From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 February 17 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Article eligible for g5 speedy deletion as creation by blocked or banned user. ( non-admin closure) ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Nina Teicholz

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

This article does not establish general notability or biographical notability because it does not address in-depth coverage by third parties. It has two main problems, marginal notability, and conflict of interest. If all of the conflicted editing (by the author and her sockpuppets) were removed, very little would be left, so see TNT. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Restaurant Bigwig

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

inadequate evidence of notability -- the sources are press releases DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

GoNoodle

GoNoodle (  | 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 an undisclosed commissioned piece based largely on sources that are either primary, unreliable or both. Many of the statements can be traced to company's own marketing materials. Basically, the company is talking about itself in this article, making a mockery of the principles of verifiability and neutral point of view. I nominate it for deletion as a violation of WP:NOT combined with the lack of clear indication of notability.

In revision #822414471,

In summary:

  • six references (2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11) are primary and/or unreliable and undisputably contribute nothing to notability
  • one reference (8) is a press release by the customer, thus primary and doesn't contribute to notability
  • four references (3, 6, 7, 12) are to local news sites. Per WP:AUD, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability.
  • one reference (1) is a reprint of an article from a local newspaper. Since it is based mostly on quotes by the founders of GoNoodle, it should be given little weight when establishing notability.

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NOTADVERTISING. Rentier ( talk) 19:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. Is there an award for largest ratio of AfD text to article text? If so, this would probably win it.

The keep people are arguing this meets WP:NBOOK, and the other side is saying that the sources provided do not pass muster. There's also a fair amount of sentiment that this is an attempt to bypass the salting of Jacob Barnett. I find the delete arguments more persuasive, not to mention that they're numerically a supermajority.

To be honest, I don't understand the nomination. Why write an article and then nominate it for deletion? I don't get the logic there. But, whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius

