Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 20 December 22 December >

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. BD2412 T 21:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rooks (Criminal Justice Advocate)

[edit]
Robert Rooks (Criminal Justice Advocate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG Furthermore article looks almost like a promotional piece. Celestina007 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 2019 outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak

[edit]
Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing merge and redirect to 2019 outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products (which I already did but which was reverted). Most of the content of this article is a list of individual cases, which seems like excessive detail. I think it would be better to simply give statistics and describe the general pattern of illness, which we already do on 2019 outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products and Vaping-associated pulmonary injury. There have been thousands of cases, and there doesn't seem to be anything in particular to justify inclusion of these particular cases directly from newspaper reports, so it seems like this is verging on original research. It may also be original research to say that these cases are affirmatively part of this outbreak without being confirmed by an official health agency. The introduction makes some sweeping claims that exaggerate the outbreak by being less than specific and using breathless. Some parts of the intro give how-to information, and talk about smoking cessation in a way that seems a bit one-sided and somewhat off-topic - and that's already covered at electronic cigarette. The only part of the article I thought needed merging was the list of lawsuits, which seem individually more notable. -- Beland (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I should have at least pointed out WP:NOTNEWS. -- Beland (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - if the media reports are worth noting, they'll already be references in the main article; and large swathes of the content were, last I looked, direct cut'n'pastes (not sure in which direction). If the media reports are a story, cite those RS stories about the media coverage, rather than enumerating the media coverage. (Enumerating media coverage as if it's a story in itself is an unfortunately common form of on-wiki puffery and synthesis.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect I agree with this proposal. I've been following this article since it was created because I found it so confusing: the way the title reads, I was expecting an article about the media coverage of the illness, but instead it seemed to become just a coatrack for every sick person story that mentions vaping. (In the article, the word "media" only occurs twice, in the context of social media, which makes the title even more misleading.) There are already existing articles on the outbreak. This article seems to be an excuse to dwell on symptoms and harms of vaping without a real context. Schazjmd (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The main article is focused on the outbreak rather the media reports. There was a discussion about a split. The main article is way too long for a merge and there are over 50 citations in the new article. The new article is a notable topic. QuackGuru (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We often have sections on notable cases of disease X. Slitting it off into a subpage is fine.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, if you're sure ... A lot of this stuff, and pages and sections of this sort, is an attempt to get coverage that fails WP:MEDRS into medical articles. This one in particular, and the main article, used to include references to The Sun and the Daily Mail, for instance, which one editor tried repeatedly to edit back in. But if you think this sort of thing can work ... - David Gerard (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure what makes these cases notable, though, in the sense of being significant in the course of the outbreak. They seem to be just random people who happen to have been victims of the outbreak who have been covered by the press as individual examples. -- Beland (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • David Gerard, you claimed one editor tried to repeatedly to edit back in is historical revisionism. QuackGuru (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change title and focus, keep Note - I regularly comment on QuackGuru's public discussions as I know this user as a regular from WikiProject Medicine where we are both participants.
The content of article is not about media. Instead it is a list of cases for a 2019 epidemic presented in prose. Change the title to something like "Cases in 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak". If this content gets merged into the main article, then immediately someone will say that it is undue and delete it. I described this pattern of Notable article-> AFD-> Merge-> UNDUE in an essay at Wikipedia:Removal of Wikipedia articles on notable topics. Public health content like this often comes from news and not medical journals so I accept journalism here and am not expecting academic sourcing. A similar public health issue which we cover from journalism is Category:Mass shootings in the United States by decade, where there is an article for every month based on local news coverage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The opposite of what an encyclopedia should be doing. Th epidemic is of course notable , and the press coverage of it will be in the main article. The individual hospitalizations are not. Collecting this sort of primary information of what is after all trivial events individually isundue emphasis. Bluerasberry, would you suport similar articles for a list of everyone who was hospitalized in the opioid epidemic? of heart disease? DGG ( talk ) 10:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: I see your point that having such articles for all diseases is not useful. For heart disease I would never support because it is routine. For opioid epidemic, I would support a list for the early days of media coverage, but not now 20 years into the epidemic when it is normal. I think that I would support list articles for deaths at the beginning of an epidemic when the concept of dying in a new way is itself the focus of the story. If someone dies of heart disease now, they would only be in media if they themselves are media worthy, and not because of their cause of death. We have a similar article in List of HIV-positive people. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall from the 1980s-90s and even after, much of the interest in whether a person had AIDS was from homophobia, especially for public figures still in the closet, as almost all gay public figures were at the time. Thus the argument can be made that the listings have historical relevance. I do not think vaping is parallel.
Additionally, I am surprised nobody has mention the blp implications of our reporting on the medical record of named living individuals without their consent. Previous practice has been that thefact that the reports have sources from relatively minor press coverage does not justify putting it in an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Per WP:Soft delete: WP:REFUND applies. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vazha Gaprindashvili

[edit]
Vazha Gaprindashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think this passes NOT NEWS, or BLP1E. DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being abducted by the occupational regime in Tskhinvali, Gaprindashvili is a renown doctor and thus BLP1E is not applicable in this case. Besides, here are plenty sources and many more can be easily found if necessary. DETENTION OF VAJA GAPRINDASHVILI AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS, THE JOINT STATEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNING PRESSING HUMAN RIGHTS CONDITIONS IN SOUTH OSSETIA, GEORGIA.--Melberg (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 20:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. With no prejudice against another AfD nomination in the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyan Banerjee (homoeopath)

[edit]
Kalyan Banerjee (homoeopath) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

zero evidence of notability except the Padma Shri, a 4th order award. Recent AfDs have consistently held that it;s not enough by itself. DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 09:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 09:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: (It been up too long) Weak delete: Delete: (allow draftification): The Zee News reference perhaps indicates honourable humanitarian altruism by the subject in provision of free treatments, and that is perhaps consistent with the Times of India. However this was not brought out in the article. While award of the Padma Shri seems on the face of it most appropriate I do not believe it is a sufficient reason for a Wikipedia article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand further with my current reasoning. My delete !vote stands until both of two aspects are satisified: firstly the article is developed to give more body to the article beyond a dictionary entry of appointments and awards ... in this aspect my delete !vote would be weak as sources have been identified which would probably enable an editor with some sort skill level to body-up this particular article. The other aspect to be satisfied is notability. This could be sated by presenting a persuasive WP:THREE below of WP:RS for WP:GNG. Alternatively notability per WP:NACADEMIC (2) the Padmi Shri being determined by consensus to be "almost always a de-facto indicator of notability" to be achieved by account of reasoned arguments, particularly when related to practice for other countries, and when shown not simply awarded due the to the Old boy network. These arguments are now spread to an extent across 4 AfD's, a DRV and even Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Is Padma Shri a major award?. Longer term my planned intention is to follow agreed consensus on this matter. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In view of the comments of the closer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla I am moving my position to weak delete.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG and Padma Shei is major award. This, this article calls him noted homeopath, this and plenty of other sources exists.— Harshil want to talk? 12:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you are talking about a WP:GNG notability claim per WP:THREE the decision will reset on the best WP:RS sources ... that is quality and not a quantity of this hat or the other: We have just had presented as a top three, if I have it correct (especially my interpretation of the Zeenews Hindi article and author; correct and explain if necessary), of:
    • Banerjee, Dr. Kalyan (5 April 2019). "किडनी, थायरायड के मरीजों के लिए होम्योपैथी चिकित्सा फायदेमंद : डॉ. कल्याण बनर्जी" [Homeopathy therapy beneficial for kidney, thyroid patients: Dr. Kalyan Banerjee]. Zeenews (in Hindi).
    • Thacker, Teena (10 October 2017). "Government to bar homeopathic doctors from selling medicines". Hindustan times.
    • TNN (25 January 2009). "8 docs among 26 Padma awardees". Times of India. Dr Kalyan Banerjee.
My best understanding is (Banerjee,2019) fails on self publication; (Thacker,2017) is a passing mention but in my view (TNN|2009) may pass as a WP:RS. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 20:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Admin above vote DGG is nominator. He did two time vote!. 37.111.43.124 (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
changed to a comment. thanks for letting me know. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. BD2412 T 21:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kido Blanko

[edit]
Kido Blanko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't bring up any reliable coverage.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 20:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 20:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 20:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 20:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. North America1000 14:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Farzpour

[edit]
Saeed Farzpour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any indication that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The only references provided are commercial sites for his book, and my WP:BEFORE has not turned up anything more substantial. Much of the article was copied directly from the author's website and the amazon page (revdel is currently pending). PROD was removed without explanation. Overall, the article comes across as more of a promotional piece than anything else. Jmertel23 (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 11:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 (c), at 19:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 20:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Mitchell

[edit]
Kennedy Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He doesn't meet GNG -- I've searched extensively and can't find any references. Further, none of the biographical information is verifiable -- it's been tagged for sources since 2014. JSFarman (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JSFarman (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability has also been tagged since 2010, and no notability established since. Only mildly notable thing seems to be the book, for which I couldn't find any secondary sources. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Achaea (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Amendola

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Matty Amendola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Paid for spam for non notable musician. Has no notability independent of his non notable band. Solo career lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourced to interviews, primary and pr. nothing good for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 03:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 20:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Traditions of the University of Santo Tomas#The Thomasian Welcome Walk. RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomasian Welcome Walk

[edit]
Thomasian Welcome Walk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 TT me 01:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 03:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 03:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 03:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 20:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Waktu Rehat. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Alaina Stephen

[edit]
Sharon Alaina Stephen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Tone 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political Declaration

[edit]
Political Declaration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Premature split of Brexit Withdrawal Agreement. Contains no information that is not already present there. The political declaration is intrinsically linked to that agreement, and they should be kept together, even if the section/article is expanded. ― Hebsen (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite aside from the fact that the title is a generic phrase with many more meanings than just this particular declaration alone, I'm not seeing either the substance or the sourcing to suggest that this needs its own separate article yet. In the meantime, it can be discussed within Brexit withdrawal agreement — but earning its own separate article would require writing a lot more substance than this, and citing a lot more than just one primary source EU document to support it. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. There are sources that discuss people's belief in the subject; article subjects do not have to exist as real things. Updates to article content or name can be handled outside of AFD. RL0919 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FBI secret society

