Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 January 8 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creditsudhaar

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are mentions, general announcements, or industry blogs that aren't reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are the same search results that I used but nothing in those results adds up to WP:CORPDEPTH. There are general announcements, brief mentions, and press releases but nothing in-depth from a reliable source that isn't routine coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The page "Credit sudhaar" was also deleted in November 2015 (the title caps version was deleted in September 2015), then created under this name two months later in January 2016. Per Phil's comment above, subject seems notable, and needs a balanced rewrite if kept. Pegnawl (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall is spot on, I mistook Money Life for something more than opinion on first blush. All other results seem to be contributed quotes from execs and passing mentions/lists. Changing Note to Delete. Pegnawl (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. – Athaenara ✉ 11:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC) }}[reply]

Ayurveda in the United States

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

This is a WP:POVFORK describing Ayurveda from the POV of in-universe descriptions in differently-wonderful fringe friendly books and outright speculation by the editors who wrote it. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crumbächer

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

Completely fails to satisfy WP:NMUSIC, despite a large number of works. While there are a few available reviews of some of their works, there are no sources that satisfy all three of Sig Cov/Reliable & independent. No other indication that NMUSIC is satisfied via a different criterion.

Along with the Thunder Beach album, is the only one of its set of articles I felt could potentially be disputed. (The other albums have been redirected for now) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable in early Christian new wave and Europop movement in Christian music (MUSICBIO No. 7) and released two or more albums on one of the more important indie labels: Frontline Records (MUSICBIO No. 5). You've ignore all of the reviews from AllMusic that you removed with the questionable redirects you made: [1] [2] [3] [4]. In one of the standard reference works, Powell, Mark Allan (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. ISBN 1-56563-679-1., their entry is on pages 216–217. Because of the layout of the work, this amounts to almost a full page. They detail four charting singles on Christian radio, the highest being a No. 4. They also had several Christian rock radio single hits which are not covered. They also had several articles in CCM Magazine. It's harder to find this sort of information in print-only media. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit-conflict) I did indeed ignore each of those All Music reviews - after considering each of them in turn. They are nowhere near Sig Cov reviews, and they don't "stack". The only CCM Magazine articles i saw from them were interviews. Charting in a specific genre isn't sufficient. I can't talk to the book - it sounds promising, if the widder group of editors can find some details on it that would be interesting to hear. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Keep The umlaut can mess up searches, but a quick Google Books search finds coverage in pp. 216-217 of Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music and several pages (e.g. 123-124) in Raised by Wolves: The Story of Christian Rock & Roll, also coverage of concerts over the years in the OC Register. A niche group, so likely to have been covered in Christian press. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jane Seymour

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

Nominated on behalf of Reddotparty, with rationale "Advertising, non verified reporting sources, non verified company. Fictional Russia diamond mine, with fictional CEO and employee claimed to be owned by a company which does only event promoting, reselling the blue diamond ring for 'charity'. Only known person of this fictional Russia diamond company is a Singaporean of Indian-Origin Karan Tilani."

Sourcing is very weak, the sources about the ring (and not its namesake) look to be self-published (several "Forbes Contributors" with thinly-veiled ads). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus to keep. No delete votes. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 15:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sim City: The Card Game