The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD was going happen eventually, may as well get this over with. This should be an obvious keep due to the depth and breadth of sources.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 18:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination) and its links to many past discussions. To the extent that this article focuses on the book rather than the person, it may evade G4 speedy deletion, but it is currently about half and half between the book and the person. I already had to remove one false claim (repeatedly debunked in the past history of the Jacob Barnett article, but stated by overly-credulous and non-expert news sources) that he made contributions to the theory of relativity. No opinion yet on whether it is possible to have a properly neutral article that is only about the book. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • If you are to look at the past discussion, it should be noted, that the claims were not started as some have claimed by Kristine, but rather she used them from the media coverage starting in 2011 and through to when the book came out in 2013. Subuey ( talk) 04:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
All three sentences of it... -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Now up to four sentences. But that still leaves almost two redirects from variations of Jacob Barnett for every sentence. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 16:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete WP:BLP evasion. Mangoe ( talk) 21:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. BLP evasion. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC). reply
  • Delete I don't know the full back-story behind the previous deletions here but there is a distinct whiff of vanity by proxy about the matter. Anyway, notability is not demonstrated. If the book becomes a best-seller, or if they really do make a major studio movie of it, and if reliable sources pay attention to it, then maybe this can be revisited. If the kid really does become genuinely notable as a scientist, and not just as a smart kid, then maybe the biography can be revisited too. Those are decisions for the future. Right now, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the idea of hyping him up as a genius. Not only is this not a valid thing for Wikipedia to do, I worry about the effect on him if it doesn't pan out that way. A lot of child prodigies struggle as adults and we don't want to do anything, or facilitate anything, that might just make things harder for him. The excessive expectations that this sort of hyperbolic coverage raises could well do exactly that. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Question: What does policy say about an editor nominating an article for deletion that they themselves wrote and which they do not themselves support deleting? Is this regarded as an abuse of the process or is everybody free to shoot themselves in the foot if they want to? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    • It is possible to speedy keep a nomination if the nominator "fails to advance an argument for deletion". But that would probably be a bad idea now that we have several other editors advocating deletion — the only result would be to unnecessarily restart the AfD, since (as the nominator already said) someone else would inevitably make the same nomination. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article's topic meets the WP:GNG as it's received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. As I type this, there are currently 9 sources cited by the article including the Washington Post [4] and USA Today. [5] Random House is a major publisher and I wouldn't doubt that many more sources could be found, but I believe that the article as written already has enough to prove that it meets GNG.
I'll also add that two of the 'delete' !votes above don't even bother to address the issue of notability and should be ignored by the closing admin. There's a third 'delete' !vote which suggests a book needs to have a movie based on it in order to have an article about it. There is no such policy or guideline that has such a rule. This third 'delete' !vote also argues about whether the boy is a genius or not. Again, this argument has no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. To be honest, the 'delete' !votes appear to be examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@ A Quest For Knowledge: Many of these sources should be considered to be unreliable, despite being published in high-profile publications, because they repeat blatantly false claims directly from the book's promoters without any fact-checking. This problem has been thoroughly discussed in previous AfDs. The false claims happen not to be repeated in our current article, fortunately, but only because our article is so short that the only information it conveys is the existence of a book with this title. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I did not say that the movie was required. I offered it as an example of one thing that could help to demonstrate some additional notability. (I'll also state explicitly what I meant to imply when I mentioned the movie: The film rights were sold in 2013 and nothing has been heard since. I doubt there will ever be a movie. As such, the fact that the film rights were sold is nowhere near as significant as it might at first seem, which is pretty much my view of the whole article: That there is less to it than it appears.) I never said that the movie was the only option. The book being a best seller or receiving properly significant coverage would also cover it. I see a few reviews. I don't see significant coverage. I don't see critical coverage either, which is what you would expect if this was being taken seriously. If you are picking up some "I don't like it" from me then that is fair enough because I admit that I don't like it. It has an undertone of vanity and possibly even exploitation about it. There also seems to have been a fairly concerted attempt to spam it into Wikipedia in the past which is another thing that I really don't like (and neither do our policies). Of course, if notability was there then me not liking it, and all the other problems, would not not matter a hoot when it comes to keeping the article. My delete !vote is based in policy: The lack of sufficient notability and the BLP issues (which still arise even if the article is not a pure BLP). Being published by a major publisher and getting a few reviews and short articles which read like rehashed press releases is not enough for an article. If there was a conflict between our policies and my feeling that this sort of coverage may not be beneficial to the kid then I'd have to go with the policy but I think everything is pushing in the same direction here. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 00:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@David Eppstein: It sounds like you're arguing truth, not verifiability. That's not a valid reason to delete an article. Also, it's OK if the article is just a stub. One of the wonderful things about Wikipedia is that there are no deadlines. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Sources on this particular subject have a record of being unreliable. Asking for reliable sources is not at odds with WP:V. On the contrary, it is specifically demanded by that policy. Since the book concerns the medical condition of autism, WP:MEDRS applies to determining the reliability of sourcing. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree with everything that David Eppstein and Sławomir Biały have said in their two replies above. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
If this was a significant book on autism then I would expect to see it widely cited in academic papers and articles on the subject. Google Scholar lists 14 citations. A few of them might be OK (I'm not able to judge them all) but others (e.g. The Gift of Memoir: Show Up, Open Up, Write) don't seem to be on-topic at all for Autism. 14 does not seem like a high number to me although it certainly isn't zero either. Among the 14, I did find one item of in-depth critical coverage too: https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-09-25/ . If the article is kept then I feel that this would have to be used as a source for the article if it were ever to evolve to be more than a stub. Maybe it is should be included even in a stub to counterbalance the more credulous coverage. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Agree. It is not a significant book on autism, unless it is discussed in reliable WP:MEDRS review articles. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
This book isn’t trying to be an authoritative work about autism, it’s just a memoir about parenting. Don’t try to strawman this with an entire paragraph.—- Prisencolin ( talk) 16:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm not presenting a "strawman". Actual sources, including the book itself, are demonstrably unreliable. Like many other WP:FRINGE books about autism and its treayment, we require reliable sources. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Have you read the book? I personally haven't but you seem to be presuming that the book it full of the same dubious exaggerations that many of the media reports on Jacob Barnett have made.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I'm familiar with the book. (Regarding presumption, it really seems like you are the one presuming things.) Contrary to what is said below, the book is full of the same kinds of lies that were pushed in the media, and heavily promoted in all the book flap. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
For this discussion, what's actually in the book is nearly irrelevant. What's important is what's in sources about the book and how reliable we can consider those sources to be. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
There is really only an exaggeration used on the cover (that his IQ is higher than Einstein, Einstein never took an IQ test) and the technicality of the extent to which he had produced a theory (he hasn't). hope that helps. Subuey ( talk) 07:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal ( talk) 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal ( talk) 14:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Appears to fail WP:BK. jps ( talk) 16:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable, save perhaps as an example of people trying to cash in on science-sounding schemes. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: not every published book deserves a Wikipedia page. I have yet seen how distinguished (i.e., notable in the Wikipedia terminology) this book is and thus the coverage is justified. -- Taku ( talk) 22:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment technically, should this not be a speedy delete via WP:G7 since the creator brought about this deletion discussion?-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article meets WP:BK The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. [6] [7] and those in the article. Subuey ( talk) 00:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Hmm, well those are way better than the ones you initially provided. So why not use them in the article? Still not convinced, but it's a step in the right direction. Perhaps do an article rewrite with RS you can find and ask for a relist. byteflush Talk 08:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's a book. And...what? Other than mere existence, I don't see how this can be considered "notable" by Wikipedia standards. -- Calton | Talk 05:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails notability. None of the nine sources currently in the article are neutral reviews of the book. One "reviewer" admits he hasn't read the book, and last time I checked, Penguin is a publisher that provides press releases. The remaining seven summarize various vacuous anecdotes about the Barretts, with paltry or no critical analysis of the writing or the book's conclusions. Many reprint bogus claims that have been debunked in earlier AfD discussions. So the sourcing consistently fails to discuss issues raised by the book. In my best Gertrude Stein imitation, "There's no there, there." Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 07:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 12:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The Star, the BBC, the Spectator, the NY Daily News, the HuffPo, Psychology Today and Working Mother uncritically repeat the claims that Barnett is "tipped to receive a Nobel Prize" (which is balderdash) or that his IQ is higher than Einstein's (ditto). The item in USA Today is marginally better, but claims that Barnett "calculated his own expanded theory of relativity", indicating that it, too, was never vetted by anyone who knew physics and, for these purposes, is not a reliable source. In fact, the item in Working Mother is written by his mother, which fails every standard of "independent source" imaginable. The Indy Star item is a local-news fluff piece. Basically all of my friends from high school had those written about them at least once. The point made in the last discussion still holds: a profusion of unreliable sources is not a solid foundation to write an encyclopedia article upon. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't think that big list does the keep case any favours at all. The Express is definitely not RS on any subject and its coverage of health matters is less use than a Magic 8 Ball. You might as well toss a coin to find out whether coffee causes cancer this week and then get out a ouija board to find out what "secrets" Princess Diana has to offer from beyond the grave. They will print pretty much any rubbish that drops through the letterbox if it doesn't upset their political prejudices and it saves them the time and effort it takes to make something up themselves. (As you can probably tell, I'm British and not a fan of our tabloid press. ;-) ) If there is any quality in that list then it would be better to just focus on that and leave the dross by the wayside. Some of the other names do look like plausible RS, the BBC for example, but all they have is a short video clip of a quick space filler item on the BBC Breakfast show. It is the the video equivalent of a passing mention. The one source I do find impressive is Skeptic Magazine. They have clearly actually read the book and made an effort to evaluate it. Oddly enough, they don't think it holds any water. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Oh, and I just noticed the byline on the Psychology Today article: "Maureen Seaberg is a synesthete and the co-author of Struck By Genius: How a Brain Injury Made Me a Mathematical Marvel." So, not a psychologist then? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@DanielRigal: A reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I believe that all the sources I've listed above meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliability. If you disagree, I suggest you take the matter up with the Reliable sources noticeboard. But I seriously doubt that you will be able to overturn community consensus that these are reliable sources. If sources such as the Washington Post and USA Today are not reliable, there will be tens of thousands of articles that will need to be changed. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Surely you've been around long enough to know that this isn't how reliability works for newspapers or any similar source. Mangoe ( talk) 22:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
