Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 November	10 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete and redirect to Women in the World. Sandstein 10:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the World Foundation

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

Not separately notable from Women in the World Rathfelder (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect. Already contains most of the same content so no merge needed. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inter Shipping

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

This subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP for lack of reliable coverage from secondary sources. The references in the article are 1 primary and 2 sources of unclear coverage considering they are locked behind a paywall (and does not seem like a notable website as well). Nothing in my WP:BEFORE search came up as significant coverage of the subject needed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is sourcing in reasonably reliable sources, but its fairly minimal, not satisfying Sig Cov with respect to the company itself, and a clear demonstration of routine corp details. It doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP as far as was evident. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Iqbal

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines PROFTEST and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation record (Google Scholar under author:m-ashraf-iqbal) isn't enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and without much stronger evidence of its being a major institution the directorship of Namal College or the rectorship of Ali Institute of Education aren't enough to convince me of #C6 (that part of the world has many many small and non-notable private educational institution). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VocalizeU

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

After WP:BEFORE source searches, it is evident that this company does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11. Unsourced corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Frontline Club Charitable Trust

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

Unreferenced and not notable in its own right. Part of the Frontline Club. Rathfelder (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has no references and I am unable to find any reliable independent sources discussing the Trust. Even the Club website has no link to it as far as I can see, so very non-notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, and nothing to be found out there. I suppose the only reason it wasn't speedied/prodded was that it's been with us since 2006. Bishonen | talk 03:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cassell

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

Shameless self-promotion by single edit creator. Article is an orphan, perhaps emphasising how after almost 3 years it still hasn't found a place or integrated in here (because it doesn't belong on an encyclopaedia).

The subject is a pick-up artist (teaches dating to men) of some degree of success within this field, but not enough to justify a page - i.e. doesn't pass GNG. There does not appear to be significant coverage about him in reliable, independent publications. There's some stuff on esoteric sites dedicated to that field, and there's some stuff including an article he penned in a publication of note, but that's a one-off of him commenting on something that happened in that was noteworthy. overall i don't think any of them standalone can be considered significant nor is the sum of scraps anywhere near something significant

As an example of someone else in the industry (who doesn't have a page, perhaps because of notability issues too), here's a comparison of metrics which I appreciate isn't quite how notability/GNG works, but does help paint an overall picture
Kezia Noble vs Johnny Cassell
facebook fans: 266,228 vs 19,855
twitter: 15,500 vs 9,360
youtube subscribers: 391,920 vs 11,932

that should illustrate that the subject is several status levels below a peer from the same industry who has not yet been considered notable by any editor enough to warrant an article. The only reason this joke of an article (the weaselly content) exists is because someone with no connection or interest in this encyclopaedia made a one-off 'contribution', most likely to promote the subject and give it the illusion of importance and independent recognition.

Rayman60 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 22:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (@coffman, the speedy was never going to stick—the article makes too much of a claim of significance for its subject). There is, however, an absolute dearth of reliable coverage in either news outlets or literature. Passing mentions, press releases, directory-style entries, and generally unreliable sources such as tabloids and blogs, all insufficient to qualify as either in-depth or persistent coverage from the independent, secondary reliable sources that are necessary to pass the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 09:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was no support for deleting the article. One response asked to reference that the article for a keep, however sources not in the article can establish notability per WP:NEXIST. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine Innocente

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

No assertion of notability. Google scholar turns up nothing. Wqwt (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not that an actual assertion of notability is required, but the article does contain such an assertion: that Innocente founded a New Age church The Bridge to Freedom. Apart from the two references in the article, GoogleBooks searching does produce a few other relevant sources. E.g. there is an article "Ascended Master Teaching Foundation" on pp. 77-78 of The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions that largely deals with Innocente's activities. Similarly, there is coverage (see pp. 168-169) of Handbook of the Theosophical Current. Other examples of coverage are [1], [2], [3], [4]. That's not a huge amount of coverage but taken together I think there is enough here to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I would like to propose a policy that any deletion discussion that includes the phrase "no assertion of notability" be automatically closed as keep and the nominator be banned for a year from creating new deletion nominations. "No assertion of notability" is not and has never been a criterion for deletion. There are sources beyond what Nsk92 listed above to be found in this GScholar search, which cast quite a bit of doubt on nom's false statement that there are no sources available there, but they're not necessary to dispositively demonstrate notability. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose such an aggressive measure, you may do so on the appropriate page, which is not this one. Wqwt (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to instruct me on what you consider to be the acceptable venue for proposing policy changes you might wait for an instance of my actually proposing one, which is not this one. If you want to nominate pages for deletion, you may do so by citing actual reasons for deletion, of which "no assertion of notability" is not one. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence is unnecessarily inflammatory and does not add to the discussion. You could've just left it at "'No assertion of notability' is not and has never been a criterion for deletion." Wqwt (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the new age cult she founded. If anyone can source details, e.g. dates of birth, upbringing, even in paper source, I'd reconsider. Tony May (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Frank Grant

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

I'm unable to find any independent source about this person. Article reads like a resume written by someone closely associated with the subject. Zanhe (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me-2-U