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

Card game does not appear to be notable - specifically fails to have garnered significant coverage over a period of time. No question it existed and even that there is RS which covers it, but this minimal coverage, which does not establish that it has permanent independent notability, can be incorporated as appropriate into Sim City. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose AFD is not a venue if you want to redirect a page. The name is a reasonable redirect, and I do agree in part that the card game did not gain sufficient notability for its own article, but you can't use AFD for that. --Masem (t) 19:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Barkeep49 was sloppy in his redirect attempt citing only one source, when there were two - he also deleted newly cited material and did not merge it properly. There are now 6 sources "over a period of time." Seems a little premature now. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Restoring the AfD per evidence below that it was WP:BOLD redirected. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Masem, per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_City%3A_The_Card_Game&type=revision&diff=877284040&oldid=877262727, it was already redirected by the nominator but reverted, hence the whole AfD. So it is not a wrong venue in this case. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFD is not a venue to discuss redirection, see WP:ATD-R. If the redirected was challenged, then the proper next step would be to open an RFC on the article's talk page to get wider input. --Masem (t) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Masem, like Pradixcae said on my talk page, this could be a delete Sim City: The Card Game and redirect situation too, so I think this is the right place to sort this out. RFC is not applicable as the article is not redirect anymore to be discussed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not a case where "deletion and recreate as a redirect" would be appropriate. We strive to keep all reasonable contributions in a page's history, and there's certainly nothing in this article's history that calls for the need to delete. There are valid cases where WP:TNT applies if the existing content in the article is so grossly inappropriate for WP that its better to delete, but this article is well far from that. If the goal was to redirect, and it was challenged, then a discussion on the talk pages of affected articles is the only next appropriate step. --Masem (t) 19:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, but WP:ATD-R clearly says If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. It was disputed, and AfD is a place to get consensus as well. RFC IS a good target for discussion but since AfD also handles these situations on regular basis, relies on consensus and redirect can be a result of the discussion, I cant see any problems. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • It has been long held that AFD should not be used for anything else than the intent to delete. The nominator may start out with the intent to delete and the AFD is closed as a redirect, that's an acceptable result, but when the goal of the nominator is to redirect, then that's a misuse of AFD (it has been a WP:PEREN to make "AFD" stand for Article for Discussion to include redirects, merges, etc. and that has never gained consensus). The process that should have been done, thinking about it more, would be to follow the process of WP:MERGE once the redirect was undo the first time. --Masem (t) 19:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Did not know about that WP:PEREN which happened. Problem is that some content was already merged at SimCity#Sim_City:_The_Card_Game, but I guess it would not help as the content dispute between the 2 users would go on. I strongly believe some consensus needs to be made (along with page protecting the redirect if the consensus is the redirect to avoid further mess). Admins should review this case to see if this AfD should go on, or create RFC. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Masem AfD is frequently used for community backed redirect. I know this because I have done it before, as have others recently, and because it says redirect is a valid outcome of AfD right in the second sentence of WP:AFD. I am clearly advancing a deletion based argument, namely that it's not notable. A redirect coming from here can be soft (history preserved) or hard (deleted and then redirected, erasing history for non-sysop) but saying "This content of this topic is not independently notable and should not exist on Wikipedia" feels like something policy says that a community decision at AfD rather than a merge discussion is appropriate for deciding. You can argue, as Leitmotiv, that I have notability wrong and the article should exist, but the fact that I support an alternative to deletion does not mean that this venus is closed off. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • ^. When an attempt to redirect is rejected, the community is regularly invited to an AFD to establish a clear consensus. The alternative method for this would be to propose a merge, but those are often left to languish without involvement from the community. --Izno (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ok, it has been clarified that there is consensus that redirects that were challenged may be brought to AFD. So consider this aspect no longer relevant. --Masem (t) 22:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new sources added by Leitmotiv to help it meet the WP:GNG. BOZ (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage is not required over a period of time because notability does not expire – most sources are effectively permanent because they can be found in archives or central libraries. Talk of redirect is misleading as there is an obvious main topic -- the original Sim City game -- and so this is a merge discussion for which deletion is quite inappropriate per WP:MAD. The games are best kept separate for clarity and simplicity as smushing everything together results in pages which are too long. Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You should review WP:SUSTAINED. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that "period of time" is vague. Also brief bursts of news coverage over a period of time seems contradictory. Either way the sources supplied pass WP:GNG. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not temporary. WP:NOTTEMPORARY The article passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 12:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The game has enough coverage to meet notability guidelines. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Joseph

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

Non-notable professional wrestling announcer, fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Out (band)

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

Contested PROD. Another WP:ROTM / WP:GARAGE band. No outside sources via WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niels Zonneveld

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

Darts players have no notability guidelines. He is yet to make an appearance in any notable tournament and also fails WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus of the discussion is that there are enough sources to meet WP:BASIC, even if the article in its current state needs improvement. RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grady R. Kent

