Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 October	26 October >

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 redirect to Achy Breaky Heart. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don Von Tress

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

Redirect to Achy Breaky Heart - Classic WP:BLP1E - subject is notable only for writing "Achy Breaky Heart", and that is it. After the success of that song for Billy Ray Cyrus, he co-wrote a few more songs with Cyrus, but none of them were notable in their own right. ~~A redirect to the song's page might be more appropriate, that's a judgment call for the editors commenting here.~~ I now fully support a redirect. Amsgearing (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm kinda on the fence. You are right about WP:BLP1E, but it was a massive hit song--known to nearly everyone--and he's gotten lots of milage from it, including major category Grammy nominations. Normally that would be enough. There are a few cases of secondary type coverage of run of the mill promotional type stuff ("Achy Breaky Heart" writer coming to town to perform..."), and usually that's not enough by itself. Given that the only thing he is notable for is his connection to this song, a redirect to Achy Breaky Heart might be a more appropriate place for this guy on wikipedia. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that you mention it, I'm fully in favor of a redirect myself, rather than a deletion; I adjusted my text above to reflect that. It's also possible that he'll achieve notability at some point in the future. Amsgearing (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Redirect. I have added some info with the source in Achy Breaky Heart (more may be appropriate), and redirect seems the right thing to do now. --KnightMove (talk) 12:55, 1 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. There's consensus not to keep this in mainspace. It's doubtful whether there's sufficient support to move it to draft space, but I guess anybody can request that via WP:REFUND if they want to work on it. Sandstein 23:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2024

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

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024 (2nd nomination), the article was deleted and the title salted (by @The Wordsmith: until after the 2020 election, so it is disappointing that this has been recreated. Convention for election articles has been that there should not be articles for events beyond the next election, as there is not substantive information beyond speculation about the event due to, for example, the incumbent party being unknown. A MfD for a draft-space article closed as keep, but the participants there were voting to keep the draft, not to move it to mainspace against the prior consensus. Should for some reason this be closed differently from the previous discussion, I would beg that WP:CRYSTAL speculation on potential candidates be banned until after the 2020 election. As was noted in the previous AFD, the demographic changes sources are not connected to this election itself, and neither that section nor the popular culture section even have corresponding content in the 2016 or 2020 articles, leaving negligible content actually about the 2024 election itself. Reywas92^Talk 23:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep extremely bad form to take a page to XfD immediately after it was kept at XfD. There is clearly significant public discourse in reliable sources about candidates following an (assumed) Trump 2nd term. Legacypac (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that XfD closed to keep it as a draft, it was not a consensus to move the page to mainspace. It is bad form to recreate a deleted article without a clear change in consensus to overturn the previous one (perhaps including those who weighed in before), which that did not provide; this even falls under WP:CSD#G4. United States presidential election, 2020 has criteria for inclusion of speculation: potential candidates require two recent substantive reliable sources that the individual may run that year, not a kitchen-sink lists of names ruminating about the distant future – many sources used are speculating about both 2020 and 2024 together. If people want a list of people that are being theorized about, Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020 and Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2020 have it and this redundancy serves no purpose. Reywas92^Talk 23:48, 25 October 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 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in previous discussion: @Hallward's Ghost: @Jakec: @L.tak: @Metropolitan90: @AusLondonder: @GoodDay: @4meter4: @Staszek Lem: @Athomeinkobe: @MSJapan: @Bearcat: @MisterRandomized: @Deathlibrarian: @LadyofShalott: @Iamozy: @Fieari: @Purplebackpack89: @Spirit of Eagle: @DGG: @331dot: @FreeKnowledgeCreator: @Rhododendrites: @Ahecht: @Anarchyte: @Timtrent:. Reywas92^Talk 23:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to me we have two votes that have decided this is to stay off mainspace - one that voted for it to be deleted, another voting for it to be kept off mainspace as a draft. I think it should remain off mainspace, and peeps can work on the draft if need be. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)\[reply]

Blatant misrepresentation of an MfD this user did not participate in. Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's too early to have this article on mainspace. We've yet to have the United States presidential election, 2020 held, let alone the 2018 mid-terms. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guarantee that an election will be held in 2024. An election is currently scheduled for 2024. The only thing we know for sure about the year 2024 is that it will have 12 months and 366 days. DS (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

they are about equally probable. We could abolish the US Constitution, or we could abolish the Gregorian calendar. There are some less likely possibilities, but I cannot think of any more likely. It's much more likely there will be an election than that WP will be around to record it, especially if we devote ourselves to rejecting atricles ofn that sort of basis.

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The names there are only guesses which are WP:SPECULATION and none of them are actually running for president in 2024 at this time. Also, this is basically a WP:INDISCRIMINATE item at the moment. I guess draftifying is a viable option.

MarnetteD|Talk 02:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought it obvious to return this to mainspace, and I still do. The article is about the Reliably published political planning and speculation for the election. WP follows the sources, not our opinion., The sources are already writing about the election, and about these candidates in terms of the election, so there is basis for an article. It's hardly indiscriminate There are about 160 million potential candidates (US-born, over 35)--most of them are not included. Only the 1 in ten million about whom there are sources. We can add those others as the sources talk about them. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would probably take until after the 2020 election to get a clearer picture on potential candidates.
Delete, without prejudice against recreation after the 2020 election. There's literally less than zero need for this to already have an article six years in advance: there's virtually nothing of substance to be said about it yet, and we have no idea what the issues are going to be or who the serious candidates are going to be (Kanye West, my ass). There's a longstanding consensus to permit articles about the immediate next election, yes, but there's an equally longstanding consensus not to jump ahead past the immediate next election, and I see no credible reason to overturn that now. Bearcat (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move Back to draft. Too early to have an article like this over 6 years in advance. Having a good one prepared should be a priority however. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. As I said before, an article on the next presidential election (2020) is fine, and I might even be convinced about an article on the next next election (2024) as we get to within a year of the previous one provided that the depth of sources are there, but the having an article at this point is just silly. Keep it as a draft until at least late 2019. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much speculation right now. I agree with Bearcat, after 2020 Election. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify We can justify keeping this as a draft. But as of now, the article would be pure speculation. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why did you think I nominated the draft for deletion? A pure crystal, should've not been kept at all, let alone moved to mainspace. funplussmart (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason why I don't think moving this to the draft namespace it is okay either is because it can mislead new editors into thinking that this is appropriate for Wikipedia. funplussmart (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify if it is determined that the information presented in the demographic changes section is insufficient for a stand-alone article at this time. Keep with stipulation that most of the speculation of candidates be removed, if it is determined that the information in this section is sufficient for a stand-alone article.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States elections, 2024. The speculation about candidates is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON; I don't think credible sources are willing to make definitive statements about 2024 candidacies until they know who wins the 2020 election. However, there seems to be enough other coverage to have something. After the elections next week, the initial 2024 Senate map will be set, and there will be enough for at least one article on the 2024 US elections; that first article should be United States elections, 2024. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets first bother about 2020, it is too early now. Alex-h (talk) 09:52, 2 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. Tone 16:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rati Wattanakornprasit

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable person failing WP:BASIC due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage of this person is limited to name-drops due to them developing Mist Survival, not the significant coverage in independent RS required.

Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mist Survival (the game they developed). Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Non-notable individual. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Obvious COI and self-promotion from the article creator. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. His only call to fame is his development of the video game Mist Survival. Both the articles have been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Couldn't find any in-depth coverage in Thai. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video game developer/person failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources (such as WP:VG/RS for video-game related content, which this article seems to focus on). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Clearly fails WP:GNGand WP:NBIO because there is no independent reliable sources and he has not made any revolutionary achievements except development of the video game, which is the only reference in his name.Vinodbasker (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all notability requirements. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Created by the same editor as created Mist Survival; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mist Survival. Narky Blert (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective sources, failing the WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV policy. scope_creep (talk) 23:54, 31 October 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. Tone 16:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mist Survival

(Find video game sources: "Mist Survival" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Contested PROD. Non-notable video game failing WP:NGAME due to a lack of significant commentary about the game. The published sources about this game consist of things like this top 10 list in a magazine, rather than the "critical and detailed" commentary required.

There may be a potential for an article about this game in the future, based on the volume of user reviews and its current "early access" status, but this appears to be WP:TOOSOON to me. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear delete as lacking notability. --Izno (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Obvious COI and self-promotion from the article creator. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Newly released game with little or no independent coverage in reliable sources, created by an undisclosed CoI creator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Covered/reviewed by quite a few Thai gaming websites.[1][2][3][4][5] Not sure whether any of them pass as a reliable source. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Probably WP:TOOSOON if it ever gains traction. In any case, this would need a WP:NUKE. The extra sources found don't look reliable, rather your run-of-the-mill gaming blogs. The Thai reviews appear to exist solely because the developer is Thai. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNGand WP:NGAME. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources , created by an undisclosed CoI creator invokes suspicion of promoting the newly developed game.Vinodbasker (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Created by the same editor as created Rati Wattanakornprasit, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rati Wattanakornprasit. Narky Blert (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The edit summary in this diff tells its own story. Narky Blert (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NGAME. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 06:27, 30 October 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 08:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egalet

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

Promotional article that fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Content is essentially the contents of a patent. scope_creep (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NCORP. As the nominator stated, the references don't support the article's notability. The last two, on which most of the citations rely, are patents. --Kbabej (talk) 00:55, 1 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. Tone 16:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawleyville, Connecticut

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

Unnotable unincorporated place that has a single reference to a railroad station located in the area —JJ B^e ^rs 18:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article claims, as the nom has highlighted, that the settlement was once an important railway centre. Notability is not temporary, if it was once notable, it still is for our purposes. Besides the source in the article Railroads and the American People covers it briefly and gives the source of the name, which is not currently in the article. History of Fairfield County, Connecticut, 1639-1928 is only available in snippet, but seems to have substantial coverage on the industries there. There was a major tea ball factory, so the place was more than an unremarkable hamlet. Decisions and Orders of the National Labor Relations Board includes a case brought against Thor Corporation in Hawleyville, again showing that there was substantial industry there. SpinningSpark 21:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By the way, is the reference to it being unincorporated meant to try and exclude it from WP:GEOLAND's "legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable"? Because while it may not be identified on the US Census, it is certainly recognised by the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. SpinningSpark 22:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That source seems to cover all places including villages and towns. It doesn't mean it's a legal place at all. —JJ B^e ^rs 00:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your own OR that it covers all places? The page itself says it is a list of "Principal Communities in Connecticut", not all communities. Having had it demonstrated to you that the place is notable regardless of whether it meets GEOLAND, you should have the good grace to withdraw the nomination. SpinningSpark 11:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - vanished but once-notable places like this are one of our strengths; somebody just need to track down a copy of History of Fairfield County, Connecticut, 1639-1928. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has a Post Office, [6] so it's a real place. Markvs88 (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. --Doncram (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unincorporated and unrecognized are not the same thing and this passes WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recognised settlements are notable whether they have their own government or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 31 October 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. Tone 16:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Botsford, Connecticut

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

Unnotable unincorporated place that has one ref mentioning the mailing address of the area. —JJ B^e ^rs 18:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)~~ Removed, covered by CT-related ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the current version of the article has one ref is somewhat supportive of Keeping, is not a reason for deletion, so the deletion nomination seems invalid. There is no mention of wp:BEFORE in the deletion nomination. There is Botsford Fire Rescue and lots more, if one searches on "Botsford, Connecticut". It is a real place. There is policy about keeping such, wp:GEO or wp:GEOSOMETHING or whatever. --Doncram (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I'm not sure/doubtful this is a legally designated place and must pass WP:GNG, which it does not, even after looking for sources through before search. SportingFlyer talk 20:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Keep per Markvs88. SportingFlyer talk 02:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has a Post Office[7], so it's notable as the federal government says it exists. Markvs88 (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A post office and fire department are not notable and don't make this place notable regardless if they were notable in the first place. (WP:NGEO and WP:GEOLAND) —JJ B^e ^rs 18:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Fire Department only proves that people live there. However, per WP:GEOLAND "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". A US Post Office proves recognition by the Federal Government. It's not called "Newtown Post Office #2" or something. Markvs88 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recognised settlements are notable whether they have their own government or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 31 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bahador Kharazmi

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

WP:N, deleted on Persian Wikipedia already Ladsgroup^overleg 18:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IRS Notable - This person is presumed to be notable as he has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. On The Huffington Post he has been interviewed and featured as the Prince of the underground^[1] for his considerable contribution to shape the underground music in Iran. On BBC Persian Television he has been interviewed and recognized as one of the early contributors to establish the underground music movement in Iran^[2]. On 7shanbeh B.B.C Radio Program, focused on featuring pop music hits of the week, he has been the main headliner of the show.^[3]. Bahador has also made it to the top 10 contestants of TehranAvenue, a popular platform for presenting the underground music producers in Iran, back in late 90's.^[4] Bahador has released his albums and singles under a major Iranian music label in the United States, Avang Music^[5]

Given all the limitations in Iran, especially in the early decades of Islamic revolution, recognizing the authors, artists and contributors who paved the way for the next generation to practice freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts and freedom of art & creativity, is vitally important.