[edit conflict] The first question for any issue at the reliable sources noticeboard is always "reliable for what?". Reliability is not an absolute thing that a source either has or doesn't have; it depends on what you're using the source for. The Washington Post and USA Today are perfectly good sources for some things, like the existence of a book with a certain title, publisher, and author. They are explicitly not good sources for the appropriate treatment of autism. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Of course, reliability depends on context, and if there are content issues with the article, they should be worked out through normal editing and consensus-building process. But that's not a valid reason for deletion. I've read a lot of sound and fury in this WP:AfD, but I've yet to read a single coherent argument for deleting the article that's actually based in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is also not a valid argument for keeping an article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Indeed. If the book had kicked up more of a controversy then we would probably have an article about that but it didn't. Also, I'm pretty sure that this would be the last thing that the people trying to add this subject to Wikipedia would want. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Most of the arguments against say it is a BLP evasion, and yet the article as it stands is not about the subject but about the book. Plus since the author is the nominator I don't think there is evidence of "evasion". Subuey ( talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The point is that this book is at the center of the hype about Jacob Barrett; there's nothing that's not misleading about the book that can be said without getting into the whole mess and how it played out, and we've decided that BLP considerations do not permit that. Mangoe ( talk) 00:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
If the article was meant to be about the book and not at attempt to recreate a biography of Jacob Barnett, why did the creator immediately create redirects at Jacob Barnett (child prodigy), Jacob barnettt, Jacob Banett, Jake Barnett, Jacob Barnett (mathematician), Jacob Barnett (The Spark), and Jacob Barnett (physicist), as well as redirects from the articles Jacob Burnet, Jacobus Barnaart, and Jacob Barnet affair? Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 07:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jonathan A Jones: redirects have been deleted this should address some of your concerns.-- 19:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
How? It’s the creation of the redirects providing evidence of intent, not whether they still exist. -- Calton | Talk 00:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jonathan A Jones:@ Calton: You're going to have to find better arguments now.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 05:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
You mean, “I’m going to need a better excuse now”. Hiding a failed attempt doesn’t mean that the attempt never happened. -- Calton | Talk 06:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'd been holding off on providing an opinion in this AfD in the hope that it would be possible to make a neutral article that covers the book in an appropriate level of depth while avoiding the hype and BLP problems that surround it. But signs point to no: the article text avoids those problems only by being too lacking in content, the sources we have in the article are all still hype and churnalism, and the remaining non-hype source identified here (the skeptic one) is only tangentially about the book and more about Barnett and the stories that have been built around him. And having at best only one non-publicity-driven source, it doesn't meet the "two or more" requirement of WP:BKCRIT. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per nominator. The article about the subject of the book survived two AfD nominations, and was neutral and stable for two years. When it was eventually deleted, it was stuffed with negative material written from a non-neutral standpoint by its opponents who came together in strength to discredit it. That some academics passionately do not think that the book ought to have been covered by so many well known sources does not alter the fact that its was covered. We have material challenging the book's claims which can and should be included, provided that they are included within a neutral tone. Viewfinder ( talk) 20:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • That’s one of the most ridiculous rationales I’ve ever seen at AFD. You can gin up whatever conspiracy theory you like, but the fact remains that the original article WAS and still remains deleted, in good part because it WASN’T “neutral and stable”. -- Calton | Talk 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I myself don't have a particularly strong opinion over whether the book "ought to have been covered". Their pages are theirs to waste if they want to. The fact is that they did so almost uniformly incompetently. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed that, unlike the article that was kept after three earlier debates, the article that was deleted was neither neutral nor stable. It was the creature of editors who descended upon it in strength with intent to get it deleted. Agreed that some of the media coverage was hype, but it was not uniformly incompetent. Viewfinder ( talk) 10:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:G11. -- Calton | Talk 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Uh huh. It still means your "Disguised promotionalism" is not a valid reason for deletion is not only untrue, it's OBVIOUSLY untrue. Or did you miss all the other words in that link? -- Calton | Talk 00:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, however the two sources I listed I think avoid that. Subuey ( talk) 08:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Uncritically propagating misinformation is a sign that a source is unreliable. A pretty good sign at that. And the sources which are not actively spreading misinformation about science or being blatantly promotional would almost fit on the back flap of a dust jacket. Now, I'll admit, I may well be biased by where I come from, writing about academic books — where "non-trivial" and "in-depth" reviews mean you can go on JSTOR and find multiple documents that each go on for pages with comparisons and contrasts and footnotes. But, you know, we're talking about science and about how to raise a child, so strangely enough I am happy to hold reviews to a high standard. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, a rather transparent attempt to end-run round prior deletions. Guy ( Help!) 13:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's a book. It meets Wikipedia:Notability (books). End of story. The fact that some people don't like the subject of the book shouldn't matter. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    That's not why people are !voting delete. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    Oh? Yes, I see your delete opinion. It's not that you don't like the book; you don't like the reviews? Honestly, that's even worse. We're not book critics; we're definitely not review critics. "Sorry, in our anonymous volunteer opinion, the independent reviews your book got in easily a dozen multiple major newspapers with regional, national, and international coverage were all, without exception, poorly written." Sheesh. -- GRuban ( talk) 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    We're not concerned with writing style, but with scientific accuracy and thus trustworthiness [14]. In fact, we have to be "review critics" — that's what WP:RS is about. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    The book got coverage from some of the most widely published sources there are. That's sufficient for us to have an article. If we have sources that say that coverage was incorrect, that's fine, we print those sources too. But we don't delete things just because the coverage is wrong; if it is wrong, we write about the coverage and why it is wrong. We have an article about the Hitler Diaries after all; another book where the initial coverage was wrong. -- GRuban ( talk) 15:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    Hitler Diaries were the subject of peer reviewed publications in social sciences and respected academic publishers. If you feel that there is a parallel here, please add comparable reliable sources to the article. Sources that uncritically reprint (false!) promotional flap are not reliable, and do not contribute to WP:N. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    This is a book. It got reviewed and written about by professional journalists in the Times of London and the Washington Post and the BBC and the Globe and Mail and other places. That suffices. If sources of comparable weight say the reviews were uncritical - great! We'll print those sources too, that will contribute to, not detract from, the notability of the book. But that anonymous volunteer editors say the reviews were uncritical is just not relevant. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    The relevant guideline for assessing what sources are reliable here is WP:FRINGE. Whether something was written by what you call a "professional journalist" is not always an indicator of reliability. In this case, the "professional journalists" in question simply reprinted promotional flap without actually acting as journalists (e.g., Nobel claims, disproof of Einstein, novel theory of relativity at age 12, etc.) Such sources should be excluded from consideration, as they promote a cluster of fringe theories related to the living person Jacob Barnett. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    It is a mainstream, not a WP:FRINGE, fact that this is a book. That's why it was printed by Random House, and reviewed in the Times and the Washington Post, and USA Today and by the BBC and .... Note that we don't care whether the information in the book is true in order to write an article about the book. You seem to think that just because the book talks about things you don't believe in, we shouldn't have an article about it. Not true. We have thousands of articles about books of pseudoscience, books of religion, and even books of outright fiction; we're not endorsing the content of the book by writing that there was such a book and that it was popular. -- GRuban ( talk) 22:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    The book verifiably exists, yes. The relevant policy item is WP:NPOV. We don't write articles for fringe theories that haven't been discussed by independent sources. None of the reviewers actually bothered to examine the (rather obviously) false grand claims made in the book. None of these reviews is really a serious analysis at all, in fact. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 22:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note this recent AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History?, a film promoting Young Earth creationism. The arguments are the same as the argument here. Virtually no one argued that it was a great film, that it was a film supported by scholarly evidence, that it was film about a scientifically valid theory, or that Genesis 1 is an accurate history of the origins of life. Instead, as here, editors argued that the film, like this book, had generated more than sufficient reviews and feature article coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, and that the rules we apply to judging the notability ought to be the same for all films and all books. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The relevant guideline for assessing what sources to count is WP:FRINGE. For "Is Genesis History?" there are reliable skeptical sources. For "The Spark", the only skeptical source is the one article in The Skeptic. That's not enough to meet WP:NBOOKS. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 20:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • That article begins: "His IQ tested off the scale. At nine he began work on an original theory in astrophysics; aged 12 he became a paid academic researcher. He can play complicated musical pieces or learn foreign languages almost instantly and without tuition." That's WP:FRINGE and requires a proper source. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 22:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'd like to see more long term coverage, and more critical coverage, given the controversy over the topic both in the real world and in Wikipedia. If it gets made into a movie that would tip into unquestionable notability (this source from 2015 suggests it still might happen, but remains to be seen). -- Green C 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Certainly a movie version adds to the notability of a book. But here's the thing, we do not make up our own standards, we follow the standards set down in Wikipedia:Notability (books), which read: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." User:GreenC, I am assuming that you do not participate regularly in AfDs about books, and that now that your have read the guideline you will either strike your iVote or change it to "keep" as per the guideline WP:NBOOK. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Your assumption is incorrect, I've been doing AfDs for over 10 years, regularly quote NBOOK, I know what NBOOK says. I don't think in this case it should apply for reasons stated. NOTE is a WP:GUIDELINE not a hard rule, my opinion on the specifics of this case are not invalidated by a general Guideline. The circumstances of the age of the person, the article creator's aggressive behavior adding contentious content (this won't end), the previous AfDs, the uncertainty of claims and obvious PR material - I'd like to see better sourcing and coverage before unleashing this topic into the community and world. Given all this, merely quoting a Guideline (a special guideline at that) is robotic and doesn't acknowledge the specifics of the case. -- Green C 18:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • What is clear, when the dust settled, is that the book was largely reviewed by people who were not either inclined or equipped to assess its claims about the boy, and thus they took for granted that he was the prodigy that, it turned out, he was not, and that they thus became pushers of the hype cycle. You can't write an accurate article without saying that, and that ends up being a surrogate bio of the boy to some extent. And the whole point of deleting our bio was to take us out of the hype cycle, so I don't see how we can write an accurate article on the book without violating the principle that brought about the BLP deletion. Mangoe ( talk) 22:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment. The book is an exploitation of a vulnerable young adult for the purpose of financial gain. Wikipedia should not give aid to such by providing free publicity. To write an NPOV article about the book will require the inclusion of material detrimental to the achievements claimed for its subject. In view of the vulnerability of the subject, my view is that this is unacceptable. WP:Do no harm trumps guidelines. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC). reply