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Excessively reliant on a single website of unclear reliability and certainly not neutral. —Madrenergictalk 16:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 17:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 17:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went looking through news sources and found nothing, your references are all books and appear good but they only mention the subject in passing. Once. Ifnord (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're plentiful. Hzh found passing references to him as creator of a denomination. The denomination may be notable, but the subject doesn't appear so. WP:NOTINHERITED. Perhaps a redirect to Church of God would be better? Ifnord (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is the biography of the person, so I have no idea why you would claim that it is merely a passing mention, especially when you cannot see the rest in some of the others. Hzh (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am too inexperienced, but I do not think a single biographical entry in one book that is about 1,200 other religious figures would count as a significant coverage in multiple secondary sources per WP:GNG. —Madrenergictalk 19:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first is not a biography of the subject. The first lists him, along with 1 200 others as Madrenergic points out. Ifnord (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Taking a look from the article itself:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Church of God website Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Source closely connected with subject
Ephesus Church of God website Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Source closely connected with subject
A. J. Tomlinson: Plainfolk Modernist Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Passing or no mention of subject Total qualifying sources 0 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
And then sources provided by Hzh:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Religious leaders of America Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Passing mention, one of 1 200 biographies
The Encyclopedia of American Religions Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Mentioned once, as reinventor of Church of God of Prophecy
Nelson's Guide to Denominations Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Mentioned once, as former minister of Church of God of Prophecy
The American South in the Twentieth Century Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Passing or no mention of subject
Profiles in Belief: Holiness and pentecostal Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Mentioned once Total qualifying sources 0 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Ifnord (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't take your analysis seriously when you list a biographical entry as a passing mention. Presumably you'd also say that WP:ANYBIO is wrong because Dictionary of National Biography has 50,113 entries, therefore they must be all passing mentions. And as already mentioned, you can't even see what's in the other books, you are just making claims without any basis. Hzh (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say I couldn't see the books. I can and did, my review is above. What I said was I didn't go looking for them, I went looking for news sources. And found none. WP:ANYBIO is fine, criteria 3 says, "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." The Dictionary of National Biography is recognized as standard work of reference on notable figures from British history. The source you quote is no Dictionary of National Biography . Ifnord (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid nothing you said is convincing. The biographical entry is an entry, that you can claim it is a passing mention shows that what you said is untrue. The DNB example is there simply to show the fallacy of your argument that because it is just one of 1,200 biographies, it can be considered a passing mention. Hzh (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The DNB is directly quoted in WP:ANYBIO, as you can see above. It is there to indicate that if an entry in such a standard work of reference is present, it would indicate notability. Not every source is a standard work of reference book however. One may point to the Yellow Pages and say, "Look, the subject is listed!" Ifnord (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are no longer making sense. Hzh (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources provided on the article are reliable and the person is notable per WP:BASIC. AD Talk 18:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cannot agree that a biographical entry in a book such as Religious leaders of America is a passing mention. I can't see how much there is about him in The Encyclopedia of American Religions, but he is clearly not just mentioned once, as the snippet view ends with a new sentence starting "Kent ...". Nelson's Guide to Denominations is also only a snippet view, but in the single sentence visible we have Kent's years of birth and death, and his prior affiliation. In addition to those sources, Newspapers.com shows coverage of him from his flogging in 1939 [10] and [11], through 1946 when he returned to Georgia to help wipe out the KKK (also includes that he had 8 children) [12], a 1953 report of a flying mission [13], a 1956 report about missing planes being found that includes the information that Kent flew to Jamaica on the start of a missionary tour of the Caribbean [14], a 1961 report of a speech where Kent outlined plans for Church of God cars, motorbikes and a navy [15], and a 1962 report of a Church of God motorcade - the info about him is short: he travelled with it, and initiated the fleet in 1958 (this source has different names for the fleet from the Wikipedia article) [16]. Definitely enough to meet WP:GNG. The article definitely needs improvement for tone, sourcing (and spelling), but that is not a reason to delete it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the Religious leaders of America text in front of me (via Gale's Biography In Context). For anyone who needs, the text is four paragraphs, so that one's not a passing mention. On the whole, rest of the sourcing looks weak. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : It looks as if it's going to snow soon so let me just point out that the text, as it currently stands, is atrocious (e.g. solecisms such as "an american theologian"; the whole 1st para of the "Ministry" section, etc). -The Gnome (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmund Solares

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Involvement in legal cases doesn't pass the bar as they themselves fail WP:NEVENT. SITH (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AD Talk 18:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. AD Talk 18:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Manzano

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO due to lack of coverage. Much of the article is unreferenced, in contravention of WP:BLP. One mention in election results in the New York Times doesn't satisfy WP:NPOL unfortunately. SITH (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Ask for a WP:REFUND if/when there is more material published about the show. RL0919 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Til Debt Do Us Part (TV series)

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

No confirmed cast member, no information about its creative team, no start date for filming TheHotwiki (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral comment Note that there is another series with an article here titled Til Debt Do Us Part, a Canadian reality series; this is not the subject of this discussion. Nate • (chatter) 21:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation when we can reliably source some actual content about it. As always, we don't rush to create an article about every television series that has simply been announced as being in production — planned television series get cancelled or delayed or radically rejigged all the time, so just because a project has entered the pipeline doesn't always mean it's necessarily going to come out the other end as a series that ever actually airs. So we don't start an article about a television series just because it's on the production slate — we wait until we can properly source a confirmed premiere date, and before that it's WP:TOOSOON. And even if and when the time has arrived for an article about it, it will have to be titled more specifically than just "TV series", given that the topic it's being disambiguated from is also a TV show. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Ask for a WP:REFUND if/when there is more material published about the show. RL0919 (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Better Woman (TV series)