WP:HELPAFD "Help, my article got nominated for deletion!" - I hereby, humbly invite all the neutral contributors of Wikipedia to help keep this page as it is a well referenced page for a notable contributor of Iranian Underground Music as I firmly believe this nomination has been set by the contributor based on be bold concept.Navidpers (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given split opinions. A reminder that Participants should justify their !votes in line with policy/guidelines
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:IRS, WP:PUBLISHED, WP:USEBYOTHERS and WP:N Artist is Notable - According to WP:N Under General Notability Guidelines “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” Artist has received significant Published WP:PUBLISHED coverage within multiple outlets such as Huffington Post and BBC which all under the guidelines are considered Significant, Reliable and Independent. WP:IRS Questioning the credibility and reliability of Huffington Post or B.B.C would profoundly concern our good will and neutrality to follow Wikipedia guidelines as the contributor who has deleted the Farsi Wikipedia page has clearly questioned the reliability of BBC as a reliable source. A google search reveals that primary independent reliable sources have been picked up by hundreds of other websites which falls under WP:USEBYOTHERS How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. Sources are also considered verifiable under the WP:NRV. Although coverage was during a specific time period Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. WP:NTEMP In addition the artist has been reviewed as the Iranian ambassador of underground music movement on Bia2.com ^[1], one of the main Iranian online entertainment channels. The artist has played iconic concert venues in Dubai and California which has been exclusively covered by BBC and he has been one of the important influencers of Iranian pop music. ^[2] In Conclusion I believe this artist should not be deleted as it does oblige to the necessary requirements of Wikipedia. It has also clearly demonstrated notability WP:N as an artist who has received significant coverage in reliable sources WP:IRS that are independent of the subject and clearly demonstrates necessary requirements needed for one.Khagoooshi (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the refs are patchy but probably just enough, huffpost and bbcpersian are the best of the bunch. Szzuk (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets qualifications for WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NCONCERT, WP:COMPOSER, WP:IRS, WP:NEWSORG and WP:N – Artist Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself and Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. ^[3]^[4] Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. ^[5]^[6] Artist is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre. Artist is also cited by reliable sources as having established a tradition or school in a particular music genre. ^[5]^[6]^[7] WP:MUSICBIO Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. WP:CONCERT and last but not least "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). WP:IRS. The sources are recognized as reliable and verifiable sources by Wikipedia guidelines, News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it. WP:NEWSORG. Given all the details and references inspired of Wikipedia Guidelines, based on the reliability, verifiability and neutrality of sources like BBC or Huffington Post, this artist is indeed considered as notable and meets the guidelines to be kept as an article on Wikipedia. WP:N Navidpers (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.bia2.com/music-review/review.php?id=79
^ http://www.bbc.com/persian/seventhday/story/2006/11/061117_me_bahadorkharazmi.shtml
^ "Bahador Kharazmi live in Dubai". bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2006-11-17.
^ "Opening of Underground Concerts in Dubai". B.B.C Persian. Retrieved 2007-03-19.
^ ^a ^b {"Interview with B.B.C Persian 7th Day". bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2005-01-14.
^ ^a ^b "Bahador Kharazmi: Prince of the Underground". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2014-02-17.
^ "Iranian Album Review". bia2.com.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Clear consensus to keep per WP:BEFORE (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Murray (actor)

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

Fails notability guidelines per WP:GNG. It was deprodded citing the sources existed pre internet which is a violation of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES for assuming. Now, the roles mentioned...I do not see a single prominent one except for The Pilgrim one (his character died early in The Gold Rush per plot as said on the wiki) so fails WP:NACTOR for not having multiple significant roles. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has prominent roles in notable Charlie Chaplin films, fourth or fifth is prominent in the cast list. It is obvious that this a pre-internet actor and this nomination seems to be a violation of WP:BEFORE commenting on the prod but not any search for sources which your prolific prodding today of national tv series also shows no WP:BEFORE Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has fourth billing in The Goldrush which is one of Chaplin's most critically acclaimed films and also fourth billing in Tramp, Tramp, Tramp as well as a lesser role in The Pilgrim another very notable Chaplin film. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note searching without quotes for Tom Murray (actor) gives many more results some valid but they need to be picked out from a large number of false positives Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes nactor, roles in enough notable silent films, including charlie chaplin films. Szzuk (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I found a mention of him in an obituary of his wife Louise Carver saying he was also a hill billy singer [8]. He was part of 2 wellknown hillbilly groups at the time the Beverly Hill Billies and the Hollywood hillbillies that was also known as Uncle Tom Murray's Hollywood Hillbillies with who Roy Rogers played and was it seems exploited by Murray as he never got a salary. [9] [10] [11] [12]. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention of him on Shug Fisher's page. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:10, 1 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Wamm

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

Unsourced and I don't see any notability. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 17:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - firstly it isn't unsourced, there is a non-linked physical ref at the bottom. That said, my checking for sourcing only could demonstrate it existed and was a shade under 800m. While WP:GEOLAND is fairly forgiving, I think this mountain fails to satisfy "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" - we don't have that additional info. A single good source with other material is sufficient for a Keep. I was tempted by a couple of potential redirect targets, but no one article stood out making it unsuitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Fear of God II: Let Us Pray. Black Kite (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amen (Pusha T song)