[edit]
FBI secret society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as per WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTNEWS. A phrase that appeared in a one or two day news cycle is not notable enough for its own article. Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is one of the predominant RWCTs (right wing conspiracy theories) and has recieved WP:SIGCOV, internationally, for nearly two years.
    • January 24, 2018 [2]
    • January 24, 2018 [3]
    • January 25, 2018 [4]
    • January 25, 2018 [5]
    • January 26, 2018 [6]
    • December 18, 2018 [7]
    • January 25, 2019 [8]
    • April 26, 2019 [9]
    • July 29, 2019 [10]
    • July 30, 2019 [11]
    • July 30, 2019 [12]
    • July 31, 2019 [13]
    • August 2, 2019 [14]
    • August 3, 2019 [15]
    • August 8, 2019 [16]
    • October 6, 2019 [17]
    • October 7, 2019 [18]
    • October 7, 2019 [19]
    It's even been discussed in books: [20][21] - MrX 🖋 21:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The conspiracy theory is rather a separate topic -- despite Trump's backers' using it to deflect from the IG findings. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, MrX, it should be titled FBI secret society (conspiracy theory), per our normal practice. Feel free to move it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: I think we should have a formal move discussion after this closes. I have mixed thoughts about your proposal, but I don't want to unnecessarily derail this discussion.- MrX 🖋 01:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Right now the title looks like a descriptive statement of fact, as if it really exists, so this should be done quickly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Which article? SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Peacent 05:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Hayward

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Joel Hayward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has been rewritten at least once, but is still dominated by the controversy surrounding the cynical misuse of a naive and poorly supervised masters' thesis by holocaust deniers. There is not much else to say, because the sources are also dominated by this one event. Per the recent changes to WP:BLP and WP:NOT, I believe this should be merged to a section in holocaust revisionism which gives fuller context and does not pretend to be a biography. The fact that the subject is clearly upset by the way the article has been sued in the past to promote an agenda is also a factor. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur. This article is a coatrack for the main issue, not a biography. It is best treated as a possible merge candidate. The amount of detail required would be, I propose, so small as to justify a so-called "smerge". --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From the article talk page: "Dear Groupthink, I think what you have written and others have tweaked is, as it reads at this point in time, fair. Thank you for that. Joel Hayward." Zagalejo 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the disapproval of the subject makes a difference ... DGG 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I don't thing the approval or disapproval of the subject makes a difference one way or the other--his career is out there and we are the ones who can see it objectively, not the subject. DGG 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He appears notable enough, perhaps even without mention of the thesis controversy, though I do not believe such an argument to be necessary. Maxamegalon2000 05:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's only fair to point out that while I have been accused of making edits to this article (specifically to the pre-OTRS-delete versions) that have been unfavorably biased, I can't help but observe (based on language in the nom and recent edits to the article) that the nom of this AfD appears to be favorably biased toward the subject at hand. Even the blp subject thought my rewrite was fair, and (actually his comments came after an edit by JzG, my mistake) While I do think fuller context is called for (which is why I myself put the unbal tag at the top of the page and added expand tags) I disagree that the thesis controversy dominates. Even if it does, none of the objections raised by the nom or by Tony Sidaway are unfixable. AfD is not supposed to be a soapbox for calling for improvements to an article, it's supposed to be used as a tool to cull unimprovable articles.
  • I think we need to cut to the heart of the matter. I've been avoiding bringing this up directly, but I think it's past time that the elephant in the room were directly addressed: The last sentence in the AfD nom is very telling. In the wake of the Brandt debacle, is it now WP policy that unless sanctioned by a BLP subject, biographical material on living persons is to be suppressed removed with prejudice? Groupthink 06:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word suppressed would cause me to ignore your input were I a closing admin, so i suggest you consider a different term. As you will see if you read my nomination, I do not argue for removing of the information (or suppressing it in your terms), I advocate merging it to a wider article which is not presented as a biography, as we are beginning to do wiht more and more "biographies" which are in fact just a document of a single contentious incident. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, suppressed is too strong a word, but the question's still valid: Are the warts of a BLP off-limits?. As for the coatrack accusation, like I said above, that issue can and should be easily fixed by expanding the later sections of this bio. If Stopped At Stalingrad is worth keeping, then so is this article. Groupthink 12:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't answer on behalf of Guy, however in my humble opinion there are widespread concerns about biographies of living persons who are mostly notable for a single event in their lives, especially if that event was unfavorable. At the moment the WP:BLP policy doesn't fully reflect this, not least because there isn't enough consensus. Addhoc 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "single event in life" argument is a plausible reason when the event is an unfortunate personal or accidental event. When the article is about a scholar, and the single event is about the validity of his work, that's something else entirely. What does apply & is said below, is that the article has to take into consideration all of his work--I respect JH for wishing his career as a whole to speak for itself. As for personal preference as a factor in keep/delete, that was an unbelievable mistake, and I hope will soon be recognized as such--an open invitation to positive and negative bias: "she's only borderline notable, but she likes the article, so keep" vs. "she's only borderline notable, but she doesn't like what we say, so delete it." Such is normally considered the hallmark of the worst sort of commercial pseudo-journalism, and we properly reject using biographical sources for notability that work in such a way. DGG 04:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thing is, this article is not in fact a matter of "single event in life." I spent some time doing some research on Hayward today, only serving to confirm my "keep" vote below: Hayward is plenty notable even if the controversy about his masters thesis had never occurred. As it did occur, it is appropriate to include it in this article, but there is plenty more besides that. Getting late here where I am, but I'll add a couple of the pieces I found earlier today before I turn in, and more to follow tomorrow. --Ace of Swords 06:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - per "if Stopped At Stalingrad is worth keeping, then so is this article". Addhoc 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I wish I'd read WP:COATRACK more thoroughly before chiming in here. If I had, I'd have expressed a good deal more umbrage than I did. First off, WP:COATRACK is an essay, not an official policy. It also doesn't apply. The essay primarily talks about disguised ad hominem attacks; one of the examples it uses is "George Washington visited/slept/worked/ate at XYZ; George Washington was a terrible general and a lousy President, he owned slaves, lied about chopping down a cherry tree, and.... (many following paragraphs all about George with little if anything to do with XYZ)." Well that's NOT AT ALL a fair comparison to my rewrite. Now to be fair, I do agree with the essay's point that it's not fair to put the balancing/expansion burden on others, which is why, despite my desire to be done with this article, I have done some expansion work myself. However, and I cannot emphasize this enough: More can still be done! This article is far from unsalvageable and should be kept. Groupthink 14:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a very well known modern military historian. You argue the problem is it is dominated by one event, then suggest subsuming it entirely into that one event. The guy writes military history today, he's very well known outside of the web for his works on Stalingrad. The web reporting on him is dominated by this single event, and now it's proposed Wikipedia have the author eaten alive by one incident. No, he's a military historian of sufficient repute to merit a Wikipedia article about him, not have him shoveled off into the web fracas raised about him as if he didn't exist outside of the internet. KP Botany 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I admit that I do not know which recent changes are being referred to in WP:BLP and WP:NOT, I do not see anything in these two policies indicating that this article should be deleted. I write this recognizing that the entry once lacked balance. While I believe more emphasis should be placed in Mr Hayward's post-graduate/professional work, I think the balance tag can now be removed. We have now a short, well sourced article on a historian of note. Victoriagirl 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable historian who meets WP:PROF, regardless of the controversy. Active editors on this job have also been working well and hard to improve this article and remove its imbalances, and were doing so even before its nomination for AfD. Let them keep working. --Ace of Swords 21:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A notable subject even without the controversy. With it, even more so. But to merge this with holocaust revisionism would be to ignore the non-controversial parts of this subject's career, to say in effect 'the only interesting thing about this guy is that his Master's thesis caused a furore'. There's more to him than this attention-grabbing topic, and the article is beginning to grow to reflect this. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject meets WP:PROF and notability criteria. He is notable enough through mentions in textbooks on history, and various other publications as well (I will have to source these!) --SunStar Net talk 09:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TippNews DAILY

[edit]
TippNews DAILY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page is pretty much just an "about us" with no significant external coverage - references are the newspaper's website or lists of businesses. Didn't find anything in a BEFORE search, though it's possible I missed something since most of my searches turned up articles from the subject itself. Page appears to have been created by the paper's founder. creffett (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelSMcDermott (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC) The subject of this Wiki has been in publication since 2009, and has over 3,000 readers a day. The local subject matter is pulled from a community of only 10,000, so there is very little external "buzz" made about it as would a publication serving a larger community. As this is a small town digital publication, Wikipedia is being utilized to document the newspapers that came before it, as well as the ones that come after. Unlike metros that have consistent news sources across generations, the news industry in smaller towns often go bankrupt, creating a "news desert". Wikipedia is the sole neutral place to find documentation about where to source stories a decade ago for Tipp City, Ohio. As for the link/mention of Bash Foo and the publisher, that too is done so that people seeking out information about news in this town can find out how to contribute, support, and build upon this effort. Also, without the individual efforts of the publisher, there is no publication. TippNews DAILY is listed in the [| Reynolds Journalism Institute national registry of news sites], which should alone support it's continuance here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelSMcDermott (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Valizadeh

[edit]
Farid Valizadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not have enough reliable sources to assess and support WP:BIO Gharouni Talk 00:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gharouni Talk 00:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Foundation College Attock

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bahria Foundation College Attock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in the coverage. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Based on comments after the relist and following the rewrite of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Seger