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

Poorly sourced, no confirmed cast members and no date for filming. TheHotwiki (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation when we can reliably source some actual content about it. As always, we don't rush to create an article about every television series that has simply been announced as being in production — planned television series get cancelled or delayed or radically rejigged all the time, so just because a series has entered the pipeline doesn't always mean it's necessarily going to come out the other end as a series that ever actually airs. So we don't start an article about a television series just because it's on the production slate — we wait until we can properly source a confirmed premiere date, and before that it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Shimiao

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

I can find no sources other than documents associated with the lawsuit mentioned in the article and the Pacific Rim Construction articles cited (which have no byline and appear to be based on media releases) that mention, much less establish any claim for the notability of, the subject. The article's author insists that the subject is "internationally acclaimed" (as one of the PRC articles states) and notable, but at this point neither the article content nor the sources cited indicate why the subject would or should be. Being the subject of litigation is certainly not alone a reason for notability. General Ization Talk 05:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that, while the creator asserts the subject is "acclaimed", the content of the present article is overwhelmingly negative concerning the subject. It primarily documents a claim that the subject embezzled from his firm, a claim that appears to have been settled under seal and so cannot be readily refuted. An effort at character assassination may be the article's primary purpose for being here. General Ization Talk 13:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the coverage of this person meets WP:BIO. I understand it is not actual policy, but I think Wikipedia:Notability_(architecture)#Architects can inform things, too. In addition to the sources already in the article, his firm's website (though not a third party reference, to be sure) lists some projects that seem important, though I am no expert.[17] And there is at least one Chinese language source that talks more about his old firm's dissolution and lawsuits. [18] In fact, it was an anonymous editor that kept adding this reference to Marshall Strabala that got me to look into this individual and his firm partner for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Google translation of this source leads me to believe there are alternate ways to transliterate this person's name. And I am sure somebody more capable than me can do more effective native searches in Mandarin. Seeing as he is based in China, and based on the English sourcing available, I would expect there to be more references available in Chinese.
Further, despite General Ization's claim that I assert this architect is "acclaimed," if one read's the article, my talk page post, and edit summaries, one would see that I am just reciting what a source said. I have no idea whether his peers (or anybody else) actually acclaim him or not.
And to briefly address what appear to me to be an ad hominem attack on me alleging I had somehow improper motives for creating the article (of course, the article can have no motive for existing, only the article's first editor for creating it), which the General seems to acknowledge is at odds with his (inaccurate) characterization of my view of whether the architect is acclaimed: if this article is "character assassination," the text of the article indicates I am a terrible character assassin, or at least a straightforward and boring one. But I will assume good faith and assume the General did not mean to disparage me personally.
In sum, from what I have read online, I think this individual (if not the article itself) meets the notability requirements for Wikipedia. Arch-i-tec-sure (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No intent to disparage you personally; my comments were an assessment of the present state of the article, and the fact that 80% of it concerns legal claims against the subject rather than their accomplishments led to my speculation. That the firm's Web site may describe some important projects is irrelevant unless it also clearly shows that the subject was somehow important to development or realization of one or more projects. (As near as I can tell, it doesn't, and he is no longer with the firm.) There are two separate AfDs because they are presumably two separate people, and the discussion of the notability or lack of one shouldn't influence the discussion of the other. General Ization Talk 18:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the firm link I pasted above is his current firm. It looks like he is one of two partners (the other being the subject of the other related article you sent to AfD), so it stands to reason he is involved with some or all of the projects. It looks to me like the page does claim he and his partner were directly involved in those projects. And per N, notability is determined based on the subject, not the state of the article. As for whether to combine the AfD, it is your AfD nomination; I'll copy and paste this comment to the other one, too. Arch-i-tec-sure (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find much about him even in Chinese sources. He is mentioned in a number of articles with Qiao Zhang, but Qiao Zhang appears to be the chief architect in their new practice and there are more sources about him. The lawsuit does not confer notability, and it is not clear how significant he was in the firm with Strabala, simply being a partner is not by itself notable. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Hzh (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow closure together with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qiao Zhang, which has also been relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Trent

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

WP:BLP1E Cabayi (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does that contradict WP:BLP1E? MarkH21 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He was not involved in just a single game, so I don't think WP:BLP1E applies. Indyguy (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It kinda does, actually. We naturally get worked up about a story like this (particularly if sports are involved) until it fades into the distance and another comes along to replace it. His story is tragic like scores before him, but ultimately not notable. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Second "keep" vote was copypasted from the first. Editing original comment as neither user falls under WP:SPA. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really, you find it suspicious that an article listed for deletion on the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions has Keep comments by two editors whose user names both contain the word "Indy"? I assure you that IndyNotes and I are two different people who have not discussed this or any subject either on WP or in the real world. Indyguy (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And obviously you IndyNotes liked his your comment "covered not only in Indiana news media, but also by USA Today, Washington Post, ESPN, NPR, and other national media" so much that you he just copied it word for word ... WWGB (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I copied nothing inasmuch as my comment was made two days earlier than IndyNotes's. Indyguy (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AeronautX Luftfahrtschule