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

Nothing to suggest this passes WP:SONG. I turned this into a redirect to the EP it comes from; article creator reverted the edit. TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I assume the article creator was also the one who unilaterally decided the article meets GA status... Richard3120 (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Good Article" template was included in the first edit by the article's creator. I removed it, but kudos to this guy for his chutzpah. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know kudos meant a slapped wrist.TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It was released as a single in 2011 but did not chart (see also Pusha T discography), and I can find no reliable media coverage for that single release. The song was then noticed by the media four years later thanks to the remix by Hudson Mohawke, but that was only a social media item. Mohawke's remix could be considered somewhat notable thanks to the media coverage, but I would argue that the remix is a curiosity that does not help the notability of the original Pusha T single. The minor hubbub over the remix could possibly be mentioned at the album article, Fear of God II: Let Us Pray. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Pusha T. Vorbee (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 17:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Waterford, Connecticut#Economy. Black Kite (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford Commons

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

Unremarkable and unnotable shopping center. Only time it's mentioned is in police reports. —JJ B^e ^rs 17:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's the location of the first Smashburger in CT, which is notable per WP:ANCHORS, but like JJBers said... I'm not finding much else. Markvs88 (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. Appears to be a WP:MILL shopping center. MB 00:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waterford, Connecticut#Economy. I think we can at least accommodate a sentence on it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:14, 4 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 and redirect to Ascended Master Teachings. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua David Stone

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

No assertion of notability Wqwt (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Delete. First time I ever saw an AfD for a guy who claims to belong to a membership organization that encompasses the entire Galaxy. We are in seriously WP:FRINGE territory here. Lede describes him as part of something called Ascended Master Teachings. While I am not sure what that is, I can say is that I do not see any WP:RSing on a page that is largely sourced to articles Stone wrote on non-notable websites. There is a citation to an article in Touchstone (magazine): "Kiesling coughed up $333 to hear Dr. Joshua David Stone, founder of the Melchizedek Synthesis Light Academy... Dr. Stone spoke about ascending the 352 layers of God (who seems to resemble a Napoleon), and then introduced Bob Fickes, who is...". Another citation is to "Awareness Magazine: southern California's Guide to Conscious Living" [13]. "Mount Shasta’s popular Annual Wesak Celebration will continue this year, in honor of its founder, Dr. Joshua David Stone, whose untimely death last year saddened us all." This is not the galaxy I live in, so, trying to play fair, I ran his name through a Proquest News Archive search, and found several other people withe the same name, a brief mention in the Tri - State Defender, in teh Entertainment pages, in series of quotations form famous yogis: "All desire for pleasure, power, and the acquiring and hoarding of material objects is removed. All selfish attachment is removed. Quoted from Hidden Mysteries: ETs, Ancient Mystery Schools and Ascension by Joshua David Stone, Ph.D." A second quotation in the same section:
"Quotes from notables: Ascension check list
Author Joshua David Stone has provided us with a few techniques for improving our lives in order to advance our standing while on earth - in preparation for the 'next phase.' His check list, in his book The Complete Ascension Manual: How to Achieve Ascension in This Lifetime, includes:
Give up arguing. You must ask yourself, 'Do I want love, or do I want to win?' You can't have both.
Simply your life. Reduce your wants and needs.
Take the vow of nonviolence.
Serve your fellow man with an attitude of indifference to the fruits of your actions.
Cultivate preferences and not attachments. As Buddha said, 'All suffering comes from your attachments.'"
Feel free to flag me to revisit if you can source it, but It looks as though he was a spiritual teacher with some real popularity, but not notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a guru of a spiritual movement, it reads like PROMO, although subject is dead. Problem is that his name fails to bring up WP:SIGCOV in searches, and sources on page, dead links aside, are small publicaitons wihtin this spiritual awareness movement. The one apparent exception, a 2004 cite (#3 on page) to the Mt. Shasta Daily, "Magazine takes over Wesak event for one year," which sounds like an article in a local paper, actually leads to a blank page on a Buddhist website. If anyone can source it, feel free to ping me to reconsider. I can't source it. Fails WP:ANYBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Ascended Master Teachings. Stone is notable for researchers of new religious movements and transpersonal psychology as he was a prominent figure within the UFO religion community for some time. The article is not particularly well sourced, but this warrants improvement rather than outright deletion. Stone seems at least as significant as any other channeler in UFO religions. However, merging would keep the information and in a place where people looking for information about Stone would likely find it, because he's only really notable within that field. WayfaringMan (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)WayfaringMan[reply]

@WayfaringMan: Please sign your messages. Anyway, are you connected to the subject of this page? Your only contribution is to add to this discussion. Wqwt (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wqwt: Sorry, will moving forward. No, I'm not connected to the subject of the page - I came on the page while conducting graduate research on the subject of UFO cults, and noticed the deletion discussion. Because the page was relevant to my research I figured others may benefit from it in the future as well. However, whether it's its own page or merged into the AMT page is irrelevant so long as it's not outright deleted. As for my only contribution, that's true, I've only done minor grammatical edits in the last decade and didn't make an account for those. The topic _does_ need improved, as was mentioned - the sources aren't fantastic - but the actual individual is notable within the field. WayfaringMan (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)WayfaringMan[reply]

To keep this separate article, Joshua David Stone needs to meet the general WP:BIO guidelines. He can have a section in Ascended Master Teachings but most of this info is non-notable. Wqwt (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 16:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a real marathon wading through the text, the extended bibliography and then the refs, to end with pretty well next to nothing. Appeared to have been a seriously weird guy (my POV) but not notable on this planet. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:02, 26 October 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. Tone 16:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daequan (streamer)

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

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't any significant coverage on this streamer. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC); edited 06:08, 18 October 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 October 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. 2.5mil subscribers still doesn't make one notability inherently. Ajf773 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this article had more information, I would be open to keeping it, but because it doesn't I'm for deleting it. Hamtime6531 (talk) Edited 18:42, 28 October 2018 (CST)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohinii

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

notability, no references NANExcella (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 16:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Turns in nothing rather than social media in a search. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above, not finding anything useful as a source. Ravensfire (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This may be WP:TOOSOON. For the time being fails to meet WP:GNG, but may become notable after it's on the air. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNGand can be categorised asWP:TOOSOON. Lacks reliable independent sources and can not be made a seperate article at present with the news from social media.Vinodbasker (talk) 04:58, 28 October 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. Tone 16:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firebird Tours

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

Not notable organization, nowhere near passing WP:NCORP, speedy deleted once and recreated by the same author. Renata (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT. The article even states "Firebird Tours has received few mentions in digital media" - not an overwhelming claim of nobility. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as far as I can see. Doing some research into the company, I see that it is housed in an adjoining suite in the same building in Florida to Travel All Russia LLC, its "strategic partner". The infobox states that its headquarters are in Florida and Lithuania. I cannot see any mention on its website of Lithuania, however all the key personnel have Russian-sounding names. The article has been created by a single-purpose, Lithuanian-related account with a likely conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:16, 27 October 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simonas Petrulis

