting golf products in Pyongyang.
The source says the name "Young Pioneer Tours" refers to both a tourism product and a travel agency so there is no contradiction with the Wikipedia article. The Wall Street Journal in this article discusses "Young Pioneer Tours, a budget travel company based in China" and "Juche" study.
Cunard (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should start an office pool as to how many more times this discussion will be relisted. Anyway, I want to underline something that was mentioned above: that the comments here as of 12 March result from a posting to the Article Rescue Squad. Now, that said, I've reviewed all of the new sources that have been proposed here. The Guardian piece only mentions the company in passing, but is not at all about the company. The Irish Times and Kent Online pieces are both interviews in the mold of "local boy makes good": they both emphasize that the person being interviewed is from their area of local coverage. The Routledge Handbook is really very much about Tourism in North Korea, rather than specifically about this company, as is the ProQuest source, which does not even mention the company in its abstract. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in North Korea is not some unrelated topic; it is the essence of what this organisation does. That fact that these respectable sources highlight and detail the activities of the company demonstrate that it is notable. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one of many companies that offer this kind of tourism (cf Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tongil Tours and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lupine Travel), so the sources demonstrate notability for the Tourism in North Korea page, not this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "just one of many companies that offer this kind of tourism". From the International Business Times at http://www.ibtimes.com/how-pyongyang-marathon-highlights-north-koreas-tourism-ambitions-1571100, "Koryo Tours and Young Pioneer Tours, the two largest companies ushering foreigners into the country, report numbers up year-on-year."
Koryo Tours and Young Pioneer Tours are different from the other two companies mentioned because they are the market leaders for foreign travel to North Korea. For example, the Time magazine article at http://world.time.com/2013/12/01/detention-of-85-year-old-hasnt-stopped-tourists-from-traveling-to-north-korea/ discusses only Koryo Tours and Young Pioneer Tours when considering what impact the detention in 2013 of an 85-year-old had on tourists' traveling to North Korea. That article does not discuss Tongil Tours or Lupine Travel.
Cunard (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you conveniently left out is that the IBT piece only comes to the two companies very late in an article that is focused on the use of a marathon by the North Korean regime to get favorable attention, and follows the information about the two companies with the statement that "Critics, however, aren't convinced." And the Time piece makes it clear that Koryo is more than double the size of YPT. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- very much of an aside to this specific AfD, but if the practice of participants in the "rescue squad" wikiproject is to show up at AfDs and !vote keep, this is not good and we should perhaps consider MfDing the wikiproject. Showing up and editing high quality content based on high quality refs to render the AfD moot would be entirely different (authentic "rescue") (and would take much more work and care). Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- coverage is incidental to Arrest and death of Otto Warmbier; the company is not independently notable. Name could be redirected to Arrest and death of Otto Warmbier. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Andrew D. and Dream Focus for the sources you found.
This extensive article in the HuffPost is not incidental to Arrest and death of Otto Warmbier. Published in 2018 six months after Warmbier's death, it extensively profiles Young Pioneer. South Korean sources like NK News and The Korea Times are not local sources for a Chinese company founded by a British man and primarily operating in North Korea. Saying they are local sources is like saying The New York Times is a local source for Washington, D.C. topics or the London-based The Times is a local source for Aberdeen topics.
Here are three more sources published before the Warmbier incident:
1. Rauhala, Emily (2013-12-01). "Detention of 85-Year-Old Hasn't Stopped Tourists From Traveling to North Korea". Time. Archived from the original on 2018-03-13. Retrieved 2018-03-13.
  The article notes:
  
  But people are going. China-based tour operators that specialize in taking foreigners to North Korea say the ordeal of the 85-year-old Newman has not deterred travelers. Beijing-based Koryo Tours and Xian-based Young Pioneer Tours both have had groups in North Korea since his detention, and have more trips scheduled between now and year’s end. Koryo has not had a single cancellation; Young Pioneer had one, but insists they aren’t worried.
  ...
  Koryo’s tours took roughly 2,400 people this year, Young Pioneer another 1,000. Each say about a quarter of their clients are from the U.S. Many are drawn to North Korea by curiosity, while some are “country collectors,” checking locations off their list. There are thrill seekers too. Young Pioneer’s website promises to take travelers “where others fear to tread.” Another slogan: “Taking you to the places your mother would rather you stayed away from.”
  ...
  ...
  Both Koryo and Young Pioneer have December tours scheduled and will push ahead as planned.
  ...
  That won’t happen in time for Young Pioneer’s New Year’s Eve trip, but the itinerary is shaping up nicely, says White. Young Pioneer has 2o people signed up to party in Pyongyang.
2. Mellor, Richard (2015-12-14). "Rise of the ANTI-TOUR; Seek out the dark, the grim and the grimy in these tours designed to leave the herd behind, says Richard Mellor Slums, sleaze and refugees". Metro.
  The article notes:
  