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

Non notable music group, Fails NMUSIC & GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 20:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: they charted two songs on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart [5], and on the R&B/Hip Hop Airplay and the Adult R&B charts as well, although I'm not sure if the latter two charts are subcomponents of the first one. It's not much, but they do have a charting history at least. Richard3120 (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charted songs are great but GNG or atleast BASIC still needs to be met, At present there's not one source in the article so theoretically they should actually be deleted under BLPPROD. –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree – I've added the source for the chart history, but it's still difficult to justify this article if there isn't a single source for any of the prose in it. Richard3120 (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the charting singles enough for significance?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm really on the fence with this one. The chart hits and minor placings on relatively minor charts, they had no hits on the Billboard Hot 100. They released one album on major label RCA, so there is likely some coverage around, but being from 1993, coverage of the album is likely to be in print sources. There is a very brief bio at Allmusic ([6]), and a more substantial article from The Crisis ([7]) - finding anything else may require a trawl through offline sources. --Michig (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It coudn’t be more clear that they are not notable enough for an article. Billboard is not notability unless they chart at a substantial number (such as top 10) or break a record. Many non-notable artists / groups have charted on Billboard.Trillfendi (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandu Thota

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

Claimed notability is being the found of a company that was acquired by Google in 2011. That's about it. No in-depth coverage to support WP:BIO or WP:GNG, just mentioned a few times in the articles about the acquisition. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing more than passing mentions Spiderone 21:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article or my own searches suggests notability. TJRC (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heroldo de Esperanto

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

63 results on Google for "Heroldo de Esperanto", no sources, and full of red links to non-notable entities. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Covered in multiple books, including [8] [9] [10]. Arguable whether it is more appropriate to have an article about Teo Jung than the periodical, though its subsequent resurrection suggests the latter. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks to be notable enough for an article. Long-running magazine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While Esperanto is very much a minority language, it is by far the best known of the "invented" languages. This appears to have been a long-running periodical, even if publication has latterly been sporadic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was unsure about this, since much (though not all) of the reliable material found is about the editor, not the subject itself. Some looking round led me to an appropriate explanatory supplement that lets me run off a criteria for my first time (functionally Peterkingiron's reasoning) - criterion 5 "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" in Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. Esperanto is a fairly significant niche market, and this clearly was significant (if likely no longer). As notability is lasting, this is a Keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also found the books mentioned by Bakazaka, and agree it meets Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. I also find scholarly article references, eg 'Publishing for a diaspora: The development of publishing in the international Esperanto movement' [11], one in The Multiple Realities of Multilingualism: Personal Narratives and Researchers’ Perspectives [12], and a source of data for two papers in Interlinguistics: Aspects of the Science of Planned Languages [13]. The number of Google results is not a criterion for deletion (and contra Nom, I get far more than 63!), nor is the lack of referencing in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Williams (model)

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

Next in the “But she was in the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show!” deletion series. This article has no reliable sources (no, Fox News doesn’t cut it) yet makes claims that she’s part of an “exclusive” list of Victoria’s Secret models (many models do it annually... this isn’t special) yet sources given don’t confirm that. Models.com and Fashion Model Directory as sources are not enough for notability. Model has not worked enough to establish a “career”. Statements about Guess? are not sourced and even if they were it still wouldn’t be enough (which is to say I tried to find them but couldn’t). Trillfendi (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nearly all delete opinions were fully rebutted successfully. I will reverse the close if anyone feels like there is a need for more discussion but I see no clear reason to do anything other than keep. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Raw 25 Years

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

Although the page is heavily sourced all of the sourcing is WP:ROUTINE and nothing is WP:LASTING. All relevant information is already included at List of WWE Raw special episodes. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to List of WWE Raw special episodes. The article uses the template for pay-per-view events but it becomes clear that something ain't right as you read through it. For example, the event ended with a brawl that built towards an actual PPV that would take place six days later. Sure, legends appeared, and it was (barely) broadcast from two different arenas, but at the end of the day this was just an episode of Raw. It's a milestone for WWE Raw to have remained on the air for a quarter century but the episode that celebrated that achievement doesn't inherit that notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Sources are WP:ROUTINE match results and don't push this past the WP:GNG bar.LM2000 (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Claiming that the sources are simply routine match results is disingenuous at best. The sources include a discussion in PWInsider three months in advance, as well as stories about the upcoming event in Mirror.uk and the Denver Post. There are discussions of the ratings in WrestleView and Figure Four Online. There are reviews and analyses in Pro Wrestling Torch, ESPN, Deadspin, and Mirror.co.uk. This is in addition to the recaps, which include such sites as CBS Sports. There is clear notability demonstrated for this event, at a level far beyond simply reporting routine results. A quick Google search also reveals discussions on Forbes, Cleveland.com, Sports Illustrated, NESN, Thesun.co.uk, Rolling Stone, Canadian Online Explorer, and many, many more. Even the DVD is in the top 100 sports DVDs on Amazon.com. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the sources you mentioned are listed at WP:PW/RS as not reliable. In addition all of these "analysis" you are mentioning is done for every episode of Raw, so what makes this episode more notable than any other? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where WP:PW chooses to place the sources on their lists is irrelevant--the project has a history of overcompensating due to insecurity about the subject matter on which they write. The only three sources (not many--three) listed as unreliable are the Daily Mirror, The Sun and Forbes. While the Daily Mirror and The Sun may sensationalize news, they also provide good coverage of professional wrestling. Their wrestling coverage should be considered separately from the site in general, as the tone and reporting style is quite different. The Forbes stories (five of them) come from three different authors--one with a business economics degree who also hosts a podcast that has had numerous WWE stars as guests, one is a former lawyer who has published a book and also contributes to ESPN, and one with a journalism degree who has written for a sports newspaper. Since the guidelines on Forbes say to consider the writers as potentially self-published sources, I would say that they actually stack up pretty well. Even without these sources, however, there is more than enough to assert notability. If there are this many reliable sources about an event, the important consideration is GNG, not every other episode of Raw. In reality, if there is sufficient coverage in independent mainstream sources, every episode of Raw could get an article. This is the case with many shows. You have not established why Raw (and, in particular, a special episode of Raw with over two dozen reliable sources available that discuss it in detail--not passing mentions, and I acknowledge that not all of these sources are currently included in the article) should not have its own article. I have proven GNG. You are relying on "moving goalposts." Based on those considerations, the article should be kept. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst not as notable as Raw 1000 it still passes the test of notability as again the sources are not "routine". The notes by GaryColemanFan of independent mainstream coverage bears this out. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or eventually redirect to List of WWE Raw special episodes. Notability is not met for a stand alone article on this. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I am of the opinion that this is somewhere in the grey - I see enough reasons to both, keep this article, as well as delete it. I do think that it might be prudent to perhaps add some more information such as background of the event. FlyingBlueDream (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per coverage from CBS, Sky Sports, Variety, Times of India, Deadspin, Vice and more. Needs cleanup as it was under a WP:REFBOMBING. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Cannibal's Pot