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

Clearly promotional bio of non-notable executive. Renata (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like a CV., there is nothing in this individual's career (covered in depth) to indicate notability and I can find nothing substantial online. The article has been created by an account with a likely conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly WP:PROMOTIONAL, insufficient references either in article or on a BEFORE to indicate GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT for posting your resume. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 4 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Corley

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. In a before search I only found one or 2 local interest stories like this one [14]. There is nothing very notable about this person but eventually the exhibition might be notable when it opens but it is too early to say that yet. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. "There is nothing very notable about this person": personally (away from Wikipedia), I'd agree, and I'd add "or his photography". However, I don't live anywhere near Brisbane. He's demonstrably of some interest there. He's long dead and I can't see anything promotional about this article. "[E]ventually the exhibition might be notable when it opens but it is too early to say that yet." Indeed. But the exhibition will, we're told, be held from December 2018. (There's no reference provided for this assertion, but we are authoritatively informed that 50,000 of the man's ~~negatives~~ photographs have been scanned and "will inform future exhibition and public engagement initiatives" ... whatever that might mean.) December 2018 is pretty soon. Why the rush to delete? -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Changed my mind; see below. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC) || corrected -- Hoary (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination is based on the person's notability and not the potential notability of an exhibition that may or may not actually take place. The "what's on" page of the State Library of Queensland [15] does not mention it. As per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL this event does not meet the notability WP:NEVENT criteria so this cannot be used as an argument to notabilty for someone linked to the event. In your keep !vote you agree that the person and his photography are not notable and as this is about the person and not the event I am having trouble understanding why you are !voting keep. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. I said that from my personal, Wikipedia-unaffiliated POV they're not notable. Ditto for Star Wars trivia, Simpsons episodes, Playboy "playmates", talk radio "personalities" and very much more. I am, or rather was, voting ("!voting") "keep" because there's no rush for this AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move / rename to Frank Corley photograph collection or something similar and rewrite accordingly. I can find nothing in depth about Frank Corley, but his collection is notable and would seem to be a valuable historical photographic record (and notability is not inherited). The digitisation of the collection has won a state government sponsored award. See also this and this. Note that while these might be perceived as "local interest", the latter is a state wide publication and both have a demographic reach of a couple of million people. There are several more easily findable but not so independent or reliable sources. Aoziwe (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI if interested here. Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Aoziwe: Move / rename to Frank Corley photograph collection or something similar and rewrite accordingly. For the reasons that Aoziwe gives. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is potential for an article once the exhibition has been covered in in-depth reliable sources but for the moment we are talking about something that is potentially notable but not yet notable. The 2 articles that you found date from 4 years ago. I don't really know if the collection is notable or not to be honest. Librarys and Museums will sometimes acquire a very very large number of documents (especially if given for free) that are never used and finish being stocked away forever. Just for info it was not the digitisation of the photos that won the award but the work of the local history group in identifying the different houses [16]. These are photos from only 40 odd years ago I am having a hard time imagining the historical importance of identifying at what address a particular photo was taken at in 1972. I can't imagine why anyone would want to go to an exhibition of 50,000 house photos by a photographer that "was not well known in the professional photography circles in Brisbane". For the moment it is just the sheer volume of the photos that seems to be impressive but we don't even know how many houses this represents (multiple shots of the same house?) and just as a side note his business model may have been horribly flawed if there were 50k unsold photos. Anyway I'll leave it up to others to discuss now. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dom from Paris, by "50k unsold photos", are you perhaps referring to the fifty thousand negatives? Errr ... you do realize that a commercial photographer only very rarely sells their negatives to a client? The client just gets the prints. If there's a demand later for more prints, the photographer locates the negative(s), makes more prints from these, and sells them. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC) The comment that currently is immediately below (thank you, Expertful) came as a surprise. I'd read of thousands of negatives being scanned, hadn't I? I checked again, and no I hadn't. Oops! Sorry, Dom from Paris. (And a reminder to self: Engage brain before posting comment.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of clarifications in response to this thread, there are almost no repeats in the collection, there are 60k photographs of almost 60k buildings which are almost exclusively houses (with a few corner shops here and there). The negatives have been lost, so only the prints remain. One of the documents in a report from the Annerley Stephens history group suggests they've assumed he may have sold around half the photographs (meaning he would have taken at least 100,000 photographs of Brisbane and some neighbouring towns. These photographs provide an historic record of Brisbane's past that is of interest from all kind of historical (and even environmental) angles - architectural history (it captures buildings as constructed, before they were altered or domolished, gives a thorough record of housing and suburbia in 1960s-70s - anecdotally - architectural historians sometimes use this collection to try and identify 'contemporary' images of architect-design properties), garden history (record of gardening, tree plantings), people tracking car ownerships and types (many of the images include historic cars) etc etc, just to name a few angles. Part of the interest in Corley's work is for the reason the importance of this article is being debated - because he 'objectively' documented the everyday rather than being works of 'art' like Ruscha's 'Every building on the Sunset Strip' (which was a project undertaken in the USA around the same time that gives a similar type of survey of a just one street in Los Angeles). comment added at 03:47, 27 October 2018 by Expertful