  'WE offer budget trips to destinations your mother would rather you stayed away from,' says China-based Young Pioneer Tours, which is run by a motley team of ex-pats. Specialising in North Korean itineraries, YPT also sends guided, mostly twentysomething groups to Turkmenistan, East Timor, Chernobyl and Chinese ghost towns. It also offers Caucasus and Unrecognised Countries tour, which pairs two self-declared republics, Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia.
  New for 2016 is a six-day trip to another rogue nation, Africa's Somaliland, offering the brave a chance to visit imprisoned pirates and to celebrate Independence Day with shisha-smoking locals.
3. Wrathall, Claire (2013-06-15). "New wave of cruise hotspots for 2013; Different ports of call". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2018-03-13.
  The article notes:
  
  North Korea The "Hermit Kingdom" is also beginning to market itself as a cruise destination for the Chinese. Young Pioneer Tours (based in China but founded by a team from the UK, US and New Zealand) offers seven nights aboard the Polish-built 177-cabin Royale Star. From the Rason Special Economic Zone, near the border with China and Russia, you'll sail to Mount Kumgang, a golf resort established amid sensational mountain scenery in 1998 with South Korean money and jointly operated by the two nations in a rare gesture of rapprochement.
Cunard (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout my long time as an editor, I have never cared about the deletionist/inclusionist politics, and I've always tried to come to AfDs simply trying to figure out what is the best editorial choice. And here, I have been very careful to focus on the sources and present them as what they really say. But my experience in this AfD has been nothing like anything that I have ever seen before. The amount of space-filling filibustering that can be seen above, along with what can only be described as canvassing, is appalling. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. Also some said keep before the ARS was notified, and afterwards two people from it showed up and gave reasons to keep and at least one person showed up after seeing the notice there and said delete. There is no canvassing. The coverage found clearly passes WP:GNG as others have said already. Dream Focus 19:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody needs to lecture me on AGF. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about edit warring and posting on someone's talk page to get them to help you so you don't technically break the rules?[55] Dream Focus 19:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above timeline is clearly contradicted by Tryptofish's edit history, which shows he commented twice on Jytdog's talk page, and neither comment made any reference to the ARS CoC template (rather indicating that they had spent a good bit of time reading through a long VPM discussion of ARS), then half an hour later made an edit to the template and mentioned that on Jytdog's talk page because the edit had spun out of that discussion. @Dream Focus: Please retract your clearly groundless accusation, as it is considered a violation of our "no personal attacks" policy to make such accusations. If you do not, a request will very likely be made that you be blocked from editing, as this is clearly a recurring problem with you and you have not been learning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Tryptofish posted on that talk page [56] at 8:58, 13 March 2018 :I was quickly reverted, big surprise. It would be good if other editors would keep an eye on this. And of course, these other editors went from that page to there to edit war the idiotic changes into the template of a wikiproject they clearly hate and have never been a part of. Dream Focus 23:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah -- he provided an update after having already mentioned it on the talk page. And which "these other editors"? Only one editor who was active on Jytdog's talk page has edited the template in the meantime. You know quite well that Godric has his own issues ARS (or, perhaps more properly, the abuse of ARS by certain disruptive editors who auto-!vote keep in AFDs they have not understood, and misrepresent sources while doing so), so it would make a lot more sense for him to have noticed your mention of it on the ARS talk page, or Jytdog's mention of it on your talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about assuming good faith? If you don't like it, ANI is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources quoted above simply reaffirm my support for this deletion. If obvious advertising and trivial coverage is all that can be found in a last ditch effort to save a non-notable firm, then it should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:INHERITORG and WP:ORGDEPTH as others have mentioned above due to lack of in-depth mention by sources not realted to Otto Warmbier. I haven't seen anything in the support votes that would indicate notability either with that in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments regarding WP:INHERITORG and WP:ORGDEPTH as Kingofaces43 directly above, and several other editors have also pointed to, are the most cogent rationales regarding this article. I like K.e.coffman's alternate of redirecting to the Wambier death article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ORGDEPTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. The Warmbier tragedy triggered the greatest interest in the company, but the company has subsequently been profiled in detail by the media, with info about its founding and founder. Sadly, while the company and its business model may bother people, Young Pioneer Group has become the second largest company to offer tours to North Korea. That's notable. Here's more info about the company failing to prepare tourists, from The Cavalier Daily [[57]]. Here are some reliable sources with news (mostly brief but not all short) of the company, predating the Warmbier tragedy, which weakens the argument that the company's notability is purely from the tragedy.[[58]][[59]][[60]][[61]][[62]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at every source that has been brought up in this AfD discussion. It's true that the Cavalier Daily piece is focused on YPT. But the others, some of which have already been discussed here, are sources that cover YPT as part of coverage of multiple tourism companies, sometimes giving more space to other companies than to YPT. And the China Digital Times source hardly even mentions YPT. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I !voted keep, and it's not going to hurt my feelings one way or the other, but we are really making this hell on whatever poor soul has to close this. GMG ^talk 03:15, 19 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. Sandstein 09:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Crowther