  • Comment.The reason Wikipedia requires reliable independent secondary sources is that reliable journals and reliable journalism have fact-checking protocols. Larger journalistic enterprises hire fact-checkers whose job it is to ensure they publish accurately the details of each story, or they have other sourcing protocols reporters must follow. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources that are fact-checked, because Wikipedia does not have professional fact checkers, just us, the editors who write and revise articles. The Overview section of the guideline includes this statement: Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources. Note the verb must in that last sentence.
In examining the sources provided for this article, I found some that we would ordinarily call reliable. The Washington Post review by NPR's Maureen Corrigan, for example, looked really promising. Corrigan's review, however, included two unfortunate statements: "Turns out, he has an IQ higher than Einstein’s" and "At 9 he began working on a theory in astrophysics that, according to those who can understand it, may put him in line for the Nobel Prize". Fact-checking protocols were obviously not observed in this instance, and in my judgment this review was over the line between usable and unusable sources. Had she fact-checked either of these assertions with any experts, such as psychologists and physicists, she might have written a different review.
I suspect that since reviews are not "hard news", often consisting largely of opinions, otherwise reliable news organizations do not rigorously fact-check them. None of the sources currently on the article page meet the reliability standard, in my judgment, and the other sources posted on this discussion have the same or other problems, including summarizing rather than evaluating, or being on other topics such as synesthesia or the life of the author. One possible exception is the review in the Skeptic, which is so negative it would take extra effort to maintain NPOV, assuming a second reliable source could be found. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 20:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The question at AfD is: Is this book notable? For books, Wikipedia:Notability (books), the standard is: "1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." It is common for reviewers to summarize the contents, as Corrigan does in her review. The reviewer for The Spectator (herself the mother of child diagnosed with autism,) also summarizes the contents, before describing her was extremely skepticism regarding the contents of the book. And yet both The Spectator and the Washington Post, are blue-chip sources for the notability of this book. To understand why, take a look the extreme cases in Category:Written fiction presented as fact; the fact that a memoir is unreliable on facts and has a strong POV is not a policy-based argument for deletion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • That article begins: "His IQ tested off the scale. At nine he began work on an original theory in astrophysics; aged 12 he became a paid academic researcher." It's not a reliable source. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • [edit conflict] This is no different than the ultimately-rejected argument for notability of Barnett as a biography, that so many uncritical, hype-driven, and clearly incorrect sources should nevertheless count as sources because they were published by famous publications. It has already been determined that these low-quality sources did not make a good argument for notability for Barnett, and the same determination should stand here. Or to put it another way: appearance in one of those publications creates a default assumption that the sources are probably reliable, but we can and should modify that assumption when we have good evidence (as we do here) that they are not actually reliable. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
It's no less credulous than the other ones and was written long before the fake claims were debunked. It teaches us the necessary lesson that even the most august organ can publish credulous drivel. The reviewers showed a credulity and lack of fact-checking that would not be tolerated in their journalistic colleagues in the hard-news area. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC). reply
  • Neither Xxanthippe, nor Eppstein, nor Sławomir Biały read to the end of the review (in The Spectator) that they discuss. The last two paragraphs are a telling criticism of the book. You only make yourselves look foolish by describing a source that you have not read. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • E.M.Gregory's claim about what I have or have not read is false, of course. I have read the reviews before concluding that they were too credulous to be reliable. The fact that the Spectator review has some mild criticism at the end for Barnett's mother's "do the opposite of what the specialists tell you" approach does not make up for the fact that it believes her claims about the accomplishments of her son. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • In fact, The Spectator review concluded: "One could put the book down with the impression that autism can be conquered by the right kind of nurturing; that with sufficient parental effort all our little sparks could flare into gemlike flames. This is misleading... it is not a full depiction of autism." Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a policy-based argument for deletion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Specifically what content do you consider makes it unreliable? And what is the source that debunks the fake claims? -- GRuban ( talk) 21:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Well "Masters degree in quantum physics" is easily wrong, since does not offer a Masters degree in "quantum physics"). A prominent physics researcher did not ever say that Barnett was working on a novel theory of astrophysics, nor that his work would some day gain him a Nobel prize. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 22:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
And your source for this is? -- GRuban ( talk) 22:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
See all the previous AfDs. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC). reply
Oh, please. "The truth is out there somewhere, I'm far too important to tell you where?" -- GRuban ( talk) 22:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
There are four previous AfDs and links to all of them on this page. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC). reply
And if I find such a source in one and criticize it, you won't write "No, I didn't mean that one, keep looking?" -- GRuban ( talk) 13:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually the review doesn't say "would" either, that's just you. It says "could", which is not nearly as impressive - tomorrow, I "could" find a priceless diamond in the gutter on my way to work. Someone working on nearly any novel physics theory "could" gain a Nobel prize for it, I don't have to be a physicist to tell you that; after all someone does every few years. If your main quarrel with a book review from the Times is that it can't tell the exact branch of physics that a 13 year old is studying in a major university, I don't think that's a very important quarrel. -- GRuban ( talk) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
True, but there is so much bad and unreliable reporting out there on this particular topic. If you want specific ways in which a source fails to be reliable, it is easy to point those out, even if they may seem to be of minor importance. The reason there is no source out there debunking this whole ridiculous affair, is that pretty much no one outside Wikipedia (and the human interest pseudoscience pushing twitterverse) really gave a damn. WP:FRINGE is directly relevant to this affair. If a serious source wants to examine the issue, fine. But articles loaded with over-the-top hype are off the table. That leaves very few real sources, I'm afraid. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
But the article isn't about "the issue" or "this whole ridiculous affair", it's about a book. And the book got impressive coverage. Arguing that we can't write any article about the book without writing about some "affair", whatever it might be, is like writing we can't write any article about any Miramax movie without writing about the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations.
You have to realize what you're asking for here. You're asking that we outright delete an article about a book which got indepth reviews in a dozen reliable sources, including the papers of record of three G8 countries. Not just write "the book got reviews which believed it when it said X (above highly respectable sources), but it was later found out the truth was Y (with similarly respectable sources)", which I would be all for; but completely delete it, write nothing about it in the encyclopedia, damnatio memoriae? What is this book, a combination of The King in Yellow and the Necronomicon? Does it kill a kitten every time someone reads it? We are supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, and the fact that a book got indepth coverage in the most respected newspapers in multiple countries is an indication it's a pretty important bit of knowledge. If that coverage was wrong, great, we should say that, that's an important bit of knowledge too. But we shouldn't delete all mention of it, when that mention is pretty notable! -- GRuban ( talk) 13:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
If you have reliable sources for the statement that "it was later found out that the truth was Y", please present those. My point is that, without such sources, it is not possible to write an article that conforms to WP:NPOV. Very strong sources are required to cover a book that purports to contradict what we know about astrophysics, and what we know about autism. Without such sources, the book truly is not notable, since it has not been noticed by reliable sources. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
It's been clearly noticed, indepth reviews, highly respected sources, international coverage. It so happens that the book reviewers didn't care to focus on the fact that the 13 year old happened to be studying a novel physics theory because ... guess what ... 13 year old boys study weirdness all the time. At 13, I personally was into figuring out how to best lead my army of imaginary warriors and wizards to defeat an imaginary dragon and take its imaginary treasure. It so happens that the reviewers didn't care to criticize whether the way the mother raised an autistic child would apply to all autistic children, because she's not raising other autistic children, just this one; and it clearly worked pretty well for this one, since the kid got into college at 11, quite a few parents of even non-autistic children would be quite proud of that. That's like criticizing an article about a multiple marathon runner because most people would be severely injured by trying to run seven marathons in seven days; that's just not the point of the article. You are focusing on things that the reviewers didn't focus on, and demanding that our article not be published because it can't focus on them either. No. This article is not going to be about novel physics theories, except in mentioning that the kid in it is studying one, but, well, he's a kid. It's not going to be about autism theories except in mentioning that this particular kid was raised in this particular way, and this -- according to the kid's mom, mind you, who probably knows quite a bit about how the kid was raised, but like all moms is likely to believe their kid walks on water and spits rainbows -- is what happened. That's it. You're arguing about a different article. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
SB, please can you confirm or deny that you would like to see Young Earth creationism deleted? While it seems as obvious to me as it does to you that YEC is woo-woo, opinion polls tell us that it is upheld by 40% of Americans, as it is by traditional Christians. It has a much longer history of being considered mainstream than current mainstream thinking, which is why we have articles about it. By the way, there are sources out there that challenge The Spark, sources which we can and should report. Viewfinder ( talk) 12:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Young Earth Creationism is the subject of hundreds of peer-reviewed publications. It is discussed in textbooks, reliable academic books, and is standard fodder for a barrage of skeptical publications. If you can produce such sources here, I would love to see them. Otherwise there is simply no parallel here. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Indeed. Once some subject, utterly insubstantial in its basic claims, becomes unambiguously notable we have to cover it (as with Creationism, Astrology, UFOs etc) but it is not for Wikipedia to assist in making such things notable in the first place, which is precisely what is being attempted here. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
This book has been the subject of two five non-trivial book reviews. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] So, not only does this book meet WP:GNG, it also meets WP:NBOOK. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
"The general tone and tenor of the contemporary book review is an advertisement-style frippery. And, if a rave isn’t in order, the reviewer will give a stylized summary of sorts, bookended with non-conclusions as to the book’s content. Absent in either is any critical engagement, let alone any excavation of the book’s umbilical connection to the world in which it is born."
The article references Elizabeth Hardwick's classic 1959 critique of book reviews. A non-trivial review has more than a summary and bookended non-conclusions on the book's content. Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete: Unfortunately, this book does not seem to be inherently notable, although it does seem to promote a good cause, which makes me sympathetic to it. Perhaps if this book surges in popularity later, the article can be recreated. Now, however, it does not pass WP:GNG. Carajou ( talk) 19:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 08:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