[edit]
Linda Seger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail ANYBIO. Current sources are imdb, publisher or personal webpages and some lesser-known websites which also do not seem to have editorial control. A search gives several hits, but some are their own publications and I doubt any other sources are reliable (does not seem to have editorial control). I am not sure whether they can pass WP:AUTHOR#4d (their work being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums) or meet other criteria, given that they have identifiers in a few national libraries. 94rain Talk 14:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 14:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 14:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The Great Linda Seger Has Done It Again!" is not an article by a (defunct) Script magazine, but by some woman, who paid to post it to a blog-like website to promote her consulting business, similar to Seger's. This article doesn't even provide original content, but quotes Seger. Just like all other sources that praise her.
"Script consulting" means not what people believe, but merely reading a screenplay, and provide some notes. Seger lures screenwriters to pay insane fees by claiming to be a Hollywood expert (check her website). Yet, she doesn't even live there. Nor did she ever worked on anything Hollywood.
Two films are mentioned as proof. Dead Alive, on which she merely provided notes (dozens of people may do this for a script, some for free, others for a fee), is a NZ film. Universal Soldier is indie, plus Seger is credited as a Project Consultant, which means either a person, doing some minor financial stuff, or a spiritual advisor (usually this credit is given to a lover).
Her Wikipedia page is used as a proof that she is really a Hollywood expert, not a scam. If Wiki mentions her then she's for real. That is how I was referred to it.
Resume: all provided sources quote Seger herself, to provide credibility to her extremely overpriced business practice. Ideaorigin (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"by some woman, who paid to post it"? Is there any evidence?--94rain Talk 04:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious, because this article promotes two businesses, providing no original content, only quotes from Seger's book, and is full of fakes.
"the industry’s matriarch — who essentially created the job of script consultant three decades ago" - There is no "script consultant" job in Hollywood. Approved credits for a person, who worked on a script, are "writer" and "story by". All her credits are for indie films that follow no rules. She's not the first to provide script notes, which is what she does. The term matriarch is not used in a business setting.
"Dr. Seger" - Unaccredited ThD (Graduate Theological Union didn't have accreditation for a ThD) shouldn't be used to provide a "Dr." credibility, especially in screenwriting.
"No screenwriter’s bookshelf is complete without at least one book by Dr. Linda Seger. That’s a given." - Given by whom?
"Thirty years of expertise" - As a self-employed script reader, nothing more.
"teaching in 30 countries on six continents" - False, she has never been a teacher, only a speaker.
"consulting on a couple thousand screenplays" - Reading scripts, and providing notes, is called a script reader, not a consultant.
"which have resulted in 40 produced films and 35 television episodes" - No reason to believe Seger's notes caused this.
"Check out her webinars, tutorials and online classes. Connect with Heather on Twitter: @HeatherJHale, Facebook and LinkedIn." - Blatant self-promotion. Not something you can see in an editorial piece.
Anyway, it is posted not in a magazine, but on a website.
https://scriptmag.com/page/advertise
ScriptMag.com and the Script Weekly e-newsletter
If a website is owned by a reputable company, it doesn't mean all of its contents are reputable. This article is endorsed by some Heather Hale only. Ideaorigin (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just read a tab, that was left while googling Seger's credentials:
http://marchingthroughculpeper.com/meet-linda-seger/
OMFG... This scammer preys on very poor souls. And Wikipedia helps her. Ideaorigin (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as there's a case for WP:NAUTHOR C3 with reviews like the one at Script, Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, with some support from GNG (newpapers seem to call her when they someone to talk about script-fixing). Some further references could be added to the article. Comment that Ideaorigin's only edits are at this AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How can this be a keep, if her Wiki article is not about her as a book writer, but as a "Linda Seger is a screenwriting instructor and screenplay consultant", with both of these statements being false?
There is no such thing in Hollywood, as a script fixing by script consultants. If somebody works on a script, he is called a writer, not a consultant. Provide links to newspapers, that claim otherwise.
You really don't understand, that you defend a scammer? Ideaorigin (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep calm and do not say a living person is a scammer without sources proving it. Yet your arguments seem like own judgement without proof. --94rain Talk 14:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a person charges 10+ times the market rates for script notes by lying - this is called a scam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scam_(disambiguation)
A scam or confidence trick is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence.
Calling a person a fraud is not right (or legal) without a criminal charge, but scam is a different term.
I pointed to her lies:
Doctor title. False claim. She has a religious "doctorate" title, but uses it as a PhD in Drama.
Teacher. False.
Works in Hollywood. No single proof that she ever did this. No wonder almost all of her victims are outside the US, where people don't find it laughable, that a person, living in Colorado, claims to work in Hollywood.
Works as a script consultant in Hollywood. There is no such position. She has never described, what she did for whom. It's always "some producer", "some actor", "some client".
I don't see a need to proof that something doesn't exist. References on her page should proof that all claims are true. But all references quote her own words only. Everything in Google, actually.
Except for some spitting from industry professionals, such as famous screenwriters John August and Craig Mazin, who publically called her a scam:
https://johnaugust.com/2011/scriptnotes-ep-15-on-screenwriting-gurus-transcript
https://johnaugust.com/2010/those-who-cant-write-teach-seminars
The number of published books makes some believe her, yet her books are not even cited in news sections of newspapers, let alone being reviewed.
At least one of her screenwriting books (others probably too, judging by the reviews) is a total crap. A collection of quotes from 50+ years old manuals. And such a bad collection that she happens to contradict what real teachers (e.g. USC's David Howard, Aaron Sorkin) say.
I'm trully puzzled, why Wikipedia editors fail to see that she's a scam, and Wikipedia helps her perpretrate it. Wikipedia is the only (!) source providing credibility to her.
Compare it to references for a real teacher and his book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Hunter Ideaorigin (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, her works have reviews, but are the works themselves significant or well-known? According to WP:NAUTHOR C3, first their works have to be significant or well-known. --94rain Talk 14:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are significant and/or well-known. I found several college film classes that use the script-writing book as a textbook or as recommended reading, for example. Apparently Ron Howard recommends it (with two other books) in his masterclass, though I haven't been able to actually watch that. (See this blog for a review of that.) And the reviews themselves are signs of significance. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noticing that this has been open a week, I would suggest to admins looking to close that it would be worthwhile to relist for additional clarity. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've rewritten the article, focusing more on her books. Her books get reviewed and seem to be taken seriously by some. I've also linked a few more sources that I couldn't access on the article's talk page; it's possible more could be written about her other work from these. To address some comments above: I looked at the Script Mag source, and I don't see serious concerns; anyway, I don't believe that the case for notability hangs on that in any essential way. The negative review of her seminars by Jonny Elwyn actually contributes to GNG. IMDB is partly- or mostly-reliable for film credits, and I counted 30 films that looked like they'd had US theatrical releases (not including one where she's listed as uncredited). I added an education section, including her theology doctorate. @94rain:, perhaps you'd look at my edit and see if you have major concerns that I haven't addressed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After rewrite better consensus may emerge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now Wikipedia provides even more credibility to this scammer - more content. And the content is false. "She is best-known for her books on screenwriting" - yet, they are not even mentioned by newspapers. Publisher's Weekly (reviews anything in circulation) trashed her book. Kirkus (provides paid review services) trashed it too. "She also works as a script consultant" - she doesn't have such job, only once in a while gets an order for script notes for ridiculous $750. The reference is for her own (scam) website. "ThD in Drama and Theology" - it's not a research or professional doctorate degree, but a religious title given for religious merit, misleading to reference it. IMDB credits for Indie movies mean nothing. I can get tons of such credits, even producer credits, but this wouldn't warrant an article about me. This article should be deleted, not edited. Seger is notable only as a scammer. Ideaorigin (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of the book arepublished by regular publishers ( for example "The art of adaptation : turning fact and fiction into film" by Henry Holt , and in almost 400 Worldcat libraries; "The Collaborative Art of Filmmaking : From Script to Screen.". Routledge, and now in its 3rd edition; ) , and many have been translated into mutliple languages. The notability is as an author, not a screenwriting advisor. We're not abusiness review site,, so some of the problems mentioned above arei rrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will you vote keep, if I create a Wiki article about myself, as a book author (I've got a book published, that has no value in 2019), plus stating that I work as a president's advisor, quoting my website? You should at least explain, why no newspapers and magazines mention books of a notable author. Without this I don't see her meeting notability requirements. Ideaorigin (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Russ Woodroofe: Thanks for the improvement. With the new sources added and less-reliable sources removed, as the nominator I no longer have much concern and I am now inclined to Keep. --94rain Talk 02:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject's writing career includes books released by traditional publishing houses (Harcourt Brace and H. Holt, with reviews by Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews). Some of those books have been reprinted in Chinese, German and Spanish. She has created a significant body of work. Add to that the wide distribution of those books in libraries, as pointed out by DGG, and the subject clearly passes WP:AUTHOR. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Also note that the nom has been indeffed for copyright violations. (non-admin closure) ミラP 23:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tales from Te Papa

[edit]
Tales from Te Papa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable television series. Can probably be merged with Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Noahe123 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Noahe123 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Mohammad Bhai

[edit]
Aziz Mohammad Bhai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was created in 2015 describing the living person as an "alleged crime-boss" inter alia. It had a single source at the time, which did not substantiate those allegations. It still has the same single source now, which still does not substantiate those allegations. This is after I removed a number of sources which were not about the subject, some of which did not mention the subject, recently, after a complaint at WP:BLPN. I therefore described the original as an attack page. With or without the removal of the additional sources, there are not enough sources for the subject to pass WP:GNG nor WP:BIO. To maintain proper regard for WP:BLP, this should be deleted. MPS1992 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MPS1992 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MPS1992 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wacław Łapkowski

[edit]
Wacław Łapkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While valiant, meets neither WP:GNG or any of the 8 items of WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 TT me 02:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 02:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sourced are alluded to but not sourced. If there is an argument that GNG is met then they need to be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoever compiled the template for Highest gallantry awards disagreed, then. I note that WP:SOLDIER specifies the highest award for valour, which is what the Virtuti is awarded for. The Eagle is apparently awarded to the "most distinguished", whatever that means. And it is a rare award - whether the Virtuti meets WP:SOLDIER or not (and the Template linked from Criterion 1 specifically names it, as I said, so there has apparently been consensus that it does), as the next award below a very rare one, I would consider that it meets WP:ANYBIO, anyway. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terem (Russia)

[edit]
Terem (Russia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Terem (Russia)
 – MBH (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about social institute in Muscovite Russia. The problem is that such social institute wasn't exist in Russia, or, at least, it doesn't have name "terem". As you can see in interwiki articles on Slavic languages, ru:Терем, uk:Терем, pl:Terem and even fr:Terem (architecture), терем is just an upper floor of old Russian buildings. As a Russian, I can confirm this. Women could live in this upper floor, and they could be limited in communicating with strangers, but this social practice definitely not called "terem". Since this enwiki article created by an one-page account and no one source in references mentions a word "terem" in title, could this article be some sort of hoax? It can describe existing practice, but under name that definitely not connected to it. MBH (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a hoax based on a gipsy song:

Отрада Старинная таборная песня в обр. М. Шишкина

  • Живет моя отрада
  • В высоком терему,
  • А в терем тот высокий
  • Нет ходу никому.
  • .
  • Я знаю, у красотки
  • Есть сторож у крыльца,
  • Но он не загородит
  • Дороги молодца.
46.188.23.100 (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not familiar with this "word" but I dont think it is a hoax. I found explanation about Terem from www.encyclopedia.com. Btw, the article was well written but it needs some room of improvement. Let see what others have to say about this. I have not decided whether to vote for keep or delete yet - Jay (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's clearly not a hoax. It appears explicitly referenced in the works used as sources. Richard Pipes, Ronald Hingley and Charles Halperin for example are reliable, even distinguished, scholars on this period.
  • Pipes - "As a rule, Muscovite ladies of quality were confined to a seperate quarter, called terem (from the Greek teremon)."
  • Hingley - "The Tsar's womenfolk lived in seclusion in their quarters (the terem), another feature of old Muscovy to impress foreign visitors as oriental."
  • Halperin - "The first of these is the terem, which epitomized the degredation of women in the Muscovite state. The terem was a tower or isolated quarter of a palace where the women were kept in seclusion."
A quick look in Russian sources easily shows this concept in a number of sources, including the works of Vladimir Dal, and Brockhaus and Efron (search - ЭСБЕ/Терем). The ip has listed several of the other wiki sites that don't make reference to the women concept (these articles are also very short), but has selectively omitted those that do, such as the Swedish and Norwegian. As written, the article is a scholarly and well sourced account of the social institution of women in Muscovite Russia so far as it applies to the separation of the upper caste women. So much for the hoax theory. What I suspect the original commentator was trying to say is that the term Terem does not or should not apply to this institution of separation. Here the findings of Kollman in 'The Seclusion of Elite Muscovite Women' are apparently that "nineteenth-century historians popularized the word “terem,” which became synonymous with the general practice of elite female seclusion". This may be now an outmoded view but it is discussed in detail in the article, and as Pipes, Hingley, Kollman and Halperin show, the term at least is in use by contemporary historians.
In conclusion:
The absence of a similar information on other wikipedias, even the Russian one, is not proof, or even an indication that the information here is in error, or is a hoax.
The term Terem is well attested to in English and Russian language sources which explicitly support the concept as described here.
The term Terem is definitely connected to the practice of separating women.
At the very most the term Terem may be too generally applied as a shorthand for a complex institution that went beyond placing women in separate chambers or structures. If so, this should be addressed with a move discussion to something along the lines of Elite women in Muscovite Russia. Spokoyni (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The name may mean "upper floor" but the social institution is real, and notable, and I think there's enough evidence that this is the usual single word for it. It's covered at least somewhat in every book about Russia in the period, in addition to the substantial coverage given in the article and above. DGG ( talk ) 10:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I read this article as about a social system (possibly an institution, certainly not an institute), similar to a Turkish harem. There may be scope for argument over context and detail, but it does not look like hoax to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Aden (2019)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Battle of Aden (2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 26 which identified a need for more discussion of this deletion and of a clear consensus. This is a procedural nomination; myself I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am comparing them in terms of being an battle from a wider war, not in terms of the battle's size or destructiveness. LeQuattroStagioni's argument was that having articles on battles from a wider war is redundant and should always (await clarification) be merged to the parent article. I'm pointing to the precedent of the Battle of Stalingrad to argue that this isn't the case, as well as saying that if this logic is followed consistently in the Yemeni Civil War then the 49 other articles on battles and campaigns in the Yemeni Civil War should also be merged, but in that case the Yemeni Civil War article would well exceed the Readable prose size. Koopinator (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LeQuattroStagioni: Could you please clarify if you think an article on a battle in a wider war is always redundant to the parent article, and if not, could you explain why you'd consider Battle of Aden (2019) and Battle of Aden (2015) redundant as opposed to say, the Battle of Stalingrad? Koopinator (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have an article on the Battle of Stalingrad because it has been intensively analyzed and documented. The same can't be said of the so-called "no-called" 2019 "Battle of Aden". By your standards, we should have hundreds of articles covering every minor skirmish of the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now this thread has moved from the question of redundancy to notability. I've already made my case that this article satisfies SUSTAINED and NOTNEWS to your original NOTNEWS argument above.
    "By your standards, we should have hundreds of articles covering every minor skirmish of the Korean and Vietnam Wars."
    Not every skirmish, but skirmishes where you can write more than one or two sentences, which also pass WP:GNG, such as Battle of Yeosu should.
    so-called "no-called" 2019 "Battle of Aden"
    Do you still think this is an important point? We already have sources referring to this as the "Battle for Aden" and "Aden Battles". Moving this article to a new title is trivial. Koopinator (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Koopinator, my point of redundant article in this matter is due to they are the same “war” and still ongoing (Battle of Aden, Battle of Aden (2015), Battle of Aden (2018), Battle of Aden (2019)). I disagree to continue with separate articles by year such as 2019, 2020 and on. Imagine if all on-going matters have running year, then it would chaotic, don’t you think? Take Brexit for example, do you think it is wise to have Brexit 2016, Brexit 2017, Brexit 2018, Brexit 2019, Brexit 2020 until the final decision happens? Then we may have Hong Kong Protest 2019, Hong Kong Protest 2020 until it stops? To me, the best way is to compose in a timeline explaining the chain of events. That way, readers can see clearly how it starts and how it ends. All these 4 articles should fall under Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) with a clear timeline explaining the chain of events by year. Look at how it is done for Brexit from 2016 until now. Therefore my vote for this article is “delete”; and would vote the same for other “Battle of Aden” if anyone nominate them in AFD in the future - Jay (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Koopinator, it is normal for an event to have sub-articles, however, the creation of “sub-article” must be due to special event or importance. If you looked at WW1 and WW2, they all have other articles connected to them. I have not read the 4 articles you just posted but if these articles have strong reasons why they should be on its own as per wiki policies, then they can stay. Creating sub-articles by year is never a good practice. This is just my opinion -Jay (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bindi Mwerre Anthurre Artists

[edit]
Bindi Mwerre Anthurre Artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable org. primary sourced pr. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree sourcing was thin when nominated here but I think I have now fixed that. Duff, do you still have concerns, or want to pull the nom? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brooks, Sally (13 December 2011). "Bindi-run art group rewarded". The Centralian Advocate.
Local rag The Centralian Advocate is indiscriminate. Local puff. "INDIGENOUS artists collective Mwerre Anthurre, run by not-for-profit disability support organisation Bindi Inc, has won the Chief Minister's Award For Excellence in Inclusive Practice by Aboriginal Arts Centres."
"Adrian's art is a shining light". The Northern Territory News. 3 December 2018.
About an artist, not this org. Two sentences on the org, nothing in depth.
Price, Jack. "Landscape painter a deserving award winner". The Centralian Advocate (7 Dec 2018).
Local rag The Centralian Advocate. is indiscriminate. local puff. "was the proud recipient of a mayoral award on Monday, recognising the excellent contribution to the community from a person living with disabilities." What does it say about the org, "Robertson paints with Bindi Mwerre Anthurre Artists, which was set up to provide meaningful pathways for adults with disabilities, and he is a testament to the art centre’s good work.". That's it
Raja, Chris (Summer 2012). "'Roads for community': Desert Mob 2012". Art Monthly Australia (256): 92–93.
Bindi Art’s Mwerre Anthurre studio in Alice Springs is included on a list. that's the only direct mention.
Hutchings, Patrick (14 January 2006). "Life and the spirit in which it is lived". The Age.
A few sentences on the org, nothing significant.
Perkins, Hetty (2000). One Sun One Moon. Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales. p. 13. ISBN 0-7347-6360-3.
The Hetty Perkins linked "died in Alice Springs on the 8th of December 1979" So not her as claimed. It's Hetti Perkins with an i. A curator. The book itself has a few short mentions. nothing of any depth.
My bad on the spelling. I think this reference is best considered in the context of the book, when determining subject's significance. This book is a survey of the entire field of Aboriginal Australian art. The centre's role is given explicit attention in one of the most prestigious works in the field. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All up yes I still have concerns, No i will not be pulling the nom, I still fully stand by it. Nothing good, still lacking any real depth. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, looking at the article as it currently stands, and using WP:CORP as the reference point, I can see no possible question that it is now supported by multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources (even were one to accept your view about The Centralian Advocate). So, do we understand your concern now (which may be different to at the time of nomination when the referencing was weaker) to be solely about significance? Or is my summary of the status of the references wrong in your view? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The concern was unchanged, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Mentions are not good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've just added 4 substantive WP:IRS articles from The Australian (national newspaper): Rothwell, Nicolas (25 April 2006). "Shifting landscapes". The Australian; Canberra. p. 14.; Rothwell, Nicolas (26 March 2004). "Barriers given the brush". The Australian; Canberra. p. 17.; Rothwell, Nicolas (13 September 2012). "Desert Mob lays out the legacy". The Australian; Canberra. p. 15; Rothwell, Nicolas (11 April 2008). "The dark wings of desire". The Australian; Canberra. p. 14. And 3 articles from state papers mentioning exhibitions. I'm confident Bindi satisfies WP:CORP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at Cabrils's additions
"Visual Arts". The Advertiser; Adelaide. 9 September 2006. p. W16.
An events listing
Clayfield, Matthew (26 April 2010). "OUT & ABOUT - QUEENSLAND". The Australian; Canberra. p. 14.
An events listing

"HOT SEAT". Weekend Australian; Canberra. 29 October 2005. p. 19

An events listing
Nothing yet, and then there is:
Rothwell, Nicolas (25 April 2006). "Shifting landscapes". The Australian; Canberra. p. 14.
"The studio where Billy Benn paints, Mwerre Anthurre, is a component of the Bindi organisation, a workshop for people with disabilities, located in the light industrial western fringe of Alice Springs." Article about Bill Benn that touches on the org a few times.
Rothwell, Nicolas (26 March 2004). "Barriers given the brush". The Australian; Canberra. p. 17.
This one has a good amount more. Some real depth.
Rothwell, Nicolas (13 September 2012). "Desert Mob lays out the legacy". The Australian; Canberra. p. 15.
Nothing remotely substantive there. - "but in the rough bird drawings set down by Conway Ginger, an emerging painter at Bindi Art's Mwerre Anthurre studio," That's it
Rothwell, Nicolas (11 April 2008). "The dark wings of desire". The Australian; Canberra. p. 14.
"Her path had been a vexed one until she found her way to Bindi and its well-known art centre, Mwerre Anthurre" and "Can we even begin to peer behind the veil that lies across the paintings of Bindi's Mwerre Anthurre art centre, a centre that, with its small cast of creators, each with their own disability, produces some of the loveliest work made in Central Australia?" and "Discerning collectors and connoisseurs of indigenous art are gravitating increasingly to the two disability art centres of the Northern Territory: Mwerre Anthurre in the Centre and Ngaruwanajirri on the Tiwi Islands. For it is in these small, low-key havens, far from fashion and market pressures, that some of the most distinctive art of today's Aboriginal world is being made."
Rothwell articles in The Australian are a good start, just now need multiple publications
The coverage notes that it is a part of the bigger Bindi Centre, so maybe merge there? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Duff's summary of the additional articles. For clarity I would just note that the articles other than those by Nicholas Rothwell were included of evidence of artists who had been exhibited, which I explained above, not as WP:IRS for the page generally. I would still argue to keep the page.Cabrils (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be the tail wagging the dog - the service described in this article is the notable part of the place. Anyway, there's no article on Bindi to merge to...hamiltonstone (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Special thanks to the people who gave out the sources. (non-admin closure) ミラP 23:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April O'Neil (actress)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:


April O'Neil (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG.--NL19931993 (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above and WP:BASIC, that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Subject gets plenty of non-trivial mentions in good quality RS per the article (like Rolling Stone), and Morbidthoughts above, and in RS such as Vice. It is actually tricky to get RS on porn actresses as you have to wade through the multitude of porn-sites on google. Britishfinance (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft. It has been suggested that new sources exist beyond those in the article. If so, let those be added, and the article can be submitted through the AFC process. BD2412 T 04:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete since subject fails WP:ENT. (We should remember that WP:PORNBIO is no more. See here.)
The only criterion of WP:ENT that our subject could possibly meet is #1 (significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions), since she evidently does not qualify on the basis of the others, i.e. #2 & #3 (large fan base or a significant "cult" following & unique, prolific or innovative contributions, respectively).
How would the films in which our subject has participated could qualify as "notable"? The only criterion of WP:NFILM that her films could possibly meet is #3 (i.e. received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking) but, according to the available, reliable sources, her films never won an AVN or an XBIZ, the so-called "Oscars" and "Golden Globes" of the porn industry respectively (even when the cited source that labels those awards as such is a defunct one). Ergo, we have no notability of which to speak. -The Gnome (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean "speculative"? It appears to be a full profile about her in a verifiable, reliable secondary source... one of several sources available about her (both shared in this AFD and otherwise) that seem to contradict your claim of "no evidence of achieved notability"... — Hunter Kahn 23:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m definitely talking about the article where they claim she and 9 others can be the “next” Sasha Grey, if that wasn’t obvious. That’s not an accomplishment. And clearly it hasn’t actually happened that she will have reached Grey’s popularity and mainstream success.... This is exactly why PORNBIO was depreciated and awards aren’t enough anymore. Trillfendi (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought you were referring to this LA Weekly article, which is a full profile entirely dedicated to her and discusses her past, how she began in the adult film industry, how she came to establish her name and unique niche in the industry, and a great deal of other content. I think by focusing on the "next Sasha Gray" thing you are highlighting only one brief sentence/headline in a single article and ignoring the rest of a body of work that helps establish her notability. And even the article you reference includes more than just the "next Sasha Gray" thing, including information about her past, her social media influence, etc. — Hunter Kahn 17:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article itself only says how she got her stage name then lists a smattering of awards/nominations. While it’s good she has a real article on her—that’s more you can say for most adult actresses these days—I don’t demonstrably see a noteworthy career here, in my opinion. Trillfendi (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if we were going by the content on the Wikipedia article as it stands right now, that might not be enough. But this AFD discussion has identified a number of reliable sources that provide more information about her and establish notability. The article should and likely will be expanded to include this new info; I'll happily add it myself once things get a little less busy due to the holidays... — Hunter Kahn 14:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I can see her winning a non notable award and see her winning a notable award. Per WP:ANYBIO winning just one notable award should suffice or show evidence of notability. Am I missing something? Please correct me and I’d promptly change my vote to a delete if not then a Keep is most applicable here. Celestina007 (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Celestina007. It should be clear that porn awards no longer qualify as significant, not since WP:PORNBIO was deprecated - which is why the link to it redirects us to WP:ENTERTAINER. Achievements in the porn industry are not on their own or on the basis of mostly porn-related sources considered elementarily notable. But our subject is Wikinotable for endeavors not strictly related to porn, as shown above (e.g. here). Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Gnome ah! that explains a lot. Thanks for the clarification. Celestina007 (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Public address system. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operatic school PA

[edit]
Operatic school PA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has had no proper sourcing since it was created. Tagged for notability since 2010. I put it up for PROD a few months ago about the PROD was declined by the creator. A couple of months on nothing has really changed and the sourcing hasn’t improved. No indications of notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Tone 20:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Traklogg

[edit]
Traklogg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A software solution with little evidence of notability. Refs are mostly dead-links and searches find nothing better (YouTube, directory listings etc.) Appears to be a very small company (7 employees) without a significant media presence. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   17:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Tone 20:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Lean

[edit]
Dj Lean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local celeb without much coverage (link to one article and an ad for a rave here, one broken link I tracked down to a blog post about his comedy). Internet radio show without a huge following. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG JamesG5 (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White Rose School System

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
White Rose School System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Private school business fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Osano

[edit]
Osano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO piece for a non-notable organization falling short of WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chatterboxer (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC) The 5 Notability standards of Wikipedia are clearly met for this organization. The organization has significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources both national, international, and regional. Chatterboxer [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6][reply]

In addition to meeting the notability standards for media coverage, Osano's software is actively used by > 2% of the Internet making it one of the most used open-source products in history.[7] Chatterboxer

The article does not meet the standard for WP:PROMOTION in that it is not propaganda, an opnion piece, scandal mongering, self promotion, or advertising. The entire article is statements of facts about a notable organization. Chatterboxer

References

  1. ^ "Statesman". statesman.com.
  2. ^ "Tech Crunch".
  3. ^ "Business Insider". www.businessinsider.com.
  4. ^ "Information Week". www.informationweek.com.
  5. ^ "Xconomy". www.xconomy.com.
  6. ^ "Silicon Hills". www.siliconhills.com.
  7. ^ "BuiltWith Osano Usage Report". www.builtwith.com.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being promotional isn't a reason to delete per se. Of the four sources currently in the article, Crunchbase is not reliable and the BusinessWire one is simply a press release. However, the Techcrunch and Business Insider articles are substantial pieces, and the publishers are at least not obviously unreliable. And then there's a lot of coverage in what look to me like 'semi-reliable' online business and techy publications such as [32][33][34] and [35]. Taken together, I think there's enough to meet WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Hugsyrup 11:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment From WP:ORGIND: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of those references contains Independent Content. HighKing++ 13:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Marks (musician)

[edit]
Gary Marks (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NBAND. None of the references with links represent SIGCOV. Cannot find any SIGCOV, including reviews mentioned in article. No hits, no radioplay, no big tours, no significant record deals. Rogermx (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Ayurvedic Professionals of North America

[edit]
Association of Ayurvedic Professionals of North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and/or WP:GNG. COI-driven editing. ∯WBGconverse 16:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

California College of Ayurveda

[edit]
California College of Ayurveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Near-sole coverage located in a county-daily:- The Union. COI-driven editing. ∯WBGconverse 16:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The sources are in-universe, from the school itself (especially statements attempting to give an indication of importance) or its affiliates. The two that may be exceptions appear to still only be mentions in Ayurveda directories. No clear indication of notability. —PaleoNeonate – 08:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Madonna Institute

[edit]
Mount Madonna Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and/or WP:GNG. COI-driven editing. ∯WBGconverse 16:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Roy

[edit]
Neil Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENT, only acted in one film and directed two films. Andrew Base (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinacharya Institute

[edit]
Dinacharya Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. COI-driven editing. ∯WBGconverse 16:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Favonian (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deepti Jal Singh

[edit]
Deepti Jal Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress, model. A before search gives me nothing to establish notability. A TV show and a Commercial for Nescafé does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia FitIndia Talk Commons 15:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FitIndia Talk Commons 15:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FitIndia Talk Commons 15:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sourcing in the article does not establish notability. The biggest writeup is an interview, and the others are passing mentions, directory listings or she is not mentioned at all. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I could see this article coming back, if this actress were to become more notable in the future, but this article in its current form isn't there. Ryan shell (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep _ I am appalled by the decision that Deepti Jal Singh’s article is even considered for deletion. Wikipedia would not have accepted this article if it did not have significant evidence to prove it’s authenticity as well as notability. Deepti Jal Singh has her own knowledge panel on google and several articles written on and about her. How and why this article page is even considered for deletion makes me wonder if it’s really about notability, well because she meets it, or something else. There are many new comer actresses and actors on Wikipedia that has less information and is not up for deletion and I am happy to name them all. This feels like an attack on this actress doubting her notability is just disrespectful. If you are talking about criteria, you should be aware that Wikipedia would not even create the article if it did not meet the requirements needed for article notability and creation. She has been the only Indian female to be on the South African most hottest actresses on Briefly’s article as well as top 10 Kamala Khan Casting choices for marvel. She was the first Indian face for Nescafè - South Africa for international coffee day. She was on a show that won a Golden screen award. What more notability do you want? I advise that you do intensive research about an individual before making assumptions. The decisions you make have consequences. Before creating the article all boxes were checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VogueIn (talk • contribs) 05:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: VogueIn (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD most of the users edits are on the subject in question. On Commons the user has uploaded only files of the subject, looks like a WP:SPA & WP:COI. FitIndia Talk Commons 13:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find enough significant coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. The proposed redirect target doesn't exist in mainspace, so that isn't an option right now. No prejudice against creating a redirect if/when the target exists. I won't remove incoming links, so if the target is available soon, a redirect could be created with minimal disruption. RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RL0919, Normal Op.  Done Aoziwe (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Margaret Gall

[edit]
Murder of Margaret Gall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially WP:NOTNEWS. This article addresses one non-notable unsolved murder from 17 years ago. Are we to have articles on every unsolved murder? AussieLegend (✉) 15:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not significantly different from other unsolved murders. It was also aggressively linked; if deleted, it is important to remove the links in {{see also}} templates. Sorry, that was wrong. There is only one link from article-space remaining. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have started on List of unsolved murders in Australia. Aoziwe (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to redirect. --Kinu t/c 19:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Tone 20:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Barr (American football)

[edit]
Matt Barr (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NGRIDIRON Joeykai (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. The core of this list comes from a single source, with no indication that it is recognized by other sources as definitive or even notable. Our Lineal championship article says there is no definitive list. So in addition to having greater numbers, the Delete commenters have the better of the arguments as well. RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of lineal boxing world champions