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. The best coverage available is the mentions in relation to student loans, but that is clearly not enough to meet WP:BIO. @Elmidae: RE "notability appears established with the award & Forbes coverage" Business awards are two-a-penny and are often just the result of buying an expensive gala ticket. Neither of those seem like important awards and the references are primary sources. The Forbes "coverage" is just a photo of him - i.e. not substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it; not my area of expertise at all. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another run-of-the-mill small entrepreneur. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Run of the mill" is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON and there's no problem with being small so long as there is coverage in reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is a valid reason. Admins read the reasoning behind the vote and are expected to look for policy based reasons, even if the ALLCAPS isn't cited. I'm assuming Calton was saying that the coverage was routine and run of the mill, which is a perfectly valid reason to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage appears to meet WP:GNG as sources are reliable and these are not passing mentions. I'd like to know why it was "not enough" for the nom. ~Kvng (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kvng: I was trying to explain that although the student loan coverage [63] [64] is substantial, the coverage is essentially BLP1E. We shouldn't have articles about people who write a letter that goes viral for a day. Other than that, we have coverage in local newspapers (Nottingham Post) and other low-quality sources (Love Business East Midlands, Startups.co.uk). I admit that the subject is close to notable, but I don't think the available sources are sufficient. Which do you consider are the ones that push it over the threshold? SmartSE (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: [65] puts it over the threshold for me. It is not about the loans. It is local coverage but local is not a problem for people, only for companies. ~Kvng (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for explaining. I dispute that local coverage is only a problem for companies as local newspapers write so many articles about people that there is often a consensus that they are not of use for determining notability. In addition, that's still a single source though, so not enough for GNG even if it is considered reliable. I'll leave it to other !voters to decide. SmartSE (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anything in policy or outcomes to support your position on local sources. If there is, please show it to me so I can adjust appropriately. In this case, there is also substantial non-local coverage (that you'd like to discount for other reasons). On whole, not a very strong delete case here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely ignore local sources in AfD as they establish virtually nothing other than the local paper needed to run a story to fill things by the deadline (same for local TV news). The only time we count local press is when someone pitches a fit and demands the line and verse for that routine practice. Practice is the basis of all policy, and on a BLP especially we would likely not be overly favourable to local press. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I do spend a significant amount of time at AfD and this is not my experience. My experience is more along the lines of what's described at WP:NLI. ~Kvng (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have an opinion on local sourcing that tends to be out of the mainstream when it comes to AfD. The proposal you cite failed. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for what it's worth. I wrote the article, so I'm not sure if my vote counts. I already gave my reasons on its talk page. --Squidshark (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable awards that don't bring the presumption of notability under WP:ANYBIO and the coverage is either routine and expected or WP:SPIP, so doesn't count towards the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A short article about a "viral" social media post and a couple of articles about a company he apparently runs is not "significant" coverage of the man himself. The awards are meaningless fluff. I would suggest that his company is more likely to receive the significant coverage for notability in the future. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "British Young Entrepreneur of the Year" is not an honour that creates a presumption of notability, and there's nothing better. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 17 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. Michig (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reach (brand)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was originally PRODed by Rentier. Concern was: Blatant advertising. COI. Possible paid editing. If anything, belongs as an item under parent company. Was dePRODed by Carrite under the premise that: 'Stylistic deficiencies notwithstanding, this is a significant consumer brand and needs discussion at AfD'. Indeed, this article is blatant branding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment REACH is a legendary brand, it is almost history now. I think Johnson & Johnson has effectively discontinued the brand by selling it to Dr. Fresh LLC. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly promotional article with little encyclopedic value to the average reader, outwith marketing for the owners. scope_creep (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The problem here is not one of notability as a 15 second look at the sources will demonstrate. See, in particular substantial, independently published coverage in (1) THE BOOK America Brushes Up: The Use of Toothpaste and Toothbrushes in the Twentieth Century (McFarland); (2) coverage of the engineer who designed the Reach toothbrush in the Boston Globe; (3) AN ARTICLE in the Chicago Tribune, noting that Reach toothbrushes had at the time 28% of the $265 billion American toothbrush market. You do the math. This is a keep right there even according to the new draconian corporation/product rules that the nominator has outspokenly touted elsewhere on WP. No, what we have here is an article written as a timeline rather than a proper encyclopedia article. Is that sufficient reason for deletion? Hell, no. Carrite (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: A brand existing doesn't make it notable even if had 105% of a trillion dollar market. Only significant coverage in reliable sources does that. The key issue for me is "significant". Re-written marketing releases, paid advertising masquerading as a magazine article, minor mentions in articles about Harry Potter movie tie-ins, the obituary of a toothbrush designer, none of these are enough in my sweep of the sources to confer notability to the brand itself. There would need to be multiple significant sources regarding the brand as a whole, not just occasional articles about it's products to qualify for general notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It once had 28% of the market? No disrespect, but an obvious keep. I actually remember this brand. Yes, it's a crappy article, but AFD isn't clean-up. --Calton | Talk 16:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is in bad state, but the subject is clearly notable, and salmonids should be in order for whoever PRODs such a thing.--cyclopia ^speak! 21:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~possible Keep, but rewrite.~~ Market share is and should be a major consideration in deciding if a separate article for a product is justified--otherwise, the mere fact of notability does not necessarily justify a separate article (see WP:N for the basic guideline on combination articles in cases like this). The article is however wildly over-expansive; presenting a article on a company or product as a chronological list of mostly minor developments is not encyclopedic, but is customary on a company webpage where they tend to have a different idea than an encyclopedia about what is worth mentioning. Bbarmadillo, I would like you to confirm whether or not this is a paid article, because this does make a difference in the willingness of volunteers to rewrite it. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. , changed from possible keep on the basis of the explanation below. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, no this article was not paid. I wrote it long before I started my paid editing writing (“career”, yeh?) because there seemed to be a clear gap to fill in. Even at the time of writing this legendary brand was in demise. I wonder what company would have paid for it back in 2016? Could it be DuPont that sold the brand to Johnson & Johnson in 1977, JNJ that sold it in 2012 and discontinued later or Dr. Fresh LLC, a rather small and non-notable company? Anyway, I agree that the style of the article is poor, it was one of my earliest contributions and I didn't have much experience. I have no intention to rewrite it myself given the current “witch hunt”. If the community feels it should be deleted, go ahead. I personally think it would be big mistake and a potential value loss to Wikipedia as a project. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Basing this on notability, I would add this book to those Carrite presented. I would also agree with Calton that AfD is not cleanup; however, the page does need some major work. I am old as dirt so I remember the commercials for these on television, newspapers, magazines, and more. It may not be a prominent brand today, but it was a long time ago and the reliable sources show it. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in sources. feminist (talk) 04:03, 18 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. Withdrawn by author/SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Ness Monster in popular culture