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

Very few mainstream sources exist that cover this book, so the article likely fails WP:SIGCOV. The author on the author, Ilana Mercer is also current being considered for deletion Nblund^talk 17:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable vanity-published title, held in just 41 libraries. The publisher is Stairway Press, which offers "complete marketing services powered by online media, social media and internet communities, professional editing and world class graphic design" to aspiring authors and has a total of about 64 titles listed in WorldCat, several of them climate change denials. Just for comparison, a relatively notable title such as Fear: Trump in the White House by Bob Woodward is held in 1538 libraries; the publisher, Simon & Schuster, has about 93,858 titles in WorldCat. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBOOK, my searches fail to turn up sufficient secondary in; book reviews that exist ate in small circulation and FRINGE publications. Author not notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBOOK, my searches also fail to turn up proper reviews. SportingFlyer talk 09:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane.ai

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

Yet another unremarkable startup. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Likely covert advertising. MER-C 16:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH as I could find no significant, reliable independent sources, just some social media listings and information on corporate funding. Probably created by an undeclared, conflict-of-interest editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terrible sourcing. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:NCORP Terrible terrible sourcing. Are they the mickey? scope_creep (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roul and Doors

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

Non-notable DJ duo, fails WP:GNG and WP:DJ. Lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 14:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-existent online coverage and the only articles I can find on them are promotional bios. aNode (discuss) 05:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious CHRIS

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

Fails WP:GNG-WP:MUSICBIO. Some coverage, but mostly local in scope. Murgh Krahi (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- created by SPAs and no indication of satisfying MUSICBIO as iTunes is not a reliable chart. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chart positions mentioned would indicate likely notability but are not supported by sources. Australian newspapers are from different areas but appear to be for local audience in one area, the UK source could be described as local interest but also indicates notability as a musician, some other sources are press releases. There's probably just enough to meet WP:GNG but would have to be checked for accuracy. Peter James (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not see anything significant in the way of IRS to support GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Potts (artist)

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

fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:SELFSOURCE, 2nd nomination (1st nomination result was delete), notability tag since March 2015 Abcmaxx (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see a previous AfD discussion - could you provide a link? --Michig (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply @Michig It was an uncontested speedy deletion Abcmaxx (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only previous deletion I can see is via PROD at Marc Potts from November 2014. --Michig (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched and found lots of coverage on Marc Potts the cyclist, but nothing RS on the artist. There may be something out there, but I did not find it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Army Regiments (1800)

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

There's already List of British Army regiments, List of British Army regiments (1881) and the year 1880 [sic: 1800] has little or no significane for British Army history. The article also has sparse references, some which are dubious and doesn't meet WP:RS. It also is quite WP:NOTDIR. It should be deleted or if not, merged carefully with the above two articles or others than are related. Sammartinlai (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sammartinlai (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve A listing of British Army regiments during the Napoleonic Wars has merit (and merging it into a list 81 years later would be very tricky). Remember all our military articles started off years ago at this kind of quality. However, while the article is worthy of retention, that is not to be understood as full support for the editor creating these articles, who needs to read, understand, and start fully complying with WP:PILLARS - or will be blocked. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it is not fully sourced. However it was fully sourced then I think it would make the basis of a useful article. Dormskirk (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid deletion rationale. There is no requirement that an article be "fully sourced" to survive deletion, and policy requires that content is verifiable. We fix what can be fixed, and even if any specific content proved unverifiable we would simply remove that content and preserve the rest. See relevant policy at WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Endorse Postdlf. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough - in which case please can the creating editor insert the missing sources. The information must have come from somewhere. Dormskirk (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - On further review I am prepared to accept that the current referencing is already adequate. Dormskirk (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator seems confused as to the list's content or scope; as the title makes clear, this list is actually for 1800, not 1880 contra their nomination. postdlf (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confused. Whatever date is is it doesn't meet standards and at best can be merged with other lists. We don't need a directory of cancelled regiments for the page's creator's own sake.Sammartinlai (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, what sort of entry is it with strikethrough articles like *~~1st West India Regiment - ?? [Formed in West Indies]~~ ?! Sammartinlai (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we have these lists of regiments solely for their creators' sake: see List of Imperial Russian Army Don Cossack regiments, also completely unsourced, but completely unchallenged. This editors's new pages are verging on being attacked solely because they have been created by the same person each time. There are large gaps in our regimental listings of European armies, which, while needing improvement, these lists can help to fill. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but it still doesn't answer my comment. Would you like to try to edit this article then?Sammartinlai (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meet what standards? It's a perfectly acceptable date. I have also removed some of the strikethroughs, though the notation at the top for their use is quite clear - disbanded by 1815.