[edit]
List of lineal boxing world champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cyber Boxing Zone lineal champions. If it is not deleted it should certainly be renamed, to List of Transnational Boxing Rankings Board world champions or some such. As Lineal championship makes clear, there is not and can never be one single definitive list of lineal champions. jnestorius(talk) 18:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I personally think the idea of lineal champions in the modern era is absolute bullshit, as are claims that this is the same as the world titles contested in the early 20th century before multiple sanctioning bodies existed, but it is popular for boxers who have (or used to have) recognition (albeit from a questionably significant organization) as a 'lineal champion' to claim the title. These claims get reported in the press, but I'm not aware of any reliable sources that really support this as a coherent encyclopedic topic. A merge to Transnational Boxing Rankings Board is an option, but that would perhaps make the article too big. --Michig (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Also worth noting that the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board itself seems somewhat lacking in coverage in reliable sources - most of the sources in that article are the type of glorified fansites that get cited far too often in WP boxing articles, and there doesn't seem much else around. --Michig (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first time I viewed this page, I thought it was a trusted source of information because Tyson Fury was shown to be the lineal champion. I thought, hey, this page gets it: the lineal champion is simply the man who beat the man or the winner of the consensus #1 and #2 fighters. He can only lose the title in the ring or when he "officially" retires, not when other people decide he's retired. As it turns out, what I saw was only a temporary edit "fixed" by the moderators, and the page has been edited and fixed countless times ever since. Is this normal for Wikipedia? If not, the page should be deleted. Davidjohnadams (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A made-up construct of the itself unnotable Cyber Boxing Zone. Not recognized by the WBA, WBO, IBF, XYZ, AARGHBA (the pirates' boxing association), etc., etc. Only one of a number of competing lists. As this one was compiled by the apparently unnotable Cyber Boxing Zone, I don't see that it is notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's insane that someone tagged the article for deletion. CBZ is not a news or rankings website, its a historical boxing website created by boxing historians. Their list of lineal champions are the most reliable among all boxing websites you can find in the internet. Please don't be hasty in deleting or tagging articles for deletion. Prettyboy361 (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Prettyboy361: What do you mean by "reliable", and what sources unconnected to CBZ state that CBZ is reliable and/or notable? Would you agree that there are other, differing, lists of lineal boxing world champions? How would you feel about renaming this list to some name like "List of Transnational Boxing Rankings Board lineal world champions" or "List of Cyber Boxing Zone lineal world champions"? jnestorius(talk) 23:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you want to rename it back to "List of cyber boxing zone lineal world champions" that you once created before? The name of the article is inappropriate that's why it was deleted. And then someone re-created the article with the right title because its a very important article for boxing but then you were the first to object its recreation in the talk page. Why? You cannot delete an article just because you dislike it. If you have an issue on its lead paragraph then you are free to delete, add or change it or put an 'issues tag' on it not 'deletion tag'. Thousands of boxing-related articles are linked on that list article. Even the Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines recognised the article. About CBZ, we all know that informations and research data from that website are genuine. Its not all about its notability of a website but lets also consider of its integrity.Prettyboy361 (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • jnestorius 'Lineal championship doesnt exist' you say??? Cant argue with someone like you anymore who think "lineal championship" does not exist. I may not be an expert wikipedia editor/user like you, but I say I understand boxing far more than you (although this user is just elementary drop out but grew up following boxing :-)) thats why its no wonder why someone like you wanted to remove the article. The List of lineal boxing world champions page is really much needed in Wikipedia/boxing and its a big letdown for us wikipedia boxing editors/users if it gets deleted. The Lineal championship's "Versions" include Cyber Boxing Zone so the List of lineal boxing world champions's contents are version of CBZ's list of lineal champions. We could add a "Versions" section on the article and add The Ring, Boxingscene and TBRB's own lists. I'm afraid that if the article gets deleted, the Lineal championship page will be followed. 175.176.12.1 (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to log in. (user:Prettyboy361) :) 175.176.12.1 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I wrote was "the" lineal championship does not exist. Emphasis on "the". CBZ's version is "a" lineal championship, not "the" lineal championship. Lineal championship could do with better sources — feel free to add some — but IMO it establishes the underlying notability of the topic strongly enough to survive any deletion request. Not so for the list article. jnestorius(talk) 10:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The article is well sourced enough to stay. Pacphobia (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jake Donovan: "Sometimes, perhaps even more often than not, a lineal champion and The Ring champion of a particular division are one and the same. Other times, they are not, in which case, ratings such as those maintained by cyberboxingzone.com and of course boxingscene.com (through site co-manager Cliff Rold) serve as an invaluable source in reconnecting with boxing history." - [42] Not familiar with boxingscene.com? [43] Pacphobia (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Pacphobia: – all that is clear from that 2009 article is that Jake Donovan did not regard the Ring's then claim to recognise lineal champions as valid. It's not clear that cyberboxingzone or boxingscene was maintaining lists of lineal champions, or that the two lists were the same as each other, or that Jake Donovan's list was the same as either. Donovan refers to "ratings", which doesn't mean "lists of lineal champions". If Donovan's policy is to fill a vacancy by a fight between top-rated boxers, then he needs to have a source for determining the top ratings, but his lineal champions will differ depending on which ratings he uses. His wording implies that cyberboxingzone and boxingscene had different ratings, and certainly that other ratings exist. jnestorius(talk) 11:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1. "ratings such as those maintained by cyberboxingzone.com" - Cyber Boxing Zone doesn't maintain any ratings but lists of lineal champions compiled by boxing historians. That's what Jake Donovan was referring to. 2. "serve as an "invaluable source" in reconnecting with boxing history." - He was pointing out the website's credibility as a reliable source of lineal championship. Pacphobia (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's all sourced to the pseudo-sanctioning bodies that deal in this 'title', and fan sites. That's nowhere near good enough. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think the list has to go. Especially nowadays that lineal is commonly being misused by the media. The information listed here in WP are not solely came from CBZ alone, particularly the exact dates, other sources are linked below the page itself. I'll be adding another source. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The concept of lineal champions may be notable, but we have a separate article for that. This is just a terribly-sourced contentious list with no encyclopedic merit. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[I moved Michig and Eric Ercilla comments from Discussion section as they seem to be !votes. If this is not kosher please move back. jnestorius(talk) 12:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete. It is too exaggerated to show that Cyber Boxing Zone is a legit website (MOS:PUFF). Cyber Boxing Zone is a maniac website. Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, too. Wikipedia should not be used to make minor websites seem valuable (WP:ADVOCACY). Originally, "Articles:List of lineal boxing world champions" was sentences written by User:Pacphobia in his user page [44] (WP:NOTPROMOTION). --Poro789 (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no official, established list that Wikipedia can source from. I’ve never seen/heard the CBZ, or TBRB, being mentioned outside of Wikipedia or boxing forums. It doesn’t matter if known boxing historians contribute to those websites, they’re not viewed as official outside of boxing fan sites. If it isn’t already, then it should just be mentioned in the Lineal championship article that CBZ and TBRB maintain their own versions of lineal champions. – 2.O.Boxing 23:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per core WP policy and the general edit-warring mess of the article since its inception. Having a plethora of so-called reputable sources each with their own interpretation of lineal succession fails WP:V, WP:SYNTH, and whatever other policies there are regarding consensus of sources—as in, are sources unified in the content of the article? The answer is a resounding no. Since there is no consensus amongst boxing historians and their publications, WP should categorically not be perpetuating such confusion further. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

The TBRB says "[its lineal lists] show and when they got there as well as those recognized since our inception in October 2012. We decided against going all the way back through boxing history. Why? Because the odds don't favor the Board’s historians agreeing on exhaustive successions nearly as much as they do a debate-gone-bad with flying fists and busted beaks."

Differences between TBRB and CBZ lists
Weight TBRB CBZ
HEAVYWEIGHT Klitschko won vacant title v Povetkin 2013 Klitschko won vacant title v Chagaev 2009
Welterweight Mayweather won vacant title v Pacquiao 2 May 2015 Mayweather took title from Mosley 2010
FLYWEIGHT Includes Oguma def Park 1980 Does not list Oguma 1980 (possibly a simple omission; also has Naito-Wonjongkam 2008 instead of 2007)

Note that CBZ cruiserweight page says "Evander Holyfield is the first lineal cruiserweight champion. ... Or, you can run it as follows: [list starting with Marvin Camel]". Wikipedia plumps for option #2, for no stated reason. jnestorius(talk) 17:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Illustrated 2008 Almanac has asterisked lineal champions in its boxing section; they differ even more (e.g. Cruiserwieght 1989–2003, Light Heavyweight 1974–2005, etc etc). jnestorius(talk) 12:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one source you need to determine who the heavyweight lineal champion is: the ring. Jack Johnson had to beat Jim Jefferies in the ring to remove any doubt. Ezzard Charles had to beat Joe Louis and Joe Frazier had to beat Muhammad Ali. In the 134 year history of the heavyweight lineage, only Gene Tunney, Rocky Marino and Lennox Lewis have actually retired from the sport before they could lose their lineal crown in the ring. When this happens, there's confusion because every reputable source has their own top two fighters. Right now, Anthony Joshua and Deontay Wilder are top two in "BoxRec", Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder lead the "RING ratings" and Deontay Wilder and Tyson Fury are considered the top fighters in "TBRB". Davidjohnadams (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can establish itself as the goto place for the lineal championships, focusing only on who beat who in the ring, and caring less about whether there is a temporary retirement or ban for a lineal champion. There can be separate sections for each reputable source (e.g. Cyberzone boxing, TBRB, RING, BoxingScene, etc.), each having their own views on who the best fighters are, and whether a lineal champion is still active, semi-retired or banned. Davidjohnadams (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Ring may have considered Fury to be the lineal champion at the time they stripped him of their belt, but so what? What has that got to do with the CBZ list? Is boxingscene.com a reliable source? And even if it is, what has Cliff Rold's opinion on lineal titles got to do with the notability of the CBZ list? The lineal boxing champion website is a fansite representing one person's view of how the lineal champion should be determined - what has this got to do with the notability of the subject under discussion? We're not here to debate whether the whole 'lineal' thing has been discussed by various people, just whether we should have an article on the CBZ list. --Michig (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • CBZ is no longer being maintained as it once was in the past and CBZ has no pages for recent lineal champions like Oleksandr Usyk, Oleksandr Gvozdyk, Artur Beterbiev, Saul "Canelo" Alvarez and Mikey Garcia. Not sure why CBZ is being upheld as the best source of information for the current state of the lineage, when you have the RING, Boxingscene and other more up-to-date websites. Davidjohnadams (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now all of a sudden user:Davidjohnadams claims " linealboxingchampion.com" website that was created in 2018 is the "most comprehensive source" but CBZ, TBRB are maniac websites according User:Poro789?

(Cyber Boxing Zone)

Creation: 1994

SPIRITUAL ADVISOR ON ALL MATTERS FISTIC: Hank Kaplan

FOUNDER/CO-PUBLISHER/ ENCYCLOPEDIA EDITOR: Michael DeLisa

CO-PUBLISHER/ EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Stephen Gordon

NEWS EDITOR/STAFF WRITER: Juan C. Ayllon

ASSOCIATE EDITOR/MEDIA RELATIONS: JD Vena

ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Katherine Dunn, Lucius Shepard

HISTORY & RESEARCH: Director of Research: Tracy Callis

CBZ Staff Historians: Dan Cuoco, Hank Kaplan, Matt Tegen, Kevin Smith , Harry Otty, Ron Lipton , Barry Deskins, Matt Donnellon, Joe Grantham

STAFF WRITERS: Chris Bushnell, DscribeDC, Katherine Dunn, Dan Hanley, Eric Jorgensen, Adam Pollack, JD Vena, Lucius Shepard, Ron Lipton, Dean Vios, Tom Donelson, Karl Hegman, Jeffery Hawkins

SPECIAL FEATURES WRITER: Mike Casey

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Matt Boyd, Steve Coughlin, Monte Cox, Brian Donegan, Enrique Encinosa, Pete Ehrmann, Pedro Fernandez, Eldon Frost, Dave Iamele, Eric Jorgensen, Joe Koizumi, Dr. Ferdie Pacheco, Tom Smario (CBZ Poet Emeritus), Jim Trunzo, Fabian Weber, Randy Gordon, Greg Beyer

2008 OLYMPICS CORRESPONDENT: Zhenyu Li

WEB MASTER: Dean Vios

(Transnational Boxing Rankings Board)

Creation: 2012

Founders: Cliff Rold, Springs Toledo, Tim Starks

(Lineal Boxing Champion)

Creation: 2018

Founder: Jake Chaney (heard of this fella?)