I am sorry but these are all assumptions about the importance of the collection. Until the collection receives coverage in reliable secondary sources we cannot say what that importance is it is not up to us to decide but to document faithfully what others are saying about it. This really needs more coverage. As I said this could well be notable in the future but as per WP:CRYSTALBALL we should not be creating articles in anticipation of anything unless that future event has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. By the way if you have any connection to the history group or the collection you must declare it because your comments suggest that this page is to promote an upcoming exhibition and this is contrary to WP:NOTPROMOTE. As a general rule we do not create articles for future shows and exhibition unless they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. For me this is WP:TOOSOON (no problems for the assumption it was negatives I was also surprised to see it was prints when I read the library page about the collection. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article draft was created in anticipation of the major exhibition showcasing Corley's work. The exhibitition will be on display at the State Libray of Queenland for 6 months from December 2018. While there is little documentation of the exhibition on the internet yet, there is currently some signage on display in SLQ regarding the exhibition installation, and a reference to the exhibition in this public document: http://www.plconnect.slq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/412837/Minutes-Meeting-24-September-2018.pdf. Within a few weeks futher information will be available on the SLQ website, and it would be useful to have this entry already available once it is publicised. At present Corley is a little known photographer, agreed, especially outside of Brisbane, however the work of the Annerley Stephens history group in relation to this collection has received local media coverage on numerous occasions (e.g. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-16/local-community-tires-to-identify-60000-photos-of-brisbane/5817718), and a number of their reports are available via Trove (as are Corley's photographs). Once this exhibiiton has opened his work will be much better known, and the entry will hopefully provide some basic biographical information. Corley's survey of Brisbane suburbia in the 1960s and 1970s (althought the exact dates are difficult to confirm) is not unlike Atget's famous survey of Paris. Much of this very large collection has been digitised and is available globally via the SLQ website and Trove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertful (talk • contribs) 13:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Expertful (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Keep -- A collection of the size of his has clearly been identified by the Queensland State Library as an important one. Whether we have an article on the collection or on the man (and we should not have both), it is going to have to cover both his life and the collection. I do not see any reason not to have one or the other, but preferably the bio. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The collectiion is a significant body of work with historical importance. Curiocurio (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The exhibition at the Queensland State Library is less than 2 months away! It seems not very useful to delete the article now and have to rewrite it very soon. No doubt there will be articles in newspapers and journals about the man and his work, which can be added to this article. It was perhaps a little premature to write an article before the exhibition, given Wikipedia's love of general coverage, but better to keep it and revise it (perhaps rename it/refocus it on the collection) when more sources are available. (As far as the sources Aoziwe found being 4 years old - that does not make them any less reliable, independent, non-local, secondary sources (I don't live in Queensland, and I certainly remember the ABC article) (WP:NTEMP).) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't base notability on unwritten/potential coverage. There might be articles, there might not be. The exhibiton might happen or it might not. We are strictly an after the fact business, per WP:CRYSTAL.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the flip side of NTEMP is WP:SUSTAINED. This person has received coverage for 1 single exhibition of his work that might or might not take place and might or might not end up being notable. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here we have an artist who has never had an exhibition, nor an exhibition review. All that has happened here is that someone recognized the cultural value of the photographs produced by the subject's company, Pan American Home Photographic Co, and is planning an exhibition. It's possible they will become well-known and deserve an article, but not at the moment. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Expertful, if you don't already have this article in your sandbox, you may want to copy and paste it there, then, if it is deleted, you can recreate the article when the exhibition and news coverage appears! RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Pererkingiron and Curiocurio. Multiple reliable sources exist that establish WP:GNG. EnPassant (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, suggest it is left where it is until the exhibition is opened and reviewed, certainly a notable collection. Szzuk (talk) 17:03, 1 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) Szzuk (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three cups problem

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

No assertion of notability. Elementary school-level exercise in the concept of invariants that does not warrant its own article. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRESERVE. Widely known, so Wikipedia should have coverage and an explanation. SpinningSpark 17:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, and per User:Spinningspark. --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might be inclined to keep, if the article had any references. But as it currently stands it has no sources. A quite internet search did not come up with much I found this educational video. [17] We need sources to back up the claim its widely known. --Salix alba (talk): 22:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Salix alba: Book sources: [18][19][20][21]. SpinningSpark 22:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The referencing needs to be improved, but that's an article-improvement issue, not an article-deletion one. I could see a case for this article being merged into another one, but that's a discussion for a different forum. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is really bad, but there's enough usage of it to justify something and I don't see a merge target; Invariant (mathematics) is not a reasonable merge target and there's no list of pedagogical puzzles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:06, 29 October 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 10:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Human knot (contortion)

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

Descriptive action of a contortionist does not require a separate article Robynthehode (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems like it should well defined, but I've found no references at all. The yoga poses mentioned are "foot behind the head", not quite a human knot. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 29 October 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. Tone 16:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Backbend

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

Descriptive action of a contortionist does not require a separate article Robynthehode (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRESERVE. A highly likely search term, so even if merged somewhere else, the page should be kept as a redirect. SpinningSpark 17:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep common term in gymnastics and yoga. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep common term in gymnastics, dance, medicine, ice skating and yoga. Scope of article will be expanded. No compliance with WP:Before, which should be the first hurdle before deletion. Clearly is improvable per section (C). Many sources at Google, Google books, Google scholar, and HighBeam Research. Article can (and should) be improved; but that is no reason by itself to delete it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:13, 29 October 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) Szzuk (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frontbend

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

Descriptive action of a contortionist does not require a separate article Robynthehode (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRESERVE and also makes a useful navigation page to related articles. SpinningSpark 17:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep there are too many problems with Uttanasana to suggest a merge. "Forward bend" may be more common, but I'm not sure enough to suggest a move. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep common term in gymnastics, dance, medicine, and yoga. No compliance with WP:Before, which should be the first hurdle before deletion. Clearly is improvable per section (C). Many sources at Google, Google books, Google scholar, ~~and HighBeam Research~~. Article can (and should) be improved; but that is no reason by itself to delete it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:14, 29 October 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. Tone 16:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GEET Engine

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

No reliable sources, promotional, WP:FRINGE. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. PROD contested by article author. shoy (reactions) 14:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hai! the reviewer say that my article is unrealiable. i don't understand why it is unrealiable. the GEET Engine inventor share his knowledge on website. and then i sorted out his content and uploaded it to wikipedia. is this an unreliable source? because i don't konw what is problerms for my article, so it is hard to improved. but i want do a good article. so i hope someone can tell me what is ths problerms for my article. i can rewrite it. thanyou!