Comment: No explanation for acceptable date, no clear lead and you did not sign your entry. Sammartinlai (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of British Army regiments of the Napoleonic Wars. 1800 is arbitrary. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is ok but does not solve the issue.Sammartinlai (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What issue? AfD is not cleanup!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't answer if it should go or stay. What does renaming help?Sammartinlai (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems backed up by sources. I think there's some merit to renaming it since it does actually appear directed to regiments of the Napoleonic wars. Notability seems to be there and substantiated - 1800 is during the Napoleonic wars and is used in the source material. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a good article, and cleaned up. Sourcing could be. endless. A truly titantic amount of history has been written about these units. scope_creep (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it cleaned up? It's missing a clear lead, using mainly archives. Explain. Sammartinlai (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fruhling Bros. Artistic Wrought Iron Works

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

WP:COI article which fails WP:CORP. Cabayi (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about relevance/significance have been addressed in the article with secondary-source information and references about the architectural significance of Fruhling Bros. Artistic Wrought Iron Works in its relation and contribution to notable buildings of the time period. I have ensured that the information in this new page is as neutral and as closely tied to the information in the historical reference material as possible. As always, further contributions to make it even more so are welcome! Thanks! Zacharyfruhling (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zacharyfruhling (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The creator may have a conflict of interest but the article seems neutral to me. The discussion of the company in books and the display at the Natural History Museum Los Angeles County demonstrate notability; it is difficult assessing notability of historic companies in a pre-internet era. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources already in the article show that the subject meets the GNG as well as NCORP. Nom's off-hand no-explanation rationale is a disservice to the deletion process. It's clearly stated in WP:ORGCRIT that "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Those sources, as I said, are already in the article. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The best sources are in the article already - the only newspaper mentions I can find relate to a lawsuit, a fire, and family events like a birthday and funeral. The existing sources are pretty local - probably not all of the Men of the Pacific Coast would be notable, and the history is of Los Angeles county only, not the state. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough reliable sources coverage in the article to pass WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Liberators

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

This "team" is just a one-issue joke and nothing more. The only lasting significance is that it's the first appearance of Valkyrie (Marvel Comics), but that can be explained in that article, without needing a standalone one. For a similar discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice League Antarctica. Cambalachero (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being covered in the following sources. Andrew D. (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Comic Books and Graphic Novels
International Journal of Comic Art
The Woman Fantastic in Contemporary American Media Culture
A Brief History of Superheroes
The Supergirls: Fashion, Feminism, Fantasy, and the History of Comic Book Heroines
Of Jungle Queens and Amazons: Marvel's She-Hulk as Poststructural Feminist Icon
The Ladies of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Have Asked For Their Own Avengers Movie
Marvel Has an “Interest” in an All-Female Superhero Movie

Comment - I haven't reviewed all of Andrew's sources (since he didn't link them), but that last can hardly be considered "coverage". It's a name drop followed by a barebones explanation of what it meant ("The Lady Liberators first appeared in 1970 and were an all-female superhero team quietly put together by the Enchantress that included Wasp, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, and others."). Argento Surfer (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is coverage, sure, but is it more than trivial? I doubt so. As said, it's just a single issue joke. There's not really any substantive info about it that we may add. Cambalachero (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about 'joke', it's probably an earnest attempt, that never took off due to poor execution. I've looked at the source cited in the article, and that consists of a passing mention in a book about 300 pages, so I'd say it's trivial. The question for me is whether to redirect or merge, and where to? --Killer Moff (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be merged into the Valkyrie (Marvel Comics) article, Publication history, with the out-of-universe perspective. That is, that the character was created in the Avengers as a one-issue "joke" (or whatever) that turns out to be one of the regular villains at the end, and then reused as a standalone character in another comic later on. This is hinted in the article but not clearly explained. The plot section does not need merging. The 2008 team only cites the comic book itself as a reference, a primary source, and does not provide notability beyond being a mere continuity nod for the dedicated fans. Cambalachero (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Valkyrie publication history gives sufficient information already? Adding info about the Lady Liberators there seems somewhat tangential to the article focus. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given the highly questionable notability and lack of a suitable redirect target. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew D above, or merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations or Valkyrie (Marvel Comics). No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's material out there in the news and the sources mentioned above for a referenced article. Hiding T 14:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after reviewing the sources mentioned above, there is not sufficient material to build an article. The mention in A Brief History of Superheroes is so minor that it wasn't even included in the index. I wouldn't oppose a redirect if a suitable target can be found. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 10:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gear Player

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

Tagged for notabillity since August 2013, prior AfD was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gear_Player with no consensus. AtlasDuane (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark L. Prophet

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

Only independent references I could find are brief obituaries. Rest is WP:PROMO. Wqwt (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His wife Elizabeth Prophet is definitely notable as founder of a notable New Age religious movement (Church Universal and Triumphant), which is discussed in the literature (see e.g. JSTOR 4146349, doi:10.1525/nr.1998.1.2.293, JSTOR 23921138, JSTOR 25443030, etc.) Now, is he independently notable? While he is not as well known as her, I think the answer is yes. He started what evolved into the CUT–she assumed the leadership upon his death–so is an important part of the history of that movement, and scholarly accounts of the movement usually discuss his role. SJK (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum: see also doi:10.1163/9789004235977_011.) SJK (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Church Universal and Triumphant. He was an important part of its history, but that doesn't justify having a separate article about him. --Michig (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Money Economics

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. None of the citations in the article are reliable or independent. A search of outside sources revealed nothing better. Previously PRODed in 2009 for non-notability, but the tag was removed by a single-purpose account. — Newslinger talk 11:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 11:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 11:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 11:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective sourcesscope_creep (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shinsoman