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

References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 19:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 19:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator and no one else recommended deletion. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun

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

Saudi refugee and WP:BLP1E case. A current news story (WP:NOTNEWS) that is unlikely to receive sustained coverage after the matter of her flight to Australia is resolved. Perhaps draftify to allow restoration should coverage persist on the order of months or years. Sandstein 11:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: I'm withdrawing this because it is clear that there will not be consensus to delete. I'll note that I am very sympathetic to this young woman's plight, but remain of the view that an encyclopedia is not the place for detailed exposés of breaking news stories. This case, and others like it (including those likely to follow) would probably better be covered in a more condensed form in an article with a broader scope that provides the appropriate context, such as Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Sandstein 09:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JavaScript Data Components

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

Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage, major reviews or evidence that the library has had a significant impact on JavaScript coding in general. SITH (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn, should've checked WorldCat as well as Google. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of trademarks featuring African Americans

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

Not a notable list per WP:NOTESAL. Also appears to be a violation of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. PROD removed by DGG on the basis that there probably are sources to do with African Americans in trademarks. Google shows that might be the case for the topic in general, but none of the results on the first page mention the three listed here. The topic could probably be created at something like African Americans in trademarks or, less preferably African Americans and trademarks, but I think the list should be deleted for the reasons stated above. SITH (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's easy to find sources which discuss such branding and trademarks as a group including entire books: [19]; [20]; [21]. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also found sources, including some which discuss the specific examples on this list (as do the books linked above), so it would be easy to add sources. There are scholarly articles, such as 'Intellectual Property at the Intersection of Race and Gender: Lady sings the Blues' in Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law [22], and another book, Racist Trademarks: Slavery, Orient, Colonialism and Commodity Culture [23]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cordiem

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

Appears to fail corporate notability guidelines due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The only coverage I can find is this and I don't think it meets the bar. SITH (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of non-sovereign monarchs who lost their thrones. Merging all of these lists into one seems to be the result that has the most support among editors here, and addresses both the "keep" side's concern about losing information, and (somewhat?) the "delete" side's notability concerns. Sandstein 13:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-sovereign monarchs who lost their thrones in the 21st century

[edit]
List of non-sovereign monarchs who lost their thrones in the 21st century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST. Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion either way on that one, the merge target needs a lot of work and isn't clearly notable either. It has more potential, however. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 02:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 02:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Babymissfortune 02:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gorchakov Manor

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

A building (?) of uncertain notability. I could not find anything in the Russian Wikipedia on the subject. Ghirla-трёп- 08:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  << FR 10:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: possibly a WP:G5 candidate - see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mkd07 - but please do note the article was created by Metricon01 before they were blocked. The webpage this was initially copied from asserts is that its contents are Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) The does appear to be the official website of the Government of Moscow. There is obviously an issue about whether content the https://www.mos.ru/en/ website is in any way compatible with the various licenses for and in Wikipedia content. That discussion might be for another day: that said, please go ahead and make it today. I suggest we should concentrate on the substantial merits of this article for now. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Regardless of it being a possible speedy deletion candidate, it certainly seems failing of notability standards, even to the extent of a possible hoax. After searching thoroughly I could find nothing but mirrors of Wikipedia and a seeming mention in a obscure French-language travel guide. Searches fof Olga Gorchakov revealed nothing either. There could (very slight chance) be pay-for or (possibly) free Russian-language sources but a Russian editor would be much better equipped to indulge in that. J947 (c), at 00:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - potentially interesting or even encyclopedic, but currently fails V. There are a number of "Olga's" (Ольга) mentioned at w:ru:Горчаковы as well as brief mentions of various pieces of real estate (none in Moscow that I noticed). Vasily Dashkova's page is w:ru:Дашков, Василий Андреевич. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha dynasty

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

I could not find any sources mentioning the dynasty. There is no dearth of sources on Raja Ganesha and his kingdom. However, I am yet to come across sources which characterize his rule as a "dynasty". I'll also support a redirect to Raja Ganesha if that's the consensus.  << FR 08:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  << FR 08:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  << FR 08:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And here it clearly mentions “Raja Ganesha and his dynasty”. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 12:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Patel Museum, Surat