Hi, please read our page about identifying reliable sources. Not everything on the internet is true, or a reliable source. Self-published websites are almost never reliable sources. shoy (reactions) 17:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not suitable for Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 11:22, 28 October 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Hernando

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never managed in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 14:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and GiantSnowman. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:17, 30 October 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. Tone 16:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Hunter

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

Page relies solely on sources for one casting on an American soap opera, which the actress has yet to debut on. All other appearances are not sourced by any kind of reliable source. With this in mind, this fails to meet the BLP guidelines. livelikemusic talk! 13:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Depends If all the roles can be appropriately sourced then keep. Otherwise delete as a significantly unsourced BLP. I could not readily see any suitable references. Aoziwe (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She passes notability requirements with her resume, and is about to star on a soap for the next 5 years (starting October 31, 2018). Most soap stars have their own pages on here. She shouldn't be any different. Actors with lesser resumes have their own Wikipedia pages Donmike10 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — It should noted that the user above is the creator of the article above, so clearly their vote is impartial to keeping their created article. Also, I might add: there is no verifiable source that dictates this actress' length of time on the soap, nor if she's even to be a regular character at this time. livelikemusic talk! 02:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note and suggestion — Creators can contribute and are invited to express their opinion in AfDs. Often they make excellent contributions to AfDs and point at matters overlooked by others. In this particular case I'm not sure that the next role is the best argument –it could point at WP:TOOSOON– and would want to take a closer look at her career thus far and the sources covering it but thank you for pointing it out, Donmike10! Also that others like her have an article is not a strong claim per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We don't want to approve articles based on other situations and sometimes errors but on their very own merits. Maybe you can elaborate on what she has already done and why this makes her notable per references in the article or per sources as in WP:NEXIST? gidonb (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:59, 28 October 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) Szzuk (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadra Panjwani

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

Unelected MP, and an interim cabinet minister. As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Caretaker_cabinet_members, I don't think interim cabinet minister are something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless pass GNG.

Subject also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources and therefore does not appear to meet basic GNG as well.

A similar BLP was recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waleed Tariq Saigol. Saqib (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Holding ministerial office, even in a "caretaker" cabinet, appears to pass WP:NPOL ("held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". And she has the 2nd-highest civilian honour in her country. The discussion about caretaker minister notability seems inconclusive. PamD 08:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From previous discussion ofa similar case "Caretaker" ministers, generally civil servants who held the office solely by virtue of being the top person in the line of succession between the end of the previous holder's term and the appointment or election of the official new permanent holder, are not entitled to the same automatic presumption of notability that a regular cabinet minister would get. [22] seems to indicate this person was simply a civil servant in a caretaker role. Also severely lacking in sources to demonstrate notability. [23],[24]. W C M_email 12:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable in its own right. She is the recipient of two awards including the 2nd-highest civilian honour which is enough to pass WP:ANYBIO. Her philanthropist contributions are also note-worthy + caretaker ministry. Störm (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of evidence of notability between position in government, significant award, and philanthropy. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as it stands. I believe she fails WP:NPOL and the sources (government, her philanthropy organisation) are WP:PRIMARY. If someone adds more, willing to take another look. SportingFlyer talk 01:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I now have no opinion, as there's coverage of her receiving the major award in English-language Pakistani publications. I have no opinion on whether this is an automatic notability pass, but less concerned about deleting based on the bad sourcing per WP:NEXIST. SportingFlyer talk 21:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject cant get a free pass for WP:NPOL because it was an extremely short term post. There is a clear consensus among editors at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Caretaker_cabinet_members to not give such a free pass. I am inclined to vote Keep only because I believe a person getting both the 2nd and 3rd highest civilian award passes the notability criteria. The notable work that they did to deserve these 2 awards also makes them notable to pass WP:NBIO. Saqib do you have any reasons to disregard these awards, let me know and I am willing to reconsider my !vote. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I'm willing to withdraw this nom if these receipt of awards can be verified via independent sources. --Saqib (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like she gets a mention if not an article in English-language Pakistani press such as Dawn. Don't have the source at the moment, though, but easily found with a web search. SportingFlyer talk 08:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can quite quickly find mentions of her in her capacities as minister, donor of university research centres, etc, (including quotes of remarks she made) over at least a 6 year period in papers like Pakistan Today, Business Recorder, The Express Tribune, Dawn, and The International News. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but mentions are exactly the sort of sourcing that does not show notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 30 October 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. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Kirschner

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

Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject clearly does meet general notability guidelines. Sakaimover (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC) — Sakaimover (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Architect 134 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Forgive me for my delayed reply and for not being as versed as I should be in the publication and discussion process. I appreciate the oversight of biographical pages to protect the integrity of the site. I would strongly contend that Glenn Kirschner is more than distinguished enough to have a biographical page as a regular fixture on national news media providing legal insight into current events. In addition, he has had a notable legal career for which he is being portrayed in a major motion picture that will be released next year. I am hopeful that those contributing to this discussion will see the great merits in keeping Glenn Kirschner's page. Thank you for your time and attention. Ejwii Ejwii (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a little WP:TOOSOON. I do see him cited, mentioned in a number of news articles, but none I scanned flagged him as having apivotal role in anything significant. He is an attorney, and a talking head. But, no profiles, no INDEPTH that I can find. Feel free to ping me to reconsider if you find something substantive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per E.M.Gregory. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 13:32, 28 October 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 23:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blank (comics)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked in-line by two articles, and character appears 10 times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: B or West Coast Avengers. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not independently notable, and not notable within the fiction. The incoming links from West Coast Avengers and Shroud (comics) are both namedrops. Neither article would be hurt if the reference was removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Argento. If every minor character were merged into character lists, they'd be unworkable. This one is in no way notable enough. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Baaghi (disambiguation). Tone 16:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baaghi (franchise)

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

I don't see how this film series consisting of 2 films is independently notable. feminist (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this partial dab page to Baaghi (disambiguation). PamD 11:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PamD: good idea (although redirect directly to Baaghi, a disambiguation page, to avoid double redirect). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:12, 27 October 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rival Sons

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND for the most part. Sources are almost all crappy blogs. Their records are self-released or by minor labels (infobox says Warner, but I don't see that in the article.) And we have some stupid long-running edit war that has now reached the drama boards. Not worth the community's time, so let's delete and salt this to end the drama. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This decision strongly seems rash and unwarranted for the many citations clearly provided. There are multiple different notable sources, quotes and references. The “crappy blogs” you refer to are from Rival Sons notable record label at the time of the information used in citation. This action strongly seems, rushed and unrealistic for such a well known, notable band with many notable and significant relationships clearly referenced and stated. I disagree strongly with this nomination. Sirsentence (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California -related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