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

Nothing here, or when searching for sources, suggest that we are near a [[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:GNG]] pass. Sam Sailor 18:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep Has won a notable award in Zimbabwe, he's also got some significant press coverage. Article should probably be rewritten. ShunDream (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forever beef

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

A WP:DICTDEF of a non-notable neologism (not even in the paper, just in one headline writer's imagination). power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the article title is a neologism, the article content/ subject matter (single academic study on existing Wikipedia issues) is probably best mentioned as appropriate in Wikipedia, Wiki, or any of subsidiary articles such as Academic studies about Wikipedia. As an uncommon neologism, I don't think the title is warranted as a redirect to any article that covers the subject, and such scant content is not worth preserving. Not every scientific paper with a flurry of press releases and churnalism warrants a stand-alone encyclopedia article, for crying out loud. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator (DGG). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Koch

AfDs for this article:

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

This poorly-sourced advertisement has been here since 2005. There are two possible courses of action: deleting all the unsourced material and seeing what is left, or just deleting it, and letting someone write a proper article if he is actually notable. The tributes to the books are marketing squibs, not formal reviews.

the combination of clear promotionalism , dubious notability , and unsourced BLP to me indicates the best course would be deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Trillfendi (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you take away the fluff and the unsourced material, you have an unsourced infobox and half a sentence - this is not sufficient for an article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I first marked it for AfD, and then realized stubbification is an alternative. So I removed all the unsourced material last night, 8,000 of the 12,000 bytes. What's left are the books. They are important books, from established publishers , and are some of them in over a thousand libraries Word\ldCat--even for popularized business books of this sort, that is quite substantial. It has been translated into at least 10 languages, and there are several high quality reviews listed/ DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sagacious editing by User:DGG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't even know why this was re-listed after the proposer withdrew their nomination. It's sourced, appears ntoable and thus keepable, if not particularly good as an article. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

X (Nonpoint album)

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

The AllMusic entry has no review. The other four refs are WP:ROUTINE and there is no indication the album meets any notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a couple third-party reviews. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like they were both removed by Sixty Minute Limit (talk · contribs). https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/77839/Nonpoint-X/ is a user review. http://www.ghostcultmag.com/album-review-nonpoint-x-spinefarm/ didn't appear to be a RS (Proudly powered by WordPress). Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Thanks for clarifying that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just added Background, Critical reception and Chart positions with references. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, sources are more about the songs than the album proper, but the fact that the album has charted is a valid assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It would be difficult to review an album without reviewing the songs, the reviewers review close to one half dozen of the tunes, so I think this passes for what we are doing. But thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fits notability as a charting album. ~SML • TP 16:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That criteria states it may be notable, not that it is notable. With that said, the new sources do show it is notable. I'm happy to withdraw. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear after relisting. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Raw 1000

AfDs for this article:

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

Although the page is heavily sourced all of the sourcing is WP:ROUTINE. Based on it being 4 years since the last AfD nothing has proven to be WP:LASTING. All relevant information is already included at List of WWE Raw special episodes. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect I find it hard to believe that this happened six years ago and that the last discussion (which I took part in) was four years ago. Time flies! But with the passage of time I think we have a better understanding of notability. My googling hasn't come up with any extensive coverage since. Unlike pay-per-views, which are almost always notable, I don't see any mentions in books, or even many post-2012 online sources. This was simply a special episode of Raw, so the redirect to List of WWE Raw special episodes is appropriate.LM2000 (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Four of the citations specifically mention the 1000th episode in the title. This recognition by Entertainment Weekly, USA Today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and Pro Wrestling Torch helps assert notability. The writeup in the New York Times source also helps make the episode's significance clear, as it generated the largest television audience in a decade (i.e. the highest ratings since the Attitude Era). The storylines are significant enough to warrant their own article--for example, the setup to the Lita-Slater match was over a month. Many series have individual articles for each episode. While Raw does not, there is no reason not to split off an article when there is sufficient information and multiple independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing you have mentioned is arguments for its own article. Everything you have mentioned can be summarized in a few sentences in the List of WWE Raw special episodes article as mentioned above. What is lost in a redirec? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT source is a short blurb which only mentions the TV ratings, which are important to the event's impact but far from the only important thing. The local newspaper source may constitute substantial coverage but is similar to what kind of write-up would be found before an event in my local newspaper, since WWE only comes here every four or five years nowadays (they originally came twice a year or thereabouts). Neutral on the AFD as I don't have the time to look over all the sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entirely notable episode of Raw arguably one of the most notable in the history of the program. Well sourced and nothing "routine" about the sourcing at all. Cena's Money in the Bank cash in was notable in that it was the first failure of said cash in. This is a significant single event and deserves an article of it's own. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or eventually redirect to List of WWE Raw special episodes. Notability is not met despite the WP:REFBOMBING. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split votes; good reasoning on both sides; overdue for relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are we really gonna fight this again? The event at the time was promoted like a WWE PPV event. It was a supercard on basic cable. The sourcing supports that, and that's why it was kept in the first place. The nominator's insinuation that it doesn't have lasting impact can be applied to a lot of WWE PPVs. But let's avoid an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Rather, the point remains that it has the sourcing to remain it's own article. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 04:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage from likes of EW and USA Today (and coverage for its ratings). Although there is a lot of primary/passing/unneccessary mentions that needs to be cleaned up as this article was under clear WP:REFBOMBING. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant covrrage in reliable sources such as EW and USToday as mentioned above, so is independently notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. But trending towards keep based on the sources provided at the end. Sandstein 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primecoin

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionably notable cryptocurrency. Most of the sources are cryptocurrency "news" sites, and the more reliable sources are not significant coverage of Primecoin.