DWTM

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

Unremarkable organization. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 14:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is one of the top radio stations in Metro Manila so this station is notable enough in the Philippines. Also, I noticed that before this AFD was created, the nominator deleted most of the content of this article, even after other editors have added proper citations on the context claiming the article's "lack of notability". - WayKurat ( talk) 00:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- This almost sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT Argument, basically per WayKurat. -- Church Talk 00:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Radio stations do not need to be more "remarkable" than other radio stations to qualify for Wikipedia articles — all they need do is be properly referenceable as satisfying WP:NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of radio stations: they're properly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, they're on the air rather than existing only as unlaunched licenses, and they actually originate some portion of their own original programming rather than operating solely as a rebroadcaster of another radio station. I'll grant that this does need some further referencing improvement, but it does meet the baseline requirements. Bearcat ( talk) 23:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Red Guaraní

Red Guaraní (  | 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:NOT an electronic TV guide, no sources for verifiability, created by blocked user who also created similar article at AfD Hispanoamérica TV del Paraguay (La Tele) - promotional Atsme 📞 📧 13:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Islander's Castle

Islander's Castle (  | 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 significant coverage found WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GEOFEAT. Islander already mentioned in Dinagat Islands - no point to merge. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 11:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 11:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) but remove the quotemarks so doesn't search for exact phrase, and add "Dinagat" separately
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) but add "Dinagat" outside the quote marks around "White Castle".
It appears to be very prominent while approaching the island by boat, is mentioned in numerous travel guidebooks online. It appears to me to be a significant landmark in the Philippines and probably has historic significance comparable/greater than that of majority of U.S. National Register of Historic Places-listed sites. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply
It does appear to be a prominent current landmark but it looks like recent construction in the photographs and I am not finding anything suggesting historic significance or indicating when it was constructed. Still might be notable as recent construction. 24.151.116.12 ( talk) 17:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

*COMMENT - The editor who voted to keep or redirect - do keep in mind comment such as "symbol of wealth and power concentration in the Ecleo family" , "appear to be a prominent current landmark", "prominent local landmark. Constructed in 2007, it's cost and contrast with the poverty of the surrounding community" is NOT equal to a merit of a page in nobility guidelines in Wikipedia. The above are sentiment perspectives but not constitute a reliable independent source WP:RS for they fail WP:GNS, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GEOFEAT. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. H/T AJFU ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Conrad Fort Lauderdale

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

Why the page should be deleted Speedy Deletion Gbrinkley ( talk) 19:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC) My hotel is the article subject, I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and we need the article to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbrinkley ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I have now fixed this AFD so it displays correctly. Mattg82 ( talk) 20:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 06:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost ( talk) 06:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I don't understand the reason given for deletion. The subject is a hotel which does business with the public, not a private individual. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Nothing notable about the establishment. All the press coverage is local. Rhadow ( talk) 18:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. From what I've been able to find so far, this project seems to have received substantial non-local and local coverage for several reasons--its initial and controversial connection to Trump and the failed financing of that project, e.g. Foreign Policy [22], its atypical design by Michael Graves, e.g. The Architect's Newspaper [23], and the kind of coverage you'd typically see for a ritzy project of this size and profile (mainly, although not only, local coverage like this). The third category is perhaps bordering on the run of the mill, but the first two groups seem more distinctive to me, and certainly not limited to local. On balance I think this falls on the notable side of the spectrum. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 22:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Technical Speedy keep. The nominee fails to state a reason for deletion. There are other venues for deletion of personal information in Wikipedia and in any case there's no personal information in this article. Furthermore, the many articles on the building in the regional press together meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 22:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Chiharu Komatsu

Chiharu Komatsu (  | 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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories and passing mentions. Japanese Wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability, mostly consisting of a list of minor appearances. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:ENT. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I have addressed the ja.wiki article in my nomination: Japanese Wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability, mostly consisting of a list of minor appearances. It also includes: "Her hobby is writing poetry and listening to music" -- nothing here is encyclopedic content. The sources in ja.wiki page are underwhelming; for example, this is routine promo piece: [24]. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Nom's comment -- I've addressed the sourcing in my nomination; the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV to meet requirements for a stand-alone article. Simply saying that the subject "has enough coverage", without specifying what this coverage is, generally is insufficient in a deletion discussion. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 03:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Antonio D'Amico

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

The references do not establish notability Barbara (WVS)  ✐   ✉ 00:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 00:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 00:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 00:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 00:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Did you find any coverage on him that does not relate to the death of Versace? 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 21:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Coyote Summer

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

The article does not qualify per WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 00:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Rotten Tomatoes doesn't list any reviews [25]; it was a TV movie for HBO apparently, so it wouldn't get the coverage that virtually all theatrical releases get. No obvious redirect or merge targets. It's not clear whether Dove counts as a reliable source (is the reviewer professional or expert? is the synopsis provided by the film company?) but it doesn't carry a lot of weight and one source isn't enough anyway. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as Colapeninsula says one source isn't enough. Tried searching for more sources, but came up empty. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep ...of some sorts. Whether a merge is appropriate can be considered on the article talkpage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

HP 7470

HP 7470 (  | 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 seem to be a notable product. A book search gave lots of adverts and name drops from the time but little else. Mattg82 ( talk) 19:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak keep Although I can see the argument, it is curated by a museum and is referenced a few times in accountancy/graph making technical literature from the 80s that I can see. I added a reference to the museum, which I suspect was the source for the article in the first place. Not the most remarkable printer, but then, how remarkable are printers in general? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 21:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, with sadness. I had one of these. It was a pretty neat piece of gear. Hmm, no, maybe it was a 7475 that we had. Yeah, I think it must have been a 7475. Either way, neat technology, although by then HP was starting down the slow slide into the commodity hardware business. HP-GL was a nice little language, too. I seem to remember you could get liquid ink pens in addition to the standard felt-tip markers, for publication-quality plots. Sadly, though, most of the article is WP:OR and my own searching failed to find anything I would call a WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I added some more content and another museum and book ref. Being listed in two computer history museums and in a book on computer graphics history provides three RS, which together are enough to support a short article on the plotter. -- Mark viking ( talk) 01:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The museum reference is sufficient for notability, as for any historical item. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not sure which of the two museum sources you're referring to, so I'll take them both in turn.
      • Centre for Computing History says their collection includes about 24,000 items. Surely you're not saying that every one of those 24,000 items is notable, just because they've got one? Really cool collection, but an arbiter of what's notable and what's not? Not so much.
      • HP Computer Museum says their goal is, to have working models of all computers and peripherals produced by Hewlett-Packard during the company’s first 25 years in the industry. Same comment goes here. Is everything HP ever made notable? It may well be that the stuff they've got now is the least notable fraction, because it's what was most easily obtained. The HP 9100 is much more obviously a notable device, but much harder to find. My school had one of these, but it was pretty much obsolete by the time I was there (late 1970's). I do hope it got preserved somewhere and not tossed in a dumpster.
    • In short, I'm not convinced that being in the collection of either of these places establishes notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 15:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

HP C-series

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

An unfinished list of not very notable products. WP is not a catalogue. Mattg82 ( talk) 19:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason.

HP M-series (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
HP R-series (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 03:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moved to Draft Space, though the article in its current form would likely qualify for a G11, and would certainly be deleted at the conclusion of this AFD. Sarah312x ( talk · contribs) moved the article back to Draft:Prestige Economics for further improvement, if possible, while I have deleted the redirect. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Prestige Economics

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

There are two problems with this page, a notability problem and a tone problem. It reads promotionally, and the corporate notability is marginal. If the promotional material were removed, the corporate notability would still be marginal.

The author's response to the initial decline on the ground that it read like an advertisement was to add more promotional media coverage. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply


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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Bou-Bibi-Begum

Bou-Bibi-Begum (  | 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. One trivial mention. Fails WP:NFILM. No significant coverage. Any type of source from a leading newspaper doesn't mean it's automatically notable. have one source but promotional. আফতাব ( talk) 16:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note: the creator of this page, Makhamakhi, has been indefinitely blocked because of " Disruptive editing: Continuation of same behavior on a shocking scale, even after they were explicitly warned that they'd be indefinitely blocked if they kept it up" by Swarm. -- আফতাব ( talk) 02:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The Prothom Alo piece is based on a phone interview with the TV channel's general manager of programming, and contains nothing more (cast and crew, plot, broadcast schedule) than one could glean by watching an episode. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, NewsBank, and ProQuest found some brief mentions, [26] [27] [28] but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:TVSHOW. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It could be notable, but the article only has one reference. The author (or anyone else) should improve it. Fructisgarnier ( talk) 22:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)— Fructisgarnier ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write and reliably source something more substantive than that it exists. Television shows are not granted an automatic free pass over WP:NMEDIA just because they can be sourced to one reference confirming their initial scheduling — which is especially true when that source doesn't actually specify a premiere date, but merely says that it's going to air at some unspecified date. If the show is actually airing for real, then I'm quite confident that better sources will probably be locatable — but I can't read or write Bengali myself, so I'm not the guy to find them, and we can't extend a permanent presumption of notability just because one source said it was going to air, because even in the US you can sometimes source that a show was planned to air but then got pulled at the last minute. So we need sources to verify that it is airing, not just that it's been planned. Bearcat ( talk) 22:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete-Per Bearcat and nom. ~ Winged Blades Godric 13:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seeing as how this is the third AfD in a row to delete this, I'm going to salt it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Chaker Khazaal

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

Issues of the first and second nomination have bot been fixed yet. This article is still full of unreliable sources like interviews, blogs, author profile of news blogs, press release etc. I don't understand why this guy is so badly in need of this Wikipedia article, trying again and again to republish his article. Being a refugee and winning some non notable awards don't make him notable. Mar11 ( talk) 16:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The sourcing seems to be on the edge of meeting WP:GNG, so naturally people disagree which way it should go. No prejudice to renomination should sourcing not improve in the future. ansh 666 19:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