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely unreferenced listcruft, except for the first appearance in a film, which can be mentioned in the original article. Your typical example of "split it and forget it" that is not allowed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs trimming to take out the trivial references to the LNM, and sourcing, but the LNM is central to several films, TV shows, etc. and there's no shortage of coverage. --Michig (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's definitely cleanup related to unsourced entries per WP:TRIVIA (read: we want secondary sources to note the mention of Lock Ness in other works), but this is clearly enough sources already to justify the list. AFD is not cleanup. --Masem (t) 06:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware that AFD is not cleanup. There is nothing to "clean up" in this article, as there are practically no reliable sources. Even if one were to drastically improve the sourcing, there is still no argument for a standalone article over a section in the main article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fine dumping ground for when it becomes necessary to clear out the main Loch Ness Monster article. Thincat (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:IPCA, no article should be a "dumping ground". If a list article becomes full of unsourced cruft, it should be deleted, and any cruft information added to the main article deleted as well._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this monster is known internationally and even the higher profile 'cameos' in film, media etc are good enough to support this as a valid article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTN, there are 100s of books that discuss/contain stories about nessie, from children's picture books to adult non-fiction, some notable, some not, as for "listcruft", any trivial/non-notable entries can be removed. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it may be better to rename this "Loch Ness Monster in creative works"? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: that would narrow it's scope and make it inconsistent with hundreds of other ...in popular culture articles. The title is fine, the issue is the need for someone to write inclusion criteria. Prince of Thieves (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okey dokey:))Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles and book chapters have been written on this topic; it is hardly non-notable. Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 14 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 speedy delete (G5). There also was an emerging consensus that despite the edits since the last deletion discussion the notability concerns had not been overcome. Huon (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naanol Tesfaye

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred and Avaay: See here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As before fails WP:NFOOTY. Maybe in future but we are not WP:CRYSTALBALL. NZFC^(talk) 06:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. I looked into making an argument he might pass WP:GNG based on the articles cited, but all they are and all that comes up are a bunch of routine articles a couple teams may be interested in signing him in Swedish and English. Delete without prejudice. We are a few years WP:TOOSOON to draftify. SportingFlyer talk 06:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still fails WP:NFOOTY and still fails WP:GNG. All sources (apart from the ebc.et video, which I don't understand) stem from a post on self-publishing site o-posts.com, either citing/referring to that site directly or citing/referring to one earlier in the chain. And what that original source says, is that "Two weeks after he was enlisted into the Football-Wonderkids database, O-Posts can now reveal that Naanol ”Naani” Tesfaye is being closely followed by Manchester City and Leeds United along with other top European sides" and that he might play for the Ethiopian under-17 team. The Football-Wonderkids database claims to "help players get scouted and raise their profile". Delete. Struway2 (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That dose not matter and is irrelevant mate, per WP:GNG he has been noted in magazines and newspapers with no regards to this so called o-post nor football-wonderkids website, therefor you're not correct pal, please seek to see my answer to seek a different vote per my comment.