This article was AfD'd a number of times in 2014; at this time, it was a fairly popular alt-coin. This lead to a lot of arguments about how fast the currency was growing and that it was the 9th most popular crypto-currency in terms of market cap. Today, the currency is ranked 329 according to coinmarketcap.com. Hopefully now, a few years later, we can discuss notability without getting caught up in temporary hype. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the notability statements, since it was once notable. However, the article still seems very promotional-ish and the sources are not the greatest. A rewrite would help this article out, but judging by the lack of significant non-news and non-secondary sources, probably not. As a result, I say Weak Delete. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 11:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - refs are passing mentions or cryptocurrency blogs, which don't confer wider notability (particularly Coindesk, which never saw a hype it didn't like). It turns out a zillion cites to bitcoin blogs and a few passing mentions in RSes don't cut it for notability. And I'm really not convinced it ever was notable - its "notability" in RSes seems to have been one short period of PrimeCoin miners spamming Digital Ocean with signups. This single incident is not enough to sustain an entire detailed article on the intricacies of PrimeCoin - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In my review, only The Register refs (1, 2) and the Data Center Knowledge ref demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and are potentially reliable. True, these articles were spurred by events, and perhaps they would not have otherwise covered this alt-coin in such detail, but FWIW there appears to be three separate incidents covered - Digital Ocean spamming (June 2013), unprecedented cloud server buy-up (Dec 2013), and other malware-based mining (Jan 2014).

That said, is The Register reliable? A quick review of Reliable Sources Noticeboard is inconclusive in this context. I'd be interested in others' take on whether this source can be used to demonstrate notability, and whether cryptocurrency notability demands multiple RS. Pegnawl (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete No significant coverage in RS. Retimuko (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking over the extensive history of prior AfDs (one of which I see I closed, but have long forgotten about), I see some arguments for keeping that are reasonable even by today's stricter standards (and evolving attitudes about cryptocurrencies). If this was an isolated AfD, I suspect I'd close this as delete without too much hesitation. But, given the history, and the non-committal-ness of several of the deletion arguments, I think it's reasonable to get some more eyes on this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quoting a "weak keep" from the first AFD: "That being said, if Primecoin fails to become/stay widely notable then this should be revisited." Bloomberg has dedicated cryptocurrency coverage, Washington Post recently published an article on stablecoins (most aren't individually notable), New York Times recently wrote about a struggling blockchain startup (which is still questionably notable and doesn't currently have an article.) The Register and the Data Center Knowledge (which is a specialist new source on date centers) sources from 2013 and 2014 are pretty lame in comparison to what some altcoins get today. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primecoin participants who have been active in the past year: Benlisquare (talk · contribs), Dialectric (talk · contribs), A5b (talk · contribs), Pburka (talk · contribs), Citing (talk · contribs), Rezonansowy (talk · contribs), Atomicthumbs (talk · contribs), Stuartyeates (talk · contribs), Danski14 (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), Cat-five (talk · contribs), and NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primecoin (2nd nomination) participants: Blue Riband (talk · contribs), SuperHamster (talk · contribs), Trinitresque (talk · contribs), Mini-Geek (talk · contribs), WikiTryHardDieHard (talk · contribs), and Agyle (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primecoin (3rd nomination) participants: Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), Chuy1530 (talk · contribs), Valoem (talk · contribs), Mark viking (talk · contribs), and Jonpatterns (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primecoin (4th nomination) participants: Lepricavark (talk · contribs), and Cnzx (talk · contribs).

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primecoin (5th nomination) participants: Spirit of Eagle (talk · contribs), Davey2010 (talk · contribs), Doncram (talk · contribs), and Benbest (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was pinged. The fact of 5 previous AFDs -> speedy keep is appropriate. We do not need to re-discuss anything like this. In the last AFD I !voted "Keep". There was coverage then and before. Once notable, always notable. Any issue of promotion can and should be dealt with by editing. The article has been tagged-bombed perhaps excessively on some matters, for example "non-primary source needed" tag in lede, on assertion that "The Primecoin source code is copyrighted by a person or group called “Primecoin Developers”, and distributed under a conditional MIT/X11 software license.[5]" is perhaps unfair. Presumably one can see the copyright statement and software license type in the source code. If there is no doubt that the source code states what it states, that negative tagging should be removed. --Doncram (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to bring actual WP:RSes to the party - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say, there exists reasonable alternative to deletion of redirecting/merging to a section in a list-article of bitcoins. In some of the discussion, it was asserted that Primecoin had only the 15th largest capitalization of bitcoins. There should be a List of bitcoins or whatever, perhaps as a section in main article about these (Bitcoin?).

About sources, it is my impression that sources have been brought to the table. In one of the previous AFDs, on 25 March 2014, Agyle provided the following table about Primecoin and others:

	The New York Times	The Wall Street Journal	Forbes	The Guardian
Auroracoin	[14]	[15]	[16]	[17]
Bitcoin	[18]	[19]	[20]	[21]
Coinye		[22]	[23]	[24]
Dogecoin	[25]	[26]	[27]	[28]
Litecoin	[29]	[30]	[31]	[32] [33]
Mastercoin		[34] [35]	[36]
Namecoin				[37]
Peercoin	[38]		[39]	[40]
Primecoin			[41]	[42]
Ripple	[43]		[44]	[45]