International Association of Young Geographers

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

Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines RainWizard29422 ( talk) 03:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC) This article covers an International Association of Young Geographers that may possibly operate in multiple countries around the world, yet provides no sufficient references besides that of the organization's website. The article shows bias towards the organization, indicating that it may be written by an involved member of the organization. For example, there is no source proving that its magazine Dimensions is the "the world's first peer-reviewed academic journal for undergraduate students in geography." Looking at the references, all sources point to either the website of the IAYG, or the NAYG, its North American sub-organization. One link about the Philippine Geography Olympiad is simply an advertisement for a preexisting competition that has lasted for eight years. Additional sources include a Facebook post made by the organization itself. There is simply no evidence in a reputable source that this organization is a "major global nonprofit." Additionally, it's creation of groups in Nigeria and Liberia have no online mention besides a page on IAYG's website. None of the proclaimed achievements can be corroborated by any reputable news source. While the efforts of the high school student aiming to promote geography literacy are commendable, the organization does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines(See WP:GNG) While this is a deletion page, perhaps other alternatives can be considered such as establishing this article as start class. RainWizard29422 ( talk) 06:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I hate to recommend a delete for this type of article, but I can barely find any additional non-primary sources regarding this organization to show notability. SportingFlyer ( talk) 16:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Out of full disclosure, I am a professor affiliated with the IAYG in Canada, so I definitely am not a neutral arbiter. However, I just wanted to add a few comments regarding this IAYG that may provide more context. While I'm writing with no official connection to the IAYG, I think my 6,000 colleagues in the organization (the vast majority professors, educators, etc.) would agree with the comments below! To begin, I do not believe that any of the authors of the article are affiliated or part of the IAYG anymore. Even after review & edits by two administrators, the article is not currently flagged for NPOV. That said, as a relatively new page, there is much room for improvement: quotes that have been directly lifted from the IAYG website should be removed based on WP:NPOV, in my opinion.
Notability is clearly established, especially when keeping organizations like the European Geography Association for students and young geographers in mind that also have Wikipedia pages (albeit also imperfect - like this page, the citations need to be broadened). The organization's work is built on that of a few predecessors, including some that have worked for 60+ years, and as a large global organization, its impact is clear. The Philippine Geography Olympiad, for example, is a program by one of the IAYG University Society System's local branches, not a random advertisement: it is instead an example of the work of IAYG University Societies across the world, and the length and visibility of the competition is a testament to the society's importance and the contribution of students in the IAYG's Society System. One of the reasons why non-primary sources on the IAYG may be difficult to find is because the IAYG is often organized at local and regional levels - finding individual societies or the programs of each society is much easier. For example, the National Association of Geography Students, Nigeria is the official university student branch of the IAYG in Nigeria - and while it may be harder to find primary sources detailing IAYG Nigeria, it should not be difficult to find primary sources about the National Association of Geography Students, Nigeria, which is a subsidiary of the IAYG. Admittedly, however, as an organization whose work is largely based in the Developing World - including some of the world's nations with lowest media coverage, it is often difficult to find sources about the organization's work because of the significantly decreased level of media & external exposure (associations in the developing world, like the Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics often are very limited with few external references due to these natural limitations). In fairness, we need to keep that in mind when evaluating external sources.
Furthermore, as you can you can see on the website (www.younggeographers.org) and on websites like the official website of the IGU YECG, the IAYG has partners and local affiliates all across the world, as a highly visible, connected, and notable organization in the field of geography. Vis-a-vis the Global Geography Curriculum Development Programme, you will notice that governments from around the world have established partnerships with the IAYG - a marker of its impact and global respect within educational institutions. In the sources, you will also notice that the IAYG has a partnership with IGU institutions, also reflecting its status and notability.
I think the best recourse would be to look to the page's improvement. While I do not believe I should add any content because of a potential conflict of interest, I am happy to add pictures that will help corroborate the article's information about the IAYG's work around the world (including the developments in Liberia and Nigeria that RainWizard mentions). Looking through RainWizard's history, I am also concerned that it could be a personal matter, as User:EmperorNapoléonI spearheaded the deletion of one of RainWizard's pages about a middle school. While this may not be the case, and I sincerely hope that RainWizard is acting in good faith as a trustee of our shared resource, I do hope that personal clashes will not get in the way of a justifiable page for a large and notable organization - one that has already been reviewed by respected admins, and deserving of WP:Notability standards. Isaac Iorazev ( talk) 15:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Only issue is the article needs to pass WP:ORGSIG. An organization doesn't have inherent notability, and while I appreciate your suggestions to improve the article, that doesn't change whether it's notable for Wikipedia, and I can't find anything that makes me recommend anything other than delete, and I don't want to recommend a delete. Your Nigerian Mathematical Physics article at least has multiple instances of coverage from a newspaper. The GGCDP website appears to be a branch of the organization. For instance, if you could find any source from a non-organizational websites showing a working relationship with another institution, I'd recommend something other than delete. SportingFlyer ( talk) 17:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Hi SportingFlyer, thanks for the note. I'm completely in agreement. I spoke with IAYG NorthAm Global Communications officials earlier today (people more important than me!), and they told me that the IAYG carefully controls & monitors a lot of information that details the IAYG's working relationships with other institutions, which is why it can be difficult to find. For example, due to the nature of the IAYG's work, most documents are not normally disclosed to the public. However, I was able to receive permission to share access to some official documents (including those on non-IAYG/non-organization websites) with you for the purposes of corroboration, which will prove the IAYG's deep working relationships with other institutions. If it works for you, please email [email protected] (the email address for our local group) so I can share the access codes with you. Hopefully, this will resolve the issue! Iorazev ( talk) 22:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Official documents from the organization won't show notability, unfortunately, nor will referencing documents behind access codes. See WP:ORGIND. Again, I am struggling to find any independent sources online, and the ones that could be arguably independent focus on the founder. Would there be anything in any geographical journals? Any work done with say the AAG? SportingFlyer ( talk) 06:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve - the subject meets WP:Notability criteria, but the page definitely should be improved with more sources and external information, as all new pages should. Pages like these, that detail subjects which meet Notability standards, shouldn't be deleted but continually improved, especially so early in its life. I think someone ought to put a Refimprove tag on it to attract attention of editors. JimNemcovic ( talk) 16:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC) reply