Keep - Per WP:GNG he is overally very suited for a note. Please view notability for footballers where a sportsperson(soccer) is per WP:GNG suited for a note regard less of WP:NFOOTY, through GNG the subject in this case mr Tesfaye has been in exclusive first page news-magazines including Sweden-top-news magazine Norran and also Karlstad magazine in Sweden including transfer notice in Aftonbladet which is Swedens biggest newssource(TT), not only this but in Ethiopia has been viewd within radio where subject did an exclusive full-on interview that was broacasted in national tv known as EBC TV and re-aired in many TV channels of Ethiopia. He is clearly through WP:GNG accepted where he has an entire first page article of him in the newspaper which I have a picture of if you guys want it to view and verify. Via this he also has been admired by many viewing his notability for say when the Ethiopian Football Federation said that He is the future star, per this he not only has significant coverage but also expells a famous standard. He has been called up and contacted for the U17 which refeers to the U19 in his radio talk show and it only takes GNG for a player to become noted therefor it is a violation to vote no when in decion of not opinion. It's a clear keep and I excpet per this inofrmaition that you change your opnion of delete to Keep. This answer/opinion was requested by @Struway2, my best / Avaay (talk)

For clarification: What I "requested", in response to Avaay's lengthy text on my talk page encouraging me to change my vote, was that if they had evidence of Mr Tesfaye passing GNG, they should supply it at the AfD. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if picture is wanted of magazines I can provide a couple of images I have found and etained from fellow to verify he is very well accepted via WP:GNG... Avaay

All you need to do is cite the sources, eg. as below. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<Name of magazine>, <date>, <page number>, <headline of article>, <optional description>.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sandstein 09:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Michael Reed

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed all the puffery and promo cruft from this autobiography, in the thought that I could save it, but now that I'm done, I don't think what's left stands. There is a one event show at a non notable gallery that got news attention in NYT and WNYC due to the nudity (woman standing naked in store window). I don't think that cuts it. Still WP:TOOSOON. Theredproject (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ARTIST pretty easily. SportingFlyer talk 05:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he meets WP:ARTIST because he "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" i.e. the New York exhibit mentioned above. He's also been covered across at least two major countries in respectable news sources, having also had residencies across China. I can understand why the article has been cleaned up, but pertinent info was deleted during the process. No further need to WP:BLOWITUP because this has already been done. Sionk (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would not call the single performance piece he did a "significant or well-known work". Something like Marina Abramovic's The Artist is Present or Vito Acconci's Seedbed are well-known works in the art world. Woman standing on sharp things in a window is a nice idea, but it is not well-known, written about much or included in any art history books. On the subject of residencies, having residencies in another country, or anywhere for that matter, is irrelevant and not mentioned in any notability policy. Residencies are not notability-inducing. The problem with this article is the lack of coverage in reliable sources, which is whey it fails GNG.104.163.147.121 (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So The New York Times and the Global Times aren't reliable sources, eh? Sionk (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here are some Reed exhibitons: FQ Projects, "A Common Place", Shanghai – Bao Shan Museum, "The Country Life" (solo), "Art021 (Art Fair) - 'Beyond Public Projects'", Huntington Museum of Art - "Clay County artist comes home for solo HMA exhibit". Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's look at the links provided! FQ Projects, "A Common Place" is a promotional page written by a gallery. It is also just an event announcement. Not a reliable source. Shanghai – Bao Shan Museum, "The Country Life" (solo) says right at the top that it is a press release. So that is not a RS either. "Art021 (Art Fair) - 'Beyond Public Projects'" includes one entire sentence on reed's work, so that is not significant coverage. Huntington Museum of Art - "Clay County artist comes home for solo HMA exhibit" is indeed a good source, but that is one source. The problem here, as you have actually inadvertently illustrated, is that most of the coverage is routine minor coverage rather than significant, in-depth coverage as required by WP:GNG. And of course this entirely ignores WP:ARTIST, which he cannot even begin to satisfy.104.163.147.121 (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your analysis of the exhibitions, please note i just listed them so that editors such as yourself can have a look at them, if i thought they made reed notable i would have said so, i did not. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was just pointing out how poor the sources listed are.104.163.147.121 (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:04, 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.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jelly (Chinese singer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: insufficiently notable stub article since 2014. Quis separabit? 04:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMOTION; the introductory sentence in this article has been copied to a whole bunch of other promotional websites but the singer has received practically no notice otherwise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability, zero reliable sources, at most a one-hit wonder. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 18 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. Michig (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corey L O'Brien

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable autobiography Theredproject (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable subject; article created as promotion. Quis separabit? 04:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person and possible COI with creation. SportingFlyer talk 04:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 14 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. Sandstein 09:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Martinez (artist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable artist. The best I could come up with is [66]. Also, created by a now blocked account for COPYVIO and nonresponsiveness. Theredproject (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found two pages that mentioned him. Neither was WP:RS. Fails GNG.104.163.147.121 (talk) 23:18, 11 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. Sandstein 09:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthu Placek