If there is not already a table of bitcoins in any mainspace place, it can/should be created. It is possible to link/redirect to a specific row, using "id=LABEL" feature within the table to set an anchor, then linking to [[ARTICLE#LABEL]]. --Doncram (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if it isn't notable enough for an article, it won't be notable enough to include in the section of another article. There is a list of Cryptocurrencies included the the template Template:Cryptocurrencies. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Forbes entry for Primecoin is a contributor blog, not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And another one (The Guardian) is only a brief mentioning (one small paragraph) in a shallow overview of nine. Retimuko (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To qualify the results of the previous AfDs: I don't think the previous discussions reflect consensus to keep. Only the 4th and 5th AfDs had such strong keep support, and that was for primarily procedural reasons: the article was, rather inappropriately, nominated for deletion many times in a row. In contrast, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd AfD had a ton of debate, and were closed as no consensus. A few years later, we should definitely reconsider arguments about RSes, but it seems inappropriate to rely on the outcomes of the previous AfDs to reflect past consensus. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Current rank on coinmarketcap compared to old could be misleading, as there could be more cryptocurrencies now. Forbes mentions Primecoin in a recent article (2018), which seems to be mainly about Sunny King (pseudonym) the coins creator. Proof-Of-Stake Guru Sunny King: "Blockchain Is Easy - We Just Need To Use It Like A Database". Jonpatterns (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a contributor blog - not a "Forbes article" as such - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see thanks for pointing out the distinction. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perennial problem with Forbes stuff - if it says "Forbes staff" it's a probably-RS WP:NEWSBLOG, and if it says "From the print edition it definitely passes RS - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed all the dubious sourcing in this edit. There are now two minor RSes and one Bitcoin blog, which may or may not count as an RS for facts, if not notability (WP:RSN has noted just recently that bitcoin blogs are no good as evidence of notability) - David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Got pinged into this conversation. The sourcing is sparse and 2/3 deals with traffic shutting down servers rather than the actual subject.Citing (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added new sources, including Forbes. Please review the article now. ----Rezy (talk | contribs) 02:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, those were all crypto rags, not reliable sources. Forbes was a contributor blog post. Retimuko (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primecoin was formerly a major cryptocurrencies which has received significant coverage from mainstream sources. The Register, CoinDesk, Bitcoin Magazine and Ars Technica are reliable secondary sources. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your mainstream sources are passing mentions, and crypto blogs are no good for establishing notability - in particular, the Bitcoin Magazine article is from the period when it was pretty much Vitalik's blog - David Gerard (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ars Technica article is the very definition of a passing mention. The article is actually about malware. Exactly one sentence mentions that the malware was mining Primecoin. Pburka (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only having passing mentions in independent sources and a butt-load of self-interested coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only significant coverage in reliable sources was one Register article, which was as much about Digital Ocean as it was Primecoin. The previous AfDs were either no consensus or procedural keeps. The coin's notability has only decreased since the first AfD, as there's no evidence over that last five years that it will have any lasting impact. Pburka (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources identified by Cunard below. Pburka (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources that are actually reliable don't have much in the way of in-depth coverage about the coin, except maybe The Register articles, which are mainly about shutting down DigitalOcean than about the coin. (what I mean by actually reliable: I see no indication that DataCenterKnowledge.com is reliable, or that an op-ed in bitcoin magazine which itself has no indication of editorial control (appears to be blog per David Gerard) is reliable, and Forbes source is unreliable Forbes contributor). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Bitcoin Magazine is more of an edited magazine these days (editor, paid journalists) - though crypto sites are still really bad as indicators of "notability", given a huge tendency to write extensive articles on things that don't exist and never turn out to exist. But that's one for WP:RSN :-) - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete edits made since my initial comment have made clear that this article fails WP:GNG. Pegnawl (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet again per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Citations are from 2013 and there's nothing more recent? The Clark and Miller citations give only passing mention. The Buterin citation is specific to the subject but it's also back from 2013 and in a niche publication. One of the first considerations that new editors are asked to make before writing a new article is their ease in finding reliable sources. If a subject is notable enough for inclusion those sources should not be hard to find.Blue Riband► 00:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Franco, Pedro (2015). Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, Engineering and Economics. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 175–176. ISBN 978-1-119-01916-9. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  The book notes:
  
  11.5 Primecoin
  
  Primecoin (XMP) was launched in 2013. The main innovation introduced by Primecoin is that its proof-of-work function produces somewhat useful scientific results (Buterin, 2013f). This contrasts with most proof-of-work functions, such as SHA256 or scrypt, whose results do not have any value except to secure the blockchain. Primecoin's proof-of-work function searches for chains of prime numbers, known as Cunningham chains. The chains of primes found through proof-of-work could help researchers understand the distribution of prime numbers, which in turn could lead to advances in other scientific disciplines such as physics, or could have useful applications still unknown.
  Practical proof-of-work functions must have two properties:
  [the two properties]
  The SHA256 hash function meets both properties, but it has been notoriously difficult to find scientific problems which can be adapted to these properties. Primecoin is the first proposal of a scientific problem that meets both requirements. Verification of a (relatively small) prime number is efficient on current hardware. Verification of chains of primes is similarly efficient. The length of the prime chains is used to adjust the difficulty. The only problem is that the length of a prime chain is a discrete value whose difficulty increases exponentially. Primecoin developers solved this problem, using a fractional chain length (King, 2013).
  Primecoin targets a block generation period of one minute, with a difficulty adjustment after every block. The block reward is not a fixed number of coins, as in Bitcoin, but it is a function of the difficulty: blockreward = 999/difficulty². It can be shown that this self-adjusting block reward will lead to a fixed monetary supply (Buterin, 2013f).
  Primecoin could be a first step towards creating proof-of-work functions that would solve useful problems. See King (2013) for the specification of Primecoin's proof-of-work function and Buterin (2013f) for an overview of the project.
2. Pirjan, Alexandru; Petrosanu, Dana-Mihaela; Huth, Mihnea; Negoita, Mihaela (May 2015). "Research issues regarding the Bitcoin and Alternative Coins digital currencies". Journal of Information Systems & Operations Management. 9 (1). Romanian-American University. Archived from the original on 2018-11-13. Retrieved 2018-11-13 – via Gale.
  The article notes:
  