Can't determine if a website is credible or not? I think Common knowledge is needed. Prettyboy361 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Common sense can also be used to determine whether information on a website is credible. Who beat Wladimir Klitschko when Klitschko was the lineal champion, and has anyone beaten him since? Why is he being shown as retired when he's fought five times since becoming lineal champion? Could it be that CBZ is outdated, having never created a new page for a lineal champion since 2015? Even the TBRB founder, Cliff Rold, acknowledges that his own TBRB list (and by extension the CBZ list) has strayed from the true heavyweight lineage. Davidjohnadams (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article says it's about the CBZ defined lineal champions and there's a lack of independent reliable sources to show it's notable enough to pass WP:GNG. I'm not sure BoxingScene is a reliable source, but even if it is that means the article has one qualifying source. The Lineal championship article mentions various lists and I think that's sufficient. Papaursa (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. North America1000 14:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded Entertainment System

[edit]
Embedded Entertainment System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Concerns of general notability deficiencies were raised in 2010 and it has not been improved substantially in all this time. Seems to be fancruft interest. Should be deleted for WP:GNG and content fork. It was also created by a single purpose account that was used only to create this article and vanished. Graywalls (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Allen (businessman)

[edit]
Ken Allen (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Some coverage, Beeb, Guardian, Reuters but company announcement, press releases and profiles. Nothing independent, nor in-depth. scope_creepTalk 12:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide News Ukraine

[edit]
Worldwide News Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Metinvest#Metallurgy. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan UK

[edit]
Spartan UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 12:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edgardo_M._Latrubesse

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Edgardo_M._Latrubesse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Problems with sourcing and notablity of the person.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Democratic Society

[edit]
Institute of Democratic Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia.Mitte27 (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 12:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taufiq Febriyanto

[edit]
Taufiq Febriyanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I see, the footballer has never played in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 12:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Margraf

[edit]
Anna Margraf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The women's A-league was sadly not found to be fully professional per a discussion in WikiProject Football. Margraf is also still a teenager who might play internationally or fully professionally in the future. Geschichte (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Redirect targets do not appear to have consensus as suitable alternatives to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Landcraft

[edit]
Landcraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

@Huon: PRODed this page with concern "Unnecessary disambiguation page. There is no indication that any of the topics listed are commonly referred to as "landcraft"; the term appears to see next to no use at all. A Google Books search gave mostly personal names." I've de-PRODed it and brought it here for discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: I'd be happy for the redirect to be taken to WP:RfD under these circumstances (not speedy: it's not uncontroversial), but for now the mention exists, so my redirect !vote stands. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the landship article because the editor who created the disambiguation page added it a few days ago. If we really need not one but two deletion discussions to remove a piece of totally unsourced original research from the encyclopedia, then so be it. I have not seen any policy-based argument to have this page kept in whatever form, though, and I hope the closing admin will take that into account. Huon (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of farms in Gausdal

[edit]
List of farms in Gausdal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:DIRECTORY and the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Farm Names in Oppland. It should also be noted that the matricule numbers given in the article are wrong, since they date from a 1950 source. The numbers were updated during a municipal merger a decade later. Must not be confused with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of farms in Oppland, which was a previous discussion in 2006 about this list and others. Geschichte (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Perkins (Santa Barbara)

[edit]
Joe Perkins (Santa Barbara) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail GNG/NFICTION. Low quality references, no evidence of impact/significance. Prodded few years back by User:George Ho, prod removed by a suspicious account created to deprod articles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 12:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Maslennikov (disambiguation)

[edit]
Igor Maslennikov (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined CSD with bogus reason. Disambiguates only one page unnecessarily while having primary title. Now the primary title Igor Maslennikov already has hatnote pointing to the only other page. Disambiguation page for "two pages" is only done when there is no primary among them, and that means the base title must be the disambiguation page without the parenthetical qualifier. This is something of common sense and for which we have g14. But it seems the admin has his own policy different from the project policy on this. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Tone 20:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Win (film)

[edit]
Win (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film was created solely for blatant promotion of the film. This film lacks notable references. All of the references for the film are pictures. DragoMynaa (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prinzzess

[edit]
AfDs for this article:


Prinzzess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG; was previously deleted and does not seem more notable now.--NL19931993 (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. The page creator is blocked for socking, all "keep"s are by new or little-used accounts... draw your own conclusions. Sandstein 09:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tsimerman

[edit]
Alex Tsimerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perennial candidate who has never advanced beyond the primary in local elections. Little direct coverage beyond his city council ban (a one-time event). Article is clearly not written in NPOV. SounderBruce 04:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 04:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 04:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page ought to be edited significantly down and kept around. Alex Tsimerman is not just a perennial candidate a persistent nuisance at public meetings, has received two one-year bans from Seattle City Council & Municipal Tower, and is now the subject of a book I authored: "Tackling Tsimerman: Fighting Hateful Abuses of Public Comment to Restore Our Commons". Being I am the author of an Amazon-hosted product about Alex and have an adversarial relationship with Alex T., I am real genuinely wary of making contributions on this page. JosefAbraham 00:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs) I went ahead and made a few grammatical edits. Also posted some Qs on the talk page about citations. I think we should do a page on the prolific, vitriolic public commentator as a public service... very carefully. JosefAbraham 00:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs) [reply]

  • Keep As long as I think, the article has been written keeping the NPOV in mind, if I wanted to promote just positive things, I wouldn't have cited negative things about the subject, like this paragraph.


"Shortly after losing the class action lawsuit against Tsimerman in December of 2011, the State of Washington charged Tsimerman in April of 2012 with theft of $9,000 from the State. The state charged Tsimerman with obtaining money for the care of his mother who had passed four months prior. Tsimerman did not hire a lawyer to defend himself against the criminal case as Pro Se. In less than a year the trial was over and the jury convicted Tsimerman of the $9,000 theft. Tsimerman did appeal the decision Pro Se again and lost this case as well." Still, if there is room for improvement, I am willing to rectify those things.
Regarding the notability, not just a city ban, but the only person ever banned. And besides his elections, he is also the lead plaintiff on the largest ever awarded against the state of Washington for almost $100 million dollars. Additionally, local media consistently writes about Alex and his comments at the City council. He is an important political figure even if he isn't liked - as shown by the book written about him on Amazon. You can not only find news articles on him, but there is also a book as well; if he wasn't that notable, who would have spent that much time to write a book on him?
Also, I think SounderBruce is getting personal with Alex, he is even mocking Alex on Twitter. Here is the link. Mr. SounderBruce is violating the Wikipedia rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_attacks and this needs to be kept in mind by other Wikipedians. If he doesn't like him personally, he can't use his privilege to take the page of Alex down. Thank you. JohnBB2 (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note that the page creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and undisclosed paid editing. The linked book is self-published by another participant in this AfD. Regarding my tweet, it is of comedic nature, as I have commented on Tsimerman's activities before as part of my regular off-wiki life in the Seattle political junket. SounderBruce 20:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perennial candidates who perennially lose elections are not "inherently" notable per WP:NPOL — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. So to merit inclusion here, he would have to pass one or the other of two tests: either he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article independently of the candidacies, or he can be referenced to a depth and range of reliable source coverage that marks him out as much more special than most other cities' local cranks and gadflies — and while the commenters above are certainly trying for those, they're missing the boat, as being a nuisance at the city council level does not satisfy the former condition, and the range of sourcing shown here is not sufficient to meet the latter. And furthermore, even if there has been a book written about him, there's no evidence that the book would meet our notability standards for books either — availability on Amazon is not, in and of itself, an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia for a book, particularly when the book we're talking about is a self-published Kindle ebook. So no, the fact that he was the subject of a non-notable writer's self-published ebook is not in and of itself a notability clincher for a person whose activities do not rise to the level of nationalized significance or nationalized attention. Bearcat (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article clearly violates NPVO rules, but in theory that could be fixed. This guy has never been elected, and actually may never have even made it past the primary. He is no where near notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with serious abridgement. I generally share Bearcat's assessment but Alex Tsimerman also torments the King County Council, the Puget Sound Regional Council and Sound Transit. Occasionally, although not mentioned in my book, Tsimerman has sortied to Snohomish County Council to retaliate for being disciplined by politicians in Snohomish County & Pierce County also serving on the Sound Transit federated board of multiple jurisdictions. I think it's important people understand who we're dealing with here. Being I am the author of a book for sale on this very subject, I don't want to be the one making substantive edits. [[user:JosefAbraham[JosefAbraham]] JosefAbraham 00:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)
    Those are still local entities, not national ones. There's no rule that only pestering a city council falls below the bar, while pestering the same city's county council and/or its transit agency somehow rises to some higher level of special — this is still purely local stuff of no enduring nationalized significance. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I come with obvious bias as I worked with Alex a couple of years ago within the Seattle political Scene... however, I'd like to give some background, state some facts and understand what is actually happening. I was contacted by "John" back in August asking me if I would help supply information on Alex. At first I thought it may have been JosefAbraham (and still can't 100% say if it was him or not) and Alex told me to ignore him. John then said all he needed was some history and articles about Alex and that he was creating a wiki page. He asked several times and at the end of September Alex told me to just give him what I had and see what he'll do with it. Then he sends me a link to the Wiki page and I see all this discussion on if Alex is important enough to write a page on. In my bias, yes this is important to Seattle... so here I am to just give the facts as I see them and I would truly like to understand how Alex is not notable.
    JosefAbraham is obviously biased but has written a 90-page book about Alex. Thus, Alex must be somewhat notable to have a book written on/against him. What makes him so notable? Well, a wiki page would discuss this more in depth.
    SounderBruce is obviously biased has he himself has said that "I have commented on Tsimerman's activities before as part of my regular off-wiki life in the Seattle political junket." How can Alex not be someone notable when a paid journalist spends time commenting on Alex's behaviors? Something of importance must be there for someone to waste their time to discuss a person. What makes him so noticeable and important? Well, a wiki page would discuss this more in depth.
    Additionally, Both Bruce and Joe discussed the merits of Alex on Joe's talk page and within this talk page it was suggested that a Wiki page be created by Jwfowble. Jwfowble even offered to lend articles to help create the page. People on wikipedia already consider him notable enough to suggest that a page be created. Why would people already be talking about creating a page if there wasn't something notable about the subject. Well, a wiki page would discuss this more in depth.
    Bearcat shows some form of bias by stating: "There's no rule that only pestering a city council falls below the bar, while pestering the same city's county council and/or its transit agency somehow rises to some higher level of special — this is still purely local stuff of no enduring nationalized significance." First, you call his actions pestering. That is your point of view and Alex (and even me) would call it something different. You obviously see what he does as inconsequential and not rising to the level of importance. However, even if you find him annoying, that does not preclude him for notability. Further, you suggest that it needs to be of national interest. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles for local areas that mean something to the people who live there and has no bearing on the country. For example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leatherman_(vagabond). Alex is a staple within the political sphere of Seattle and as Jwfowble and even JosefAbraham have pointed out it would be significant to supply information to citizens as to who he is.
    Additionally, Bearcat states that "Perennial candidates who perennially lose elections are not "inherently" notable". This statement falls on its face; advancing beyond the primary in local elections doesn't preclude Alex from notability. In fact, the notability page under politicians and judges states "an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" and tells the reader to see General Notability Guidelines.
    With the Guidelines it states "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."
    • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. - Over 30 links describe political and judicial activity (I had given John over 60 articles and links, but he only used 30 or so)
    • "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. - Well known local newspapers and government articles cover Alex in over 30 links
    • "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. - Over 10 different unique sources PLUS several government sources
    • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. - Majority of works are associated with corporations and some are government bodies. In both cases, Alex has nothing to do with them.
    • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. - Coverage is created by news agencies and government and thus should be assumed reliable.
    I submit that Alex has made an imprint on Seattle's political history and his impact will be known for years. The government has become so angry against his actions that laws have been crafted against him to restrict him (and potentially other citizens) from attending meetings. This is valuable information for the people of Seattle to know where rules have come from and why. Alex's electoral runs are mere back stories to the larger discussion of what has been caused due to his actions. Notably having the largest class action awarded against the state due him filing the case and also his conviction from the state for doing the very thing he accused the state of doing. Sure, I agree his tactics are not the best but his impact is undoubtedly embedded with Seattle history. Reduce the page if you must but to ignore Alex simply shows the bias many have against him. As someone new to this wikipedia editing, I would like to honestly know why edits can't be made instead of deleting the page (and no I have not written this on behalf of Alex... these are my thoughts alone). Sam4Seattle (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam4Seattle It was not me as a, ""John" back in August asking me if I would help supply information on Alex". I get most of my information via watching public meetings and public records requests. If you can even have a conversation with this Alex Tsimerman, good on you. Me, I walked up to Alex several times in the past, asked him why he is such a bully and he then runs into Sound Transit HQ reception demanding security get in my face.