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This autobiography is written in a very misleading way. It implies that the subject was in exhibitions at MoMA, ABMB, Mary Boone, Dietch Projects etc. It also implies that he *collaborated* with FISCHERSPOONER, Vanessa Beecroft, Marina Abramović, and Terence Koh. So... what has actually happened here is that the subject of the article was hired by these very very famous artists to document their work. Beecroft doesn't collaborate with anyone. She hires people to take photographs of her performances. Work for Hire. Not collaboration. The portraits section of his website has some beautiful photographs of many of these artists, but that is not what is being exhibited in these venues that would establish notability. If you try to verify any of these items listed below, you will see what I mean. You can't find anything, because his name was not listed. Theredproject (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I trimmed out all the puffery, outright lies and fabrications, and nothing that would establish notability is left. I searched bu cannot find a single good reference online. Good call nominating this for deletion.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage of the artist in reasonable detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:09, 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.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Raack

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this article has been given serious wiki review, as it has a section that says "including the Ohio Watercolor Society, xxx, and yyy." So I looked closer and realized that there wasn't much there in the way of WP:RS to establish WP:Artist. There are a number of watercolor competitions, which I don't think cut it. And some regional shows. I note that the McDonough Museum of Art ref that is used throughout, is from the school where he teaches/taught. He had a *faculty* show there. Theredproject (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Xxx and yyy are important awards! Voting delete since he doesn't pass any of the four prongs of WP:ARTIST. I've found a few things, but even in this article, one of the first that came up that actually mentioned him in my search, he's mentioned almost trivially: [67] SportingFlyer talk 04:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Four of the provided article sources are event announcements. Search turns up nothing significant. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article describes the typical activities of an artist going about his business: occasional commissions, teaching work, inclusion in group shows, etc. The WP:NARTIST criteria are significantly higher than that and I am seeing nothing to meet them or the broader WP:BASIC criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 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.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T Barny

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography that does not have WP:RS to establish notability. The best I could find was [68] which doesn't cut it. I don't think the awards and recognition do either, as they are not really even regionally significant. Theredproject (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To have an artist article on Wikipedia, people have to write significant articles about you and publish them in good publications. That has not happened to this artist. Search does not provide anything. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:15, 11 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. Michig (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2013 West Coast Conference men's soccer season

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncompleted article. Completely unreferenced since 2013. Doesn't even have league standings or anything other than the list of teams playing soccer in the conference in 2013. Even so, fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT, which applies as season notability is only for single team articles. SportingFlyer talk 03:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect Only keep if WP:GNG is established. Possibly redirect to West Coast Conference as an alternative since it's a reasonable search term. Jay eyem (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/keep for now since it's a blank article, but also because it is a notable topic. Also I'm concerned that nominating the article for WP:SPORTSEVENT does not apply to this article. This article would be notable under WP:NSEASONS since "a season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable." And there is at least one team in the conference that makes the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Tournament. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NSEASONS is only for individual team seasons, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 Albanian Second_Division and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1956–57 Bahraini Premier League Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014-15 EMSA Premier League. Even arguing WP:SPORTSEVENT doesn't apply, WP:GNG would. SportingFlyer talk 18:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing on this article, it hasn't been improved in five years and can't see anyone improving it now. I see no point in redirection. This fails WP:GNG having no citations, this fails WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some references can be added. No prejudice towards recreation at a later date with sufficient referencing. Hmlarson (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this is a notable season. No problem with recreation if someone can show it is notable at a later date. Fenix down (talk) 09:37, 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.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hudson Connell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Definitely doesn't pass WP:Artist. I don't think he makes WP:POLITICIAN because he did get elected...! Plus the edit history shows COI. Theredproject (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to be blunt, this is an amateur artist. The page has been specifically written to puff up references that have no value in terms of establishing notability. Fails all notability tests.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't quite see WP:BASIC being met here, which would probably be an easier bar than WP:ARTIST. There are enough five-to-eight word segments taken from the Legacy ref that I'd have some copyright concerns as well. In 2011 I noted that the article at that time was not entirely unsourced, but looking through the history I don't see a lot of deep coverage in independent, reliable sources, in the current or previous versions. --joe decker ^talk 04:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at one time major party nominees for national legislative office were considered notable, however we have since tightened our notability guidelines on this matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy WP:GNG per the above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:47, 18 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Weaver