*Comment - Considering User:Iorazev's statements, this is what I have to say: Hello Iorazev, I read through your comments on the articles for deletion page for the International Association of Young Geographers. Many of your points are well articulated, such as the fact that lesser developing countries will not have enough coverage. Emperor Napoleon did delete my middle school article, but the only reason I am advocating for a delete is because, on similar premises to my own article that was deleted, the article contains no other sources besides links to its own website. While the IAYG website indicates it has formed geography associations in countries like Ghana and Nigeria, there is simply no further information besides a single page on the website about each of them. Even if news coverage is less in LDCs, there should at least by some online record of NGO or the governments mentioned on the IAYG website that they are collaborating with the IAYG. For example, I see the official seals of South Sudan, Nigeria, and Swaziland, but no official reciprocation on any of the government's websites. Also, you mentioned the Association taking charge of the Philippine Geography Olympiad. The post on the website is simply a flyer advocating registration. The competition itself has been running for eight years, longer than the IAYG, which was founded in 2017. This Filipino Government Website mentions the competition and the fact that it is hosted by a local university, but no mention of the fact that the IAYG coordinates it. ( http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/advisory/2018/DA_s2018_002.pdf) Pictures would be appreciated as proof of the IAYG's activities, however, a few gatherings of members may not be sufficient enough to justify. I am willing to withdraw my deletion motion if IAYG can post some sort of Press Release with more elaborate statistics of their activities, which indicated corroboration from a more legitimate source. Again, the organization is commendable in its aims, and geography education should become a greater priority in society, however, at this time the organization is not notable enough for Wikipedia. RainWizard29422 ( talk) 18:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I want to correct a few points, because I believe RainWizard has a number of misconceptions of the IAYG that I as an affiliated individual can help dispel. To begin, while the modern branding of the IAYG is a recent development (the name was formally changed to the IAYG in January 2015 - not 2017 - and the U.S. branch to the NAYG in June 2016 to reflect a unified branding), and the growth of the organization into an influential institution has occurred largely in the last 6-7 years, the IAYG is built on a foundation of decades of work in geographic education. In fact, of the IAYG's predecessors, the first were established in the early 1960s! I think you have also misunderstood the nature of the Philippine Geography Olympiad. The IAYG's University Society System also includes branches all over the world, including the Geographic Society of the University of the Philippines, which is the IAYG University Society System's largest branch in the Philippines. The Philippine Geography Olympiad is a program of this branch, and the competition has indeed ran for 8+ years. As the Geographical Society of the University of the Philippines is a branch of the IAYG University Society System, it is an example of the work & coverage surrounding one of the IAYG's University Society System branches - and because it is a branch-led program, the branch's name is most prominent. This is actually a really good example of media coverage surrounding IAYG University Society System events, with mentions even on the Philippine government's website, like you said. As I noted before, one of the challenges with the IAYG's media presence is that to find more extensive sources, you have to research each of the IAYG's local and regional components.
I would highly encourage you to corroborate your claims with the true information about the IAYG, and I'm sure the great folks in Global Communications would be more than happy to tell you all about each of these events. As I noted earlier, I talked to Global Communications North America, who told me that they are happy to detail history, information, and citations about the organization and its local components. According to them, if anyone has specific questions or would like a more exhaustive review, they are asked to email the Global Directorate at [email protected], which will respond with all the necessary documentation and information as necessary. I'm proud to be part of a very transparent organization and will also help in any way I can, so please copy [email protected] if I can help as well :) Iorazev ( talk) 22:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I wrote this article, so obviously I should not comment on its inclusion or deletion. However, while there is much room for improvement (new articles typically need additional sources, etc.) I think it meets standards prescribed in WP:ORGSIG given the coverage of IAYG-sponsored events & local organizations in media. Information about the IAYG and documents demonstrating the relationships with governments and other respected institutions also attest to ORGSIG standards (I reached out to you, Iorazev for documentation). Also, this page was just reviewed & approved by admin Graeme Bartlett last week, and I do not think anything has changed since then (other than a case of vandalism) that would merit any change in status. That said, I care about the quality of articles I write, and will do my best to add more references and sources, improving it as any would. Adding to Iorazev's comment, I want to also remind RainWizard to consider this case objectively, as this account was involved in the deletion of a page relating to a middle school that RainWizard created and strenuously objected to. I trust that he is acting in WP:Good Faith, but it always important to be cognizant of particular choices taken. Best regards EmperorNapoléonI ( talk) 00:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment. Hi EmperorNapoléon, the page has been up only since the start of the month and I don't see a talk page nor do I see a review & approve - but a review & approve by one editor doesn't change the fact the article has never passed WP:N. I have no reason to believe this isn't a good faith deletion request: even assuming it was made with malicious intent, the organization needs independent media sources to be notable. I can't find any after several online searches and no one here has provided them. I will happily change my vote to keep if significant independent coverage of the organizaton exists as I appreciate what the organization is trying to do. SportingFlyer ( talk) 06:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply
RainWizard29422, as a member of this organization, I believe that you are incorrect about the history of the IAYG. You are correctly referring to the unified rebranding and renaming of our organization, which was done internationally in 2015 and in the United States in 2016, and was celebrated as a "new start" especially since it marked the launch of many endeavors in the United States and pan-American activities for the first time (I should note that NAYG and IAYG websites were not connected until 2017, which may also be the source of your confusion). However, before the rebranding, the organization had operated for many years, hence why so many of its programs have been running for a long time. Furthermore, Rishi Nair is no longer a student representative of the NAYG. Alas, neither of us are definitive resources, so I beseech you to speak with IAYG Global Communications, who I am sure would be pleased to help correct your misconceptions. Iorazev ( talk) 15:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm not an administrator, but they haven't voted on whether or not to keep or delete the article, they've been forthright with the conflict of interest, and they're in a good position to show whether this qualifies for WP:N as they may have access to sources that show notability I don't have easy access to (such as journal articles). Nothing of concern on my end. Please try and stay on topic as to whether the article meets WP:N. SportingFlyer ( talk) 20:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Iorazev's contributions are a little bit suspicious. Per WP:SOCK and looking at WP:SOSP, and the fact that Iorazev's account seems to have been created solely for the purpose of arguing against the deletion of this article...I don't want to accuse directly but this is either a bewildering coincidence or concerning behavior. smileguy91 talk - contribs 06:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Hi smileguy91, you're not wrong! As I stated earlier, I am affiliated with the IAYG, and created this account to help present additional information and context that might help with this discussion (in academic organizations, sometimes you have to dig deeper to find corroborating sources, after all). I think I've been very honest about this conflict of interest, and it is why I have not voted on this issue and have only added comments. I'm not sure what the protocol is but I think that's within the bounds of Wikipedia rules. In that spirit, I also want to ask about your connection with RainWizard29422 and comment on a matter. This morning, we received a public memorandum (it's been posted at http://www.nayg.org/memoranda/m0216/) on this issue. I'm curious to know how WP:COI applies to cases like these. Iorazev ( talk) 18:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Sorry, I probably need to clarify that I meant a sock of the creator of the article. I also really appreciate your disclosure about your connections to IAYG, and your resolve to not vote on this issue. That is commendable, and I appreciate your effort to abide by Wikipedia rules in this sense. I only intend to call one thing into question for the consideration of whoever participates in this discussion, and I want to emphasize that my delete vote ONLY has to do with the lack of notability of the article due to vaguely related (if related at all) sources, and not this. This account's ONLY contributions to Wikipedia are somehow related to this discussion, which is fairly consistent with WP:SIGNS of socking (which is against Wikipedia policy) by the creator of the article; however, correlation is NOT necessarily causation. Also, the memorandum you mentioned on the IAYG's website seems to have been written significantly after the creation of this AfD notice, and quite possibly (considering the 18:11 UTC timestamp of your above message, which is approximately 11:11 in Edmonton, Alberta) specifically written in response to this article. I don't see a plausible reason why the writer of the memorandum would write it on the 16th instead of the 14th, when this discussion was first commented on by you, who appears to be the same person as the person who wrote the memorandum or at least triggered its writing. smileguy91 talk - contribs 04:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
smileguy91, I am not a sock puppet of EmperorNapoleon. That said, our answers and this memorandum are linked because we began coordinating with the IAYG's Global Communications team after the Deletion motion was filed. This is one of the reasons why I have chosen not to vote; I understand that I am an organization representative in a sense of the word, and my only role is to present information from the perspective of our organization to provide a fair and balanced debate, and assist in sourcing claims and addressing incorrect claims based on the best of my knowledge. I do not believe that organization representatives can be banned from this debate, though if there is such documentation, I will not participate. I appreciate, however, your vigilance in considering who participates in this discussion, which is why I asked whether you have any personal connections to RainWizard. With the concerns in the memo in mind, I curious as to why RainWizard specifically called on you to join this discussion. Iorazev ( talk) 05:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment For some reason, Iorazev posted several sources on my own talk page here: User talk:SportingFlyer/Archive 1#IAYG_Non-Primary_Sources I don't know how I got dragged so far into this discussion, but I have concerns about these sources. (Also, if we could incorporate that as part of this AfD, that would probably be beneficial.)