That said, you summarized my views quite well. Folks need to know who this person is. Also, as you noted, Tsimerman has been so malicious that, "Laws have been crafted against him to restrict him (and potentially other citizens) from attending meetings. This is valuable information for the people of Seattle to know where rules have come from and why." I agree and I cover some of that in my book available at bit.ly/TT1stEd. Anyone editing the WikiPedia page ought to read it. Furthermore, there is a pledge from the incoming Sound Transit Board Chair to tighten up the rules around public comment. JosefAbraham (talk • contribs) JosefAbraham 03:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitta Bulgari

[edit]
AfDs for this article:


    Brigitta Bulgari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [48])
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not meet WP:GNG.--NL19931993 (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 04:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 04:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 04:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 all. As noted in some of the comments, there is a risk that this type of multiple nomination will be rejected as not having sufficiently similar articles to judge them all together. However, the consensus in this case is that they are similar in the relevant points, in particular that they share similarly flawed sourcing based on apparent GNIS errors. RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Road Junction Windmill, Arizona

    [edit]
    Road Junction Windmill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    [49] Also nominating

    Walker Place Windmill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [50]
    Corner Windmill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [51]
    Ferguson Place Windmill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [52]
    Rush Place Windmill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [53]
    Sand Mill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [54]
    Yellow Hammer Mill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [55]
    Cedar Mill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [56]
    Big Reef Mill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [57]
    Buckeye Mill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [58]
    Sandwash Mill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [59]
    Chilean Mill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [60]
    Lehman Mill, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [61]

    These are or were literally just small windmills. They are not towns, not villages, and certainly not "populated places" as these mass-produced articles incorrectly state. The Walker Place is still the site of a ranch house and a couple sheds, but the others are abandoned sites. A thorough search of Google News and Books yields no results for any of these, other than the USGS/BGN 1986 National Gazetteer which correctly lists them as locales ("Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places, mines, and dams (battlefield, crossroad, camp, farm, ghost town, landing, railroad siding, ranch, ruins, site, station, windmill)."), in contrast to their 1980 entries in the GNIS. There is no evidence of notability for these and they do not pass WP:NGEO. Reywas92Talk 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all there's a problem with the nomination as not all of these were windmills - Cedar Mill was a mine near Humboldt, Arizona and Chilean Mill was near Prescott (they tried to move the mill to a museum in the 1960s, and "Chilean Mill" appears to be something akin to a brand name as a "Chilean mill" is a machine.) There's a chance Cedar mill passes WP:GNG or at least should be added to the Humboldt article. Will do that now. None of the other articles came up as search terms. Doing some original research on "Road Junction Windmill" is literally just a windmill at the junction of two dirt roads deep in the Arizona wilderness. None of these appear to actually be towns. SportingFlyer T·C 06:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all. This is a malformed multiple AfD, and each of these entries should have been discussed individually. Just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):
    The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.
    Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
    It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.
    The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.
    The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969 TT me 06:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have yet to establish that anyone lives in these places. Your writing the statement that "Rush Place Windmill is a populated place" is an irresponsible falsehood. Your mass-production of non-notable sub-stubs with no hope for expansion was malformed. The GNIS is not infallible nor a conferer of notability to abandoned windmills. Are you saying the US Geologic Survey and the Board of Geographic Names were wrong when they classified these as locales in the actual gazetteer? Reywas92Talk 08:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all I normally do not like a long list of topics for AfD but this was the right call by the nominator Reywas92. It saves editor time and energy. In order to pass WP:GEOLAND these need to be legally recognized places not neighborhoods or census tracts, or unincorporated areas. Failing the GEOLAND SNG the topics would need to pass WP:GNG and they do not. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. None are populated places nor otherwise notable for GEOLAND#2. I looked at several of these on the relevant topo map and what you see is the name and a little windmill symbol. The map legend says this symbol indicates "Miscellaneous Structures - Windmill". Miscellaneous structures are not populated places under GEOLAND. Obvious categorization mistakes in the GNIS should not be propagated into WP. MB 21:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - as per WP:MULTIAFD, this multiple nomination does not appear to meet those criteria. Onel5969 TT me 04:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all Evidentially not populated places, the articles are currently perpetuating factual errors. There are no criteria precluding the nomination of multiple similar articles all derived from the same single erroneous source.----Pontificalibus 12:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. North America1000 15:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Second Chance Rocks the Two Virginias

    [edit]
    Second Chance Rocks the Two Virginias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I found no significant coverage for this festival. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Tone 20:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons)

    [edit]
    Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The usual DnD-cruft: pure PLOT with PRIMARY sourcing plus listing of appearances in few other books/games/etc. Fails GNG/NFICTION. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Nagle

    [edit]
    Patrick Nagle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    GNG fail. Seems to be a coatrack article for the businesses. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patrick here. I'd to think I'm more notable and that my contribution to society are greater than half of the athletes published on Wikipedia. :) The page is useful for people who want to know who created RateMyProfessors.com into what it is today. In addition A LOT of people inquire about RateMyTeachers.com and wikipedia provides valuable direction as to the status of that project. Coatrack... meh, not really so. Rehab.com is helping over 8,000 people a day and I suspect you will be hearing much more about that project in the future. Between RateMyProfessors.com and RateMyteachers.com, these projects have reached over 500,000,000 people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.249.230.2 (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability on Wikipedia is determined by external independent reporting on the subject. There is plenty of reporting on the two companies that Nagle bought, but not much at all on Nagle. So those companies have articles and Nagle probably won't, shortly, as there are not enough sources to establish notability. All I could find were items similar to this PRNewswire article, which we do not consider to be a reliable source. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Amy Meselson

    [edit]
    Amy Meselson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    It sounds like a commendable personal history, but the only source of the notability is a NYT obituary, which is paid placement, not an indication of independent journalistic notability. ZimZalaBim talk 01:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete one obituary is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep More obituaries, here and here.--A21sauce (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the sources from A21 sauce. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Two of the obituaries are almost certainly unpaid obituaries that were featured because she was a notable individual. The third is a run of the mill obituary that was probably paid--not saying I object to it; just making a distinction. Hoping to find sources written during her lifetime about her work. I did a quick search for her on Google Books and there were a number of results. Will add what I find to the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. First, we have always considered that anyone with a NYT full obit is notable, at least for the modern period (1896+), and with possible exceptions for their early 20th century extensive coverage of NY society figures. --they are a much better judge than we are. I do not recall a single exception in 12 years, and if there is, Johnpacklambert , I would like to be reminded of it . But, decisively, there's also the full editorial obit in The Independent, which shows international coverage. If the theory behind WP:GNG means anything at all, we follow the notability decisions of major reliable sources. If the sources are major enough, 1 is enough, las for example 1 article in Brittanica or its equivalent in other languages. DGG ( talk ) 10:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, would you share where it is said that NYT full obituary covers the notability requirements? Or is this just the general assumption of the community? I have not seen this but it would be helpful in my work creating articles and assessing them in Articles for deletion? Thanks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying it is a written rule, but that it is our almost invariable practice. It has been discussed, wirh respect to what newspapers were applicable, and the conclusion was only the NYT and the London Times were sufficiently reliable in all cases--though such obits in other national level papers have often been used as deciding factors, (There probably are also some newspapers in other countries equally reliable, tho I do not recall any discussions, nor do I know myself editorial practices in this respect outside the US/UK.) The way of demonstrating I am in error, is counterexamples. (The potential problem is from obits of people who may be covered for no reason except a vague human interest, or minor exclusively local interest. The same problem can arise from other generally reliable biographical sources including some national encyclopedias that include coverage of random individuals for the sake of presenting a social picture. In a few cases I have argued against inclusion for this reason--my argument was never accepted. ) DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Tone 20:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Honra e Ciúmes

    [edit]
    Honra e Ciúmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article has only 2 sources and is a stub. I am sorting this out for a nomination by somebody else who got a bit screwed up. PatGallacher (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_December_21&oldid=1142614454"