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

I am not seeing any coverage whatsoever of this Museum.  — fr + 06:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.  — fr + 06:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — fr + 06:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Phil Bridger (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't. Most of the Google Books and Scholar links (the ones that are most reliable) are for this museum in Surat rather than the one in Ahmedabad. You seem to be digging yourself deeper into a hole by trying to justify your silly edit below rather than evaluating the sources properly. This should obviously be closed now as "keep" rather than have you delay the inevitable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is also plenty of coverage if you search under its former name, Winchester Museum, Surat. Journal of Indian Museums had an article in 1956 (Vol 12, pp 39-42) that "Narrates the origin and development of the museum" (summary from Cultural News from India 1962 [28]). The India Museums Review in 1959 had a history and overview starting "This Museum, earlier the Winchester Museum, named after a former Assistant Collector, was started in 1890 in the ..." [29]. The Eastern Anthropologist in 1976 has a description starting "Sardar Ballavbhai Patel Museum, Surat, Gujarat. Formerly known as Winchester Museum established in 1890. Besides paintings and sculpture, there is small collection of local textiles and embroidery work from Saurashtra, Kutch, Punjab and ..." [30] (these are all snippet views, so one would need access to the actual journal to read the whole piece). There's even an 1890 issue of The Indian Magazine with news about the foundation stone being laid [31]. There is also a thesis about it, 'A museum through transition: Case study of Sardar Vallabhai Patel Museum Surat' (2009) [32].User:RebeccaGreen appears to have forgotten to sign this comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Withdrawing nom. To be frank, I got confused between a similarly named non notable place in Surat. << FR 11:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can access almost all the sources and need to look into the stuff and the depth of the cites. Consequently, I am requesting against a procedural close. ∯WBGconverse 11:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. wp:ITSAMUSEUM. --Doncram (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    which is a piss-pathetic essay written by you. I understand the motivations for self-advertisement but something better, please. Why not just say per Rebecca who has done quite-a-job? ∯WBGconverse 14:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe that's what you should have done, rather than delay an obvious "keep" close per nominator withdrawal. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I prefer to access the entirety of sources (which takes time, 2/3 more days) rather than snippets-view. ∯WBGconverse 03:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors who run even the simplest search on gBooks using keywords "Winchester Museum" + Surat will immediately find articles in books, scholarly journals and dusty but reliable Edwardian sources like the Imperial gazetteer of India that confirm notability. WBG is, of coruse, welcome to help improve the article at his leisure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Searches under the museum's original, colonial era name are persuasive. (Fact is, India has a significant number of colonial era museums with important collections that have gathered dust since 1948 but are now are beginning to receive attention and funds. the decades of neglect explain why sources are ore plentiful under the old name.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Surowiecki bibliography

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

NOTDIRECTORY. A bibliography of a major author's books, that's appropriate .A listing for a really famous author of even their lesser work, that's appropriate also. A listing for a fairly routine journalist of all their occasional pieces in the New Yorker is making WP an index, not an Wikipedia. It might previously have been argued that if we do not include material of this sort, it will be difficult for the public to find, and therefore a justifiable extension to our scope. But no Wikidata is available, and is ideal for preserving collecting and displaying this material.

I have sometimes been a little skeptical of wikidata, both its prior lack of verifiability, and its still-current tendency to accept words with only a roughly similar or overlapping meaning as exact semantic equivalents across dissimilar languages and cultures, but content of this nature is what it is already best suited for, DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the examples at that link are Umberto Eco who wrote books. this writer has 1 book and a number of magazine articles. and Richard Nixon, where the page includes the several books he wrote, notable articles, and many of the books and biographies about him. We don't have such pages for moderately notable authors. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Pontificalibus. Deb (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete several reasons have been presented why we shouldn't have a listing of every newspaper column this person has written for the New Yorker (which is all this "article" is); WP:ELLIST and NOTDIRECTORY primarily. The content is not suitable to merge back to the biography; no opinion on recreating as a redirect. If Sunwin1960 or others feel that WikiProject Bibliographies disagrees with this assessment, we may need an RFC for the community as a whole to evaluate that policy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Tihu. Anything worth merging is still available under the article history. Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North East Mega Food Park, Tihu

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:PLACE. Sheldybett (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cheval