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find substantial coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. Neither WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BIO appear to be satisfied. SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book by the president of Kansas State University gives him and his book VERY substantial coverage. Another source by a well regarded professor lists him among influential conservatives. And there was quite a lot of coverage of a student being punished for putting up posters about his talk at a Uni in California. He appears as a commentator on various programs and is covered extensively in Conservative media. Those sources don't seem to be considered reliable here but I do think they help establish his notability among Conservatives. Not a huge figure but I think he's worth including in a pageless encyclopedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: Can you please provide more details on these books e.g. titles, page numbers for the coverage? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that book, it's on the page, Not Equal: Expanding Educational Opportunity in Society, by M. Christopher Brown II. p. 387 ff. recounts a meeting between Brown and Weaver, Brown is very take with Weaver and his ideas, and fulsome in his praise of It's OK to Leave the Plantation : The New Underground Railroad. it is certainly a source. The difficulty is that I cannot find other WP:RS on this or Weaver's other books. Feel free to ping me to reconsider if someone has more success sourcing Weaver than I have had.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think his books are self-published (as "Reeder Pub" doesn't appear to exist apart from him), but there may be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep - see below. ~~fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC.~~ I have run searches on all of the book titles, and on his birth and current names and found virtually nothing. As I often do, I began to source the page, and did find an article in the San Diego paper, a WP:RS source for the facts that in 1999 he legally changed his name to Mason, that he had been a host are sundry am radio stations for ~ 6 years, and that he was running for office - he must have lost because I could not find anything else that I could use to build a page. Sounds like a guy who tried to be a controversial pundit or politician, but failed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing form this discussion for now, after adding a couple of sources and doing a little editing on article. Although I failed to source Mason's books, there is, as User:FloridaArmy says above, coverage of him as a controversialist. Some in sources like Fox News that can be used. I added little bio info form an interview with him in The Daily Caller, describing it as what is his: his own retelling of his own biography. I will now wait and see what see what other editors find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing iVote to keep following more diligent searches and a very modest WP:HEYMANN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sources discussed above [john_lewis_lie_was_the_biggest_story_in_conservative_media_today.html here's a Slate piece] that notes his criticisms of John Lewis. Charles Blow also discusses hus views here. San Diego Tribune dwscribea him as a former Tea Party leader and quotes him on the resistance movement here. So there is some coverage in mainstream as well as the more substantial coverage in conservative sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)FloridaArmy (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newly found sources which establish notability.– Lionel^(talk) 08:10, 17 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. Sandstein 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Armstrong (American artist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography written by a non-notable artist. Please note that there is a deceased canadian painter of the same name who is quite notable. This is not he. Theredproject (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for artists to advertise their work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 14 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. Sandstein 09:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Saudi Arabia relations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. There really isn't much to these relations besides diplomatic recognition and a Georgian embassy LibStar (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not much, but there is some discussion of trade relations. The other stuff is mostly the normal PR 'make nice' stuff.
1. "Georgia : Foreign Ministers of Georgia and Saudi Arabia Talked about the Dynamic of Relations between the Two Countries." Mena Report. 2018. HighBeam Research. (March 3, 2018). ["Georgia,Saudi Arabia : Georgia Reaches Agreement to Export Sheep Meat to Saudi Arabia." Mena Report. 2017. HighBeam Research. (March 3, 2018). https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-494794191.html Article link]
2. "Georgia,Saudi Arabia : Georgia Reaches Agreement to Export Sheep Meat to Saudi Arabia." Mena Report. 2017. HighBeam Research. (March 3, 2018). Article link
3. "Saudi Arabia Lifts Ban on Imports of Cattle, Sheep and Goats from Georgia and and Chicks from Belgium." WAM - United Arab Emirates News Agency. 2015. HighBeam Research. (March 3, 2018). Article link

The sheep exports are of some significance because SA must source enormous numbers of sheep for sacrifice during the Hajj. Not enough for a Keep here but it is worth looking deeper. Jbh ^Talk 19:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing the kinds of sources (i.e., "significant" coverage in reliable, independent sources) needed to establish notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not find anything other than what I noted above which is not sufficient to pass GNG. Jbh ^Talk 03:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Date is provided as a notable property of this article, plus it is an open door if further developments occur. It could also be added that Saudi Arabia recognises Georgia's territorial integrity over the two breakaway states. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if further developments occur is WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not CRYSTAL whatsoever. The bedrock of my position is that ties exist and this warrants the article. Saying that the page is ready for future development (which is inevitable in the circumstance, a departure from CRYSTAL) is more an additional point than an argument for keep. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 08:38, 18 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, umm, weak keep. I was ambivalent about closing this as 'no consensus' or about re-listing it once more, but thought a 'weak keep' was better rather than to 'keep (another) week' for discussions. No prejudice against an early renomination if stronger sources cannot be found. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor (debut EP)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically an (unsourced) track listing. "Sources" are limited to a metal music archive which may not be RS. Nothing exists in the form of indepth reviews or other forms of secondary coverage. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, funny – the redirects Emperor (EP) and Emperor (album) point to Emperor (band) instead of this article. No different than a thousand other examples of content dumping, really. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - brief mention in this book. [[69]] Sourcing could be improved though. Not being a fan of death metal, I'm not sure how notable they were. I know that notability is not inherited, but if they're notable enough to be on the site (their article seems to have enough sourcing), I'm going to go with weak keep for this EP. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Note that this band is considered to be very important in the history of European black metal and their early work is often described as highly influential, but typically in books like Sound of the Beast by Ian Christe plus the one found by TimTempleton. However, that might be better said at the band's article and I do realize that this album must stand on its own to qualify for a separate article. Despite the album's importance for knowledgeable fans, I cannot find specific mentions beyond the AllMusic and Metal Archives sources that are already listed, but TimTempleton is correct that this might be enough for a stub article. Also, if the article survives it should be Moved to "Emperor (album)" or "Emperor (1993 album)", the first of which is already redirected. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:29, 14 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. Sandstein 09:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Khauale Midgod