query and comment " from Rival Sons notable record label"? Then they are not WP:IS and are valueless in establishing notability or verifiability, ergo "crappy".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination appears to be judging the subject based solely on the article, and with flawed logic - several of the sources cited are not 'crappy blogs'. Four albums on Earache Records gives the band an easy pass of WP:NMUSIC criterion 5. They have had three albums on the UK Albums Chart ([25]), and two on the Billboard 200 ([26]) and well as placings on other Billboard charts (e.g. [27]), easily satisfying criterion 2. Whatever sources are cited in the article, plenty of coverage exists in reliable sources, e.g. NME: [28], MOJO: [29], Rolling Stone: [30], Allmusic: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], The Independent: [36], [37], The Quietus: [38], The Guardian: [39], the BBC: [40], [41], American Songwriter: [42], Classic Rock: [43], Guitar Player: [44], GQ: [45], Phoenix New Times: [46], The Northern Echo: [47], as well as further coverage unavailable online in publications such as Kerrang!, easily satisfying criterion 1 of WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article probably should have been tagged for copy edit/cleanup and/or sourcing issues rather than a nom for deletion, but since we're here, let's see what the community consensus is. - Planet Rock, CBS News, The Telegraph, Loudwire, couple of reviews from BBC - Review, Review 2, Vid Clip Fox News, Book - Live and Recorded: Music Experience in the Digital Millennium ISBN 978-3-319-70367-1, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The artist clearly meets meets WP:BAND on the basis of its slot as the opener of Black Sabbath's farewell tour alone. There really isn't any drama involved here other than one editor's complete inability to understand what constitutes an associated act. I agree that the article needs some major work, but it is already a major improvement over what it was just 6 months ago, which was just a promo page for the band that only cited sources to the band's own website. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wouldn't say that opening for Black Sabbath automatically makes a band notable, but they clearly pass WP:BAND anyway... multiple charting albums in multiple countries across the US and Europe, and multiple instances of coverage in reliable sources, as demonstrated by the editors above. Richard3120 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There is more coverage here than "crappy blogs". There's a lot of coverage not from crappy blogs to sift. If the multi charts are cited to IS, and if the not IS are merely used to flesh out details rather than establish notability, then . . . -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per other commentary above this is notable as there is enough references. Just needs an improvement notice not a delete User:davidstewartharvey(talk 19:50 25 October 2018
Keep While I may understand the desire to end this silly edit war by killing the article with fire, these guys appear to be a pretty notable band. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well here's a new thing-- AfD is not dispute resolution-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is going nowhere. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 26 October 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. Due to low participation, this is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Mz7 (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All India Federation of Tax Practitioners

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

Notability and the author has not used any references. Furthermore, the author boasts the organization to be the largest organisation without substantiating it. Rogueassasin123 (talk) 10:07, 4 October 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 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be plenty of coverage of the organisation in the Indian press.Rathfelder (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Furthermore, the author boasts the organization to be the largest organisation without substantiating it." so be WP:BOLD and remove those words ... done!:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 02:20, 25 October 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. Tone 16:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisk

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. Twice deleted and not much has changed source wise. References are cryptocurrency "news" sites, three mentions in Forbes, and primary sources. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same as previous AFD: "Liskula Cohen has absolutely nothing to do with this, and it was listed there by automated means." Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be more notable than last time this came to AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 01:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lisk is ranked at 29 place on most crypto market sites (coinmarketcap,coinlore,livecoinwatch,coinlib), market cap is 314M and daily trading volume more then 4 milion $ it's traded at more then 20 crypto exchanges, I think it should not be deleted. I agree it's not as popular as Ethereum bitcoin or ripple, But lisk is popular for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gozames (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Market cap does not imply notability; rather, significant independent reliable coverage does per the WP:GNG. As in previous deletes, this requirement has still not been met, so we should delete the article. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is crypto blogs of dubious reliability, and I just removed one pay-for-coverage site - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gozames is voting to delete the pages of other cryptocurrencies that compete with Lisk, sugesting that he has a financial incentive to promote Lisk coin. Interfacts (talk)
Delete None of the Forbes refs pass WP:SIGCOV, and two are from contributors rather than staff. The rest seem like self published/primary (Lisk.io, GitHub, CoinDesk reprint of PR, Microsoft Azure, a partner, and the CoinDesk interview piece). Cointelegraph has also been deemed unreliable. The only remaining source is on CoinCentral; if other editors think that's enough for a keep, fine, but I'm not swayed. Pegnawl (talk) 20:52, 30 October 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. Nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 11:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pet ownership among the homeless

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

Why do we need this we already have pages about Pet owner ship Dumyes (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Clueless nomination which does not provide a reason to delete and hasn't followed WP:BEFORE. Here's a book about the topic: My Dog Always Eats First. Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep With no prejudice towards the nominator. Some articles may seem totally stupid and pointless, but there are actually sources that exist for them and are able to support them as pages.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 11:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a reliably sourced article on a recognised topic. As well as the sources in the article (surely sufficient), there's Rhoades 2015 Pet Ownership among Homeless Youth: Associations with Mental Health, Service Utilization and Housing Status which on its own makes clear this is a serious subject. For a recent article in a major newspaper, there's Dogs on the Streets: helping homeless pets and their owners in The Guardian on 16 Sept 2018. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG a well sourced article (although needs more of a worldview), may have been appropriate to ask their question on article talkpage instead. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok i now see the page meets WP:GNG i thought it was unneeded. But i see that it should stay now.Dumyes (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since nom has now withdrawn the nomination, this AfD can now be procedurally closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 26 October 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.

[1] ttps://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ben-mirza/bahador-kharazmi-prince-of-the-underground_b_4760472.html

[2] ttps://www.bbc.com/persian/arts/story/2005/01/050114_ag-bahador.shtml

[3] ttps://www.bbc.com/persian/arts/2013/11/131116_haft_shanbeh_35

[4] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20061119080521/http://www.tehranavenue.com/article.php?id=383

[5] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20140305040449/http://www.avang.com/index.php?/amir-bahador-kharazmi-too-in-zamoone.html

[6] ttps://www.bia2.com/music-review/review.php?id=79

[7] ttps://www.bbc.com/persian/seventhday/story/2006/11/061117_me_bahadorkharazmi.shtml

[bbc-concert-8] "Bahador Kharazmi live in Dubai". bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2006-11-17.

[9] "Opening of Underground Concerts in Dubai". B.B.C Persian. Retrieved 2007-03-19.

[bbc-review-10] {"Interview with B.B.C Persian 7th Day". bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2005-01-14.

[huff-post-11] "Bahador Kharazmi: Prince of the Underground". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2014-02-17.

[12] "Iranian Album Review". bia2.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]