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

Vanity article that claims his work is "internationally acclaimed" and that "Every one of Cheval's paintings is well received" but there are no independent sources. I did a deep search, and the only WP:RS I could come up with is this journal article [33]. Of the three awards, Best of Worldwide Artists and Palm are both Vanity awards. National Arts Club is a social club [34] with 2000+ members, and neither membership, nor an award that only seems to appear in Cheval's promotional materials [35] do not establish notability. Theredproject (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cheval may be notable, and there are credible claims as an artist, but there are none of the reliable and verifiable sources that would back up such a claim in the article and I couldn't find any in a Google search. Such claims in the article as "Critical and Public Response: Every one of Cheval's paintings is well received." don't help. Nor does the lead sentence in his biography on his website that "Michael Cheval is the world’s leading contemporary artist, specializing in Absurdist paintings, drawings and portraits." I would be happy to reconsider in the face of better sourcing, but I don't see it at this point. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I for one had never seen a section titled "press releases" (since removed), containing a list of press releases released; this is a serious innovation in the puffery area. Another boldfaced move, as Alansohn points out, was the inclusion of a section titled "Critical and Public Response", which contained only the plain, uncited fact that "Every one of Cheval's paintings is well received." On the upside, the page does not include a list of "Museums visited", so I guess we can be thankful for that. Humor aside, a search turned up no RS, so this is a clear GNG fail. If there's a way to archive bad pages as examples for future wikiwriters, this one should be archived.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Couvrette

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

Highly promotional article. Previously nominated for deletion in 2009. The article largely mentions items that are routine tasks for a commercial photographer: i.e. taking pictures of people. The long list of famous people he has photographed does not contribute to his own notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:ARTIST fail as there are no history of exhibitions, monographs or permanent collections. Previous extensive efforts of good-faith editors to clean up the promotion have been largely reverted by SPA and IP additions that restored the promotional nature of the article. To quote a !voter at the first AFD, "Couvrette is a wedding and portrait photographer, runs a studio, has photographed some government officials, and has had some photos published in major magazines. Where is the significant critical attention? Where are the significant exhibitions? Where are the inclusions in the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums?"ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yes. Earlier today I mentioned some of the same issues on the Talk page. An addition I thought was that the Awards section in particular was not noteworthy, due to the presenter not being noteworthy and the lack of sources. Additionally the same IP appears to have largely created the article and the promotional edits, as ThatMontrealIP noted. LawrenceTemple (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am just seeing them now, but your comments on the article talk page are excellent and pertinent to the AFD. I actually ended upon this page as a result of your corrections of Couvrette's genres on the List of Photographers page. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously promotional article. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Løw

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

Not notable, please see article talk page. Also suspected autobiography. An unregistered IP constantly removes critical refs and warning tags. --01:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Sasper (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A small entrepreneur, very conscious about promotion. Has established some not very succesful small companies, has written some small books (self-publishing). Article has been deleted on dawiki several times because of lack of notability. The article kept being recreated until the article name was protected. There has been a proposal to restore the article on dawiki, only supported by newly created users and by ip's, only engaging in this subject. There is on enwiki many edits from ip's, removing critical end negative information, and quality templates. --Madglad (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantia Koutouki

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

non notable. Does not meet WP:PROF--publications consist of a few articles and book chapter, but according to Google Scholar, none of them have been cited more than 7 times, which is negligible in the social sciences. The statement under publications that there are "books" is misleading--it refers to chapters in books published by other people, and these could even less for notability than journal articles.