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one, at least, admits that it's a locality, but as usual there is no meaningful text about the place other than that it is a name, and the coords drop in the middle of nowhere. Mangoe (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything that's not a wiki site. The points drop me near a roadway, so it's possible there's something there, but I can't verify it. SportingFlyer talk 04:43, 11 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. Sandstein 09:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Roberts (painter)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject was the frontman for a one-hit band that seems to have established notability. But he is presented here as a painter of his own merits. There are very few RS about him as an individual. I don't think he passes WP:Artist. Do we keep articles about frontmen for one-hit bands? Is his solo work enough for inclusion as a solo musician? Theredproject (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons presented by the nominator. There's no point in redirecting the article to Sniff 'n' the Tears because there's no evidence he's a notable musician (or artist). Sionk (talk) 12:18, 11 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. Sandstein 09:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Marković (artist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find very little to verify any notability. Group show at ngbk isn't enough. It is made difficult becuase all the searches come up with an engineering prof at UCLA, whom I do not believe to be the same person. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Theredproject (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a source search turns up very little. Fails GNG. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:30, 11 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. Sandstein 09:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Baugh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is totally promotional, and the artist has made edits to the page himself. The only independent sources for verification, are The Artist's Magazine, American Artist Magazine, and American Art Collector which I don't think constitute WP:RS to establish notability. The artist does seem to be very popular on instagram, and social media is something that has been bounced around at AfD, but for better or for worse, typically is not accounted for here. Especially given the propensity to buy followers and likes, though I do not believe that is the case here. I also note this Artsy article [70] but Artsy is advertorial (they are a sales platform that has an editorial writing section, but they are only so independent, and you will note that all the links point to works you can buy on Artsy), so I would generally be skeptical. Theredproject (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed several unreliable wiki-style or self published sources. Now that those are gone, we can see there is no claim for notability here. I did not perform a more general search, but feel free.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:54, 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 result was delete. Sandstein 09:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Larson (actor)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Awards are not significant and / or are scene related. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:09, 11 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. czar 01:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White House Jesuit Retreat Center

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines. Advertising. The Banner talk 00:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPLACE, and WP:NOT. Article creator is topic banned from a segment not related to this article, but I'm really wondering whether has the competency to be editing here at all. I agree with banner that this is just promo. And with nothing resembling either N or V, this subject, which is of little interest to anyone but Catholic clergy, is quite indicative of that. John from Idegon (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a valuable addition to the pedia. Interesting read. And I'm certainly no priest--oh to the contrary. Independent RS here [71] and [72]. And John, your personal attacks against JZSJ are getting a little tired, don't you think?– Lionel^(talk) 02:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"valuable" - vague and undefined. "interesting" - irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 03:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly...two feature section articles in a local paper do not notability make. And from the tone of the St. Louis Today stories (one on an event and one on a staff change), it appears this is some sort of addiction recovery center...something not mentioned at all in the article creator's publicity piece masquerading as an encyclopedia article. John from Idegon (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some evidence IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF is provided about encyclopedic notability and/or suitability. --Calton | Talk 03:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool, sourcing has somehow become WORSE. A thirteen-year-old TRAVEL ARTICLE from the New York Times? This would barely be acceptable in an article about a tourist destination. --Calton | Talk 02:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Jesuits are known for their retreat houses, as their founder St. Ignatius of Loyola was the founder of the modern retreat movement in the Catholic church in the 16th century and is its patron. This is one of the oldest and busiest Jesuit retreat centers in the United States, having its rooms (now 85) filled throughout most of its 95-year history. For many retreats a single Catholic parish has filled all 85 rooms, and midweek retreats have been employed to accommodate more people. I've just added independent references from the New York Times and St. Louis Post Dispatch. Jzsj (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium. And please read WP:Reliables sources. Social media, like other user-generated content, is not deemed to be a reliable source. The Banner talk 17:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not only are the sources poor, but this is an advert that could be nominated for speedy deletion as spam. 2601:188:180:11F0:ED79:9881:B9EF:CD44 (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to find sources and couldn't. Can't establish notability (and I tried!) Barbara ✐ ✉ 00:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm afraid this fails two of our basic pillars, WP:neutrality and WP:verifiability. While I'm quite sure it was not written with any intention to advertise, it comes across as unacceptably promotional in tone, partly because of the liberal use of "insider" terminology ("Our Lady" and the like); it's also virtually all unsourced. I find it surprising that no better sources have been found for an institution almost a century old. A search of newspapers.com gets 39 hits; looking quickly through them, I don't see anything that is more than a passing mention or a routine announcement (it received money, someone was on the board, it held a retreat for emergency service personnel and so on); perhaps someone else will find more, but at the moment it does not seem that it is WP:notable – there just isn't the in-depth coverage that would provide material for an article about it. Note: the page is shorter than it was, as I have removed a good deal of content copied more or less directly from its website. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As noted, coverage is minimal and more along the "exists" line of things. Nothing to shows any sense of real notability, and this is quite promotional. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:04, 14 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.