  3.5. The Primecoin digital currency
  The Primecoin (XPM) was launched in 2013. It is based on a proof-of-work algorithm that searches for chains of prime numbers (Cunningham and bi-twin chains). The Primecoin blockchain contains these prime numbers, providing both a public ledger of the transactions and a public ledger of the obtained useful scientific results.
  Most proof-of-work functions provide results useful only for securing the blockchain. In contrast with those cases, in the Primecoin's case, the results obtained through the proof-of-work function have also a scientific value. The chains of prime numbers found by the proof-of-work algorithm help researchers in understanding the distribution of prime numbers, which are extremely important in various scientific domains. The proof-of-work functions must mandatory be efficiently verifiable and the verification should be possible through means of fast computations. In addition, these functions' difficulty should be easily adjustable, as miners enter or leave the network.
  The Primecoin's proof-of-work function satisfies both of the above mentioned requirements. The verification of the prime numbers or of the chains of prime numbers is sufficiently efficient. By adjusting the length of chains of prime numbers, one can change the difficulty of the mining process. The length of a chain of prime numbers is a discrete value and therefore the difficulty will increase exponentially. This problem has been solved by the Primecoin developers using a fractional chain length [3].
3. Orrell, David; Chlupatý, Roman (2016). The Evolution of Money. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 200–201. ISBN 978-0-231-17372-8. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  The book notes:
  
  Primecoin
  
  As of 2015, the only proof-of-useful work system deployed in practice is Primecoin. The challenge in Primecoin is to find a Cunningham chain of prime numbers. A Cunningham chain is a sequence of k prime numbers p₁, p₂, ..., p_k such that p_i = 2p_i–1 + 1 for each number in the chain. That is, you take a prime number, double it and add one to get another prime number, and continue until you get a composite number. The sequence 2, 5, 11, 23, 47 is a Cunningham chain of length 5. ...
  ...
  Indeed, this puzzle has been in use for Primecoin for almost 2 years and has produced the largest-known primes in Cunningham chains for many values of k. Primecoin has since expanded to include additional, similar types of prime chains in its proof of work, including "second kind" Cunningham chains in which p_i = 2p_i–1 – 1.
4. Antonopoulos, Andreas M. (2014). Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-1-4919-2198-2. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  The book notes:
  Primecoin
  
  Primecoin was announced in July 2013. Its proof-of-work algorithm searches for prime numbers, computing Cunningham and bi-twin prime chains. Prime numbers are useful in a variety of scientific disciplines. The Primecoin blockchain contains the discovered prime numbers, thereby producing a public record of scientific discovery in parallel to the public ledger of transactions.
  - Block generation: 1 minute
  - Total currency: No limit
  - Consensus algorithm: Proof of work with prime number chain discovery
  - Market capitalization: $1.3 million in mid-2014
5. Peck, Morgen E. (2014-04-29). "Bitcoin Vies with New Cryptocurrencies as Coin of the Cyber Realm". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 2018-11-13. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Primecoin
  
  What it is
  The puzzle that bitcoin miners solve is completely arbitrary and takes a long time and a lot of computing power. But it doesn’t have any application beyond verifying bitcoin transactions.
  Primecoin is an altcoin that attempts to redirect this energy into useful work. Instead of performing an arbitrary calculation, miners in the primecoin network search for sequences of prime numbers called Cunningham chains.
  
  Who started it
  Like bitcoin, primecoin was created by an anonymous hacker who goes by the name Sunny King. (He also co-founded another altcoin called peercoin.)
  
  Exchange rate
  1 primecoin = $0.77
6. Gibbs, Samuel (2013-11-28). "Nine Bitcoin alternatives for future currency investments". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-11-13. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Primecoin
  
  A cryptocurrency like bitcoin, primecoin differs at its core because it uses a totally separate mathematical basis for mining. Instead of relying on bitcoin’s “Hashcash” algorithm, primecoin finds long Cunningham chains – a certain sequence of prime numbers named after the mathematician AJC Cunningham – to build value into the currency.
  Unlike bitcoin, primecoin’s mining difficulty increases slightly with each new coin created, scaling more evenly than bitcoin’s bigger shift in mining difficulty every 2016 blocks.
7. Fanning, Kurt; Centers, David P. (2016-06-13). "Blockchain and Its Coming Impact on Financial Services". Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance. 27 (5). John Wiley & Sons: 54–55. doi:10.1002/jcaf.22179. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Two other cryptocurrencies that may prove relevant for the issues within this paper are Litecoin and Primecoin. ... Primecoin also has a different protocol for proving the validity of transactions. Primecoin validates its transactions by finding long chains of prime numbers, known as Cunningham chains. It also has the advantage of generating blocks faster than Bitcoin. Both alternative cryptocurrencies may have Blockchain protocols that could potentially benefit firms trying to use Blockchain for their endeavors more than the Bitcoin protocols.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Primecoin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Cunard. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG per sources provided by Cunard. Balkywrest (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keepas has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified above by Cunard, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. If possible, prevent AfD noms on this article for the next 6-8 months. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually been OK - last AFD was four years ago, and the best thing for this article is if someone could put all these new sources into the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard, who's references are now listed in the References section of the article, with thanks. Levivich (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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