There does not appear to be references for any other basis of notability DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. Wait, DGG, I know we don't have written guidelines, and things vary per discipline, but in mine a chapter in an edited volume counts pretty much just like a journal article--at least for T&P, haha. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
":depends on the university. My last would count anything , as long as it was peer-reviewed, and most book chapters are not. they're published by invitation of the editor. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with regret. I looked for information and found only the one report of a round table that I added to the article. I was thinking of PRODding it myself, or redirecting to Centre for International Sustainable Development Law. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable person I would like the offer some commments in support of keeping the page. This person is the Presedent of the ILA-Canada, a professor of law, and executive director of a think tank. She has been widley recognized by her peers in international law through the nomination process to represent the ILA. She is also highley active working with Indigenious peoples globally. Journalests rarely follow these types of people but their work is clearly respected by thier peers. For Wikipedia to be of utmost use, I would hope for flesability to allow for the work of these types of leaders to be highlighted. These are the people fighting for the rights of future generations in thier work and that alone makes them notable. When thier peers in a highly respected orginization like ILA elect them to leadership roles this should be given considerable weight. I do hope you can keep this page to encourage others to both pursue this work, but also to provide them a means to learn about these global leaders who may not recieve attention in the press. Her publications are peer reviewed and come from the top publishers like Cambridge University Press. I understand the guidelines you have set out for this platform, and from my interpritation she fit those. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanO777 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SeanO777 raises a good point. Her presidency of the International Law Association Canada might cause her to meet PROF#6. Catrìona (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, It's a branch of the International Law Association, not a separate organization.
And Sean, you're asking that we give great coverage for people who are working for "rights of future generations" or causes we generally support than we would otherwise. This is a direct contradiction of one of our most basic foundational principle, WP:NPOV, and therefore totally irrelevant here. That you are making this argument, and adding articles on other associated people, presumably with the same rationale, indicates that you have a WP:Conflict of Interest in that you are trying to use WP for advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not advocating anything. I added these points to support the discussion on notability - and only that. This person is notable in the eyes of her peers in international law. The factors on future generations etc was to simply note the importance of inclusiveness in your guidelines on notability. Scholars who work in this field on first glance may seem to not fit the notability guidelines - as we see indicated by your peers. I was highlighting why this person is notable. Nothing more. I was under the impression this exersize was a discussion to streghten the platform as a whole. I was indicating that this information fit the guidleines you have indicated. Lastly, the contribution was written in a nutral tone. My possition that she fits your guidelines does not change the nutrality of the information provided. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanO777 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are, when you say "These are the people fighting for the rights of future generations in thier work and that alone makes them notable." That is not what notability depends on. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: User SeanO777 has admitted COI [36], and paid contributing [37]. ——Chalk19 (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--> To be clear, I was only suggesting a line of reasoning which supports the conclusion that her work fits the notability criteria. IE - "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society" and "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." This was my point. I simply put forward this information to highlight the relevance and notability of this scholar. The point on future generations was to only highlight a potential gap in your guidelines whereby scholars doing great work and receiving the highest recognition by peers are deemed not notable based on the criteria listed. As I stated before, based on a plain reading of your guidelines, this subject fit point 6 and 7 if not others as well. Thank you again for your consideration. Have a nice day unsigned comment by SeanO777

I take Sean007's questions seriously, regardless of COI. Different fields have different standards. It may not be obvious from the name of a society how important it is, and it is not obvious to what extent the presidency of a very narrow specialty society is significant, or of a national or state branch of a larger society. We need to consider all the evidence. And Sean is quite correct to ask about whether we go by the written guidelines--and the answer is that they all have borderline cases that require interpretation, and we always have the option of using WP:IAR either to accept or reject an article. Otherwise we wouldn't need AfD in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage I think is needed to show she meets the GNG. When I looked in Google Scholar, her citation counts seem quite low given her areas of interest are climate change and indigenous peoples--both of which are "hot" topics these days.Sandals1 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Spalding, Saskatchewan. Overall consensus is to merge to Spalding, Saskatchewan. North America1000 01:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reynold Rapp Residence

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

This house appears in the Canadian Register of Historic Places, but unlike the US register, the Canadian register appears not to require the pre-existence or the creation of significant reliable sources: it's merely a compilation of places designated as historic by any participating government. Perhaps a place designated by the federal government would require the creation or pre-existence of significant documentation, but this house has been named a historic site by its local government (either the Rural Municipality of Spalding No. 368, total population 447, or the Village of Spalding, population 242), and that's it. Small local governments can easily create historic sites without any documentation, since residents can testify from memory about past events that aren't documented anywhere — as such, we can't possibly assume that a local historic site is necessarily notable. There's a three-paragraph writeup at [38], but that's all I've found; all seventeen Google hits appear to be mirrors of our article or the writeup. Moreover, can we trust the tiny writeup? It's seemingly a copy of a local bylaw, which is hardly a reliable source for formal historic-preservation purposes: it shows what the town council thinks is important, but we can't assume that their sentiments are shared by professionals. And finally, the first paragraph talks about the namesake resident (obviously notable on WP:POLITICIAN grounds), and the rest says it's significant because it typifies period houses and it has a bunch of elements remaining from Rapp's period, and then there's a single long sentence talking about a few of the architectural elements. This is nowhere near significant coverage, and an ordinary house built in the 1920s likely won't get significant coverage in print. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 01:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the details; I had suspicions but couldn't prove them. I think this source ought to be ignored: obviously it's a reliable source, but there are just four Rapp-related sentences, and two of them discuss Rapp himself without addressing the house. Nyttend (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement that this source, standing alone, does not constitute significant coverage, particularly as an historic building. I was wondering if the Reynold Rapp Museum, as a possible move target (it's currently a redirect to this article), might have received more coverage offline inasmuch as it appears to have been around since circa 1972 when Rapp donated the residence. I am not finding significant coverage of the museum online beyond the usual tourist listings and tripadvisor reports. Alternatively, one might merge this brief article to the biography of Reynold Rapp and redirect both the residence and the museum to that article, inasmuch as the donation of the property for the purpose as a town museum is a biographical detail of his life and legacy. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC) 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_January_7&oldid=1142614004"