  • demoprep.us: independent, but possibly not significant - only a blurb, and written in marketing speak
  • brown.edu: not an article about the organization, but rather an article about a person
  • nags.futminna.edu.ng: an article created by the organization
  • deped.gov.ph: contains literally no mention about the organization, much less notable content
  • again, the Kenyatta University GIS Club map again contains no mention of the organization
  • The Laval University event only contains a passing mention of the organization as a sponsor.
I would expect there to be many more mentions if the organization were a notable stakeholder in these types of events; stakeholders almost always want to advertise their involvement with an event. It's clear the organization exists, but I'm still not seeing notability here. Plus the organization issued a memoranda on this AfD. This whole thing is pretty strange. SportingFlyer ( talk) 19:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment My apologies, I meant to post the sources here in response to one of your previous comments. I'm not sure where it actually ended up; I can remove the section if preferred. I'll continue to add articles based on what I find. Iorazev ( talk) 19:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Currently, there are three votes(including mine) for delete and only one in favor. Haven't we reached our majority User:SportingFlyer? RainWizard29422 ( talk) 19:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:NOTVOTE. I'd also like to note to the closer my concern regarding the neutrality of this comment by the nominator, and the fact the nominator specifically canvassed Smileguy91 and MatthewVanitas (and only these two users) on their talk page regarding this article. SportingFlyer ( talk) 07:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment To both RainWizard29422 and Iorazev: as per SportingFlyer, please stay on the topic of how this article is WP:N or not. I understand that there is some kind of history between users in this discussion, but discussion about some previous disagreement (or just anything not directly related to this discussion) will just lead to WP:UNCIVIL and that's not good. smileguy91 talk - contribs 05:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment List of sources - as SportingFlyer said, I accidentally posted these somewhere else, so here is a running list of some non-primary sources I found:
* http://www.demoprep.us/2017/07/27/demoprepiayg/ This is an example of the IAYG's relationship with a local foundation. This is a relatively large program (I think), and is definitely an independent source.
* http://watson.brown.edu/HI2/people/international-fellows/kayode This is an example of an IAYG official invited to a humanitarian board. I'm not sure if this is relevant, but I thought I should put this here since I found it. (new to the rules. Sorry, everyone.)
* http://www.deped.gov.ph/advisories/da-002-s-2018 and https://kuniversity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=416eb26c74434d40ae0e1e0a90963a51. These are both events organized by branches of the IAYG University Society System. Unfortunately, I don't think the IAYG is mentioned in either - only the branch name is. Internal documents and primary sources will affirm that these are University Society System branches, however.
* http://igu2018.ulaval.ca/assets/documents/Invitation%20IGU-YECG%20Networking%20Event.pdf An example of both the IAYG's close partnership with another major organization (IGU-YECG) and an event that the IAYG is supporting. Independent source, evidence of geographic span of work.
I will keep looking for sources. Sadly, more official documents are often not for public access, though you can contact me if you are interested in access (just if you want to see them in person; I know that Wikipedia does not accept them)
I know that this list isn't perfect, but over time, I am sure that much more will be added. As I have said before, press coverage in IAYG working regions can be elusive due to the small media presence, and perhaps patience is warranted. After all, the article has really only been touched by one editor, and the IAYG has already authorized a call for media release in selected communities starting at the beginning of the next business week. It should be clear that the IAYG works around the world, and in light of so many new Wikipedia articles with barely any non-primary sources, it may not make sense to hold this article to a different standard, especially as we examine the rationale behind this AfD request. As I have said profusely, I am not neutral and am part of the IAYG, this account was created so that I could add context and sources to make the discussion more fair and balanced, and because of that I have not voted and have no right to make this decision (if it does say in the rules that someone connected to an organization cannot comment on its AfD discussion, I will leave this discussion too), but these are just my personal beliefs. Iorazev ( talk) 08:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Dude, are you still going forward with this? Those of us in the GBC group already told you that you're just doing this to get back at the President of the IAYG, and that its not done in good faith. You know that the organization works around the world and that you're holding it to a ridiculous standard, just like we told you. I can see that you're talking about being neutral, but you called the NAYG (the IAYG's US branch) a "threat" to your community, compared the leader to alexander Lukashenko, and was part of a group temporarily called "NAYG is a Fraud! Down with [the President of the IAYG]"! Also, you offered essentially a deal whereby the IAYG could "broadcast [their] message" on your forum in exchange for not having IAYG representatives respond about conflicts of interest and false information. Is that even allowed? (also I am familiar with the organization so out of potential conflict of interest I'm not going to vote) Rishi09123 ( talk) 20:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep for now, but reopen discussion at a later time I am the original creator of this discussion, but considering that no consensus has been made on this article, I'm afraid we just have to let this article be for the moment. While no substantial sources exist, we can give it a period of a few months for improvement. The online sources provided by User:Iorazev do establish contact between the International Association and a few professors and organizations, this article should be designated as Start-Class. If no reasonable evidence can prove the notability of the article in the future, we can reconsider deletion. User:smileguy91, User:SportingFlyer what do you think of this? RainWizard29422 ( talk) 06:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Why are only those who have voted with you consulted in this? I echo SportingFlyer's question about neutrality. I agree with keep: I hate to see an article like this go and there is enough out there for GNG. The organization definitely exists, has reach, and claims are backed up with a few secondary sources (needs more, though not much different from others). Most AfC go under much less scrutiny than this article here, too. There are a couple of unsubstantiated passages that should be removed, but that does not impact general value. JimNemcovic ( talk) 09:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep and improve The subject appears to meet General Notability but article is not great and should have more secondary sources added. If Rishi09123's claims are true (they are similar to memo, first time I have ever seen a memo on Wikipedia), this is a very serious issue indeed. The user RainWizard seems to not work from a neutral perspective and has canvassed particular users (including in that last comment) which is also questionable. If this AfD is out of malicious intent, that would be against principle of good faith. Lagrime ( talk) 07:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment JimNemcovic and Lagrime, I appreciate your concerns about neutrality. Your comments are written out of pure interest of Wikipedia, which is well appreciated. However, I'd late to state some concerns and make some clarifications of my own. Reading the comments of users far more experienced than I am, I reconsidered my position from delete to 'Keep for Now.' Also, in my last comment I tagged only the voters who supported deletion because I wanted to see their take on my change in position from delete to keep. If I could, I would withdraw the deletion process altogether, but Wikipedia guidelines say do not remove until a consensus is released. Simply contacting SportingFlyer and SmileGuy91 was simply to engage a dialogue that would reach this consensus. As I tagged them here and not on their talk pages, I wanted them to provide a new perspective in light of what has been brought up some of the other comments. As restated before, we should rate this article as Start-Class. On the other hand, I am concerned that I am being targeted by members of the organization. The memo is exaggerated, calling a Google+ group found at (tinyurl.com/geobeecity) as a virulent Anti-NAYG group. Furthermore, I have been receiving unwanted text messages from members of the organization. I do not wish to take any action on these, and I feel that IAYG people like User:Iorazev have brought up quite valuable points. I guess considering the fact that User:EmperorNapoleonI led a deletion campaign for John Adams Middle School would be a source of conflict of interest, as well as any prior interaction between the blog site and NAYG//IAYG. I therefore wish to apologize for any inconveniences as I am still a novice as the Articles for Deletion process and did not know about the whole conflict of interest issue. I feel that since the process is already started, changing my position to Keep and Improve is the only thing I can do at the moment. I do not doubt that the organization exists, but once again I see that many of the organization's descriptions have few sources other than the website itself. Designating the article as Start-Class would be a more optimal choice considering we could let Wikipedians know that this is an article that needs work. Hopefully, as the organization becomes more established as a major geographic authority, we can find more sources to back up its key points. Respectfully, RainWizard29422 ( talk) 04:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

RainWizard29422, thank you for addressing some of these points. I am not very familiar with the conflict in question, though it is clear as SmileGuy said that there is some history here that may need to be uncovered. I am always wary of looking into these cases for fear of WP:UNCIVIL but ultimately closer will decide so full picture is needed. The important question is whether Rishi09123's claims are true. Are the claims that you "called the NAYG a "threat" to your community, compared the leader to alexander Lukashenko, and was part of a group temporarily called "NAYG is a Fraud! Down with [the President of the IAYG]" really true? And did you offer a "deal" so that the organization-related people would not respond? I don't know what rules specifically apply but that would put WP:Neutrality into question. Like SportingFlyer I also have concerns about your comment on voting. It is possible that it could be a rules misunderstanding but we need context. We will assume good faith and definitely do not want to level accusations at RainWizard without proof (after all there is no proof for claims right now) but if any are true, this would be very serious. Lagrime ( talk) 05:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jab Tak Hai Jaan. Close is a mix of the marginal consensus here, with a liberal dash of WP:ATD mixed in. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

List of accolades received by Jab Tak Hai Jaan

List of accolades received by Jab Tak Hai Jaan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

Non-notable list of awards, the list is very short, this type of articles are generally merged into the article inside a section. The list isn't too big to make a separate article. The awards are very few (7) and non-notable, only one award category ( Filmfare RD Burman Award for New Music Talent) has a wikipedia article. Makhamakhi ( talk) 15:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Makhamakhi ( talk) 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Makhamakhi ( talk) 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Makhamakhi ( talk) 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Makhamakhi ( talk) 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Makhamakhi ( talk) 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Plough flag (disambiguation)

Plough flag (disambiguation) (  | 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:2DABS page not required. Hatnotes exist at both entries. PROD tag deleted by IP user without comment. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 15:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 14:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

George Panikulam

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

All sources that are quoted are primary sources are not reliable. Fails WP:GNG Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 14:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep as a consecrated bishop of the Catholic Church and an Apostolic Nuncio. Per WP:CLERGY, we routinely consider all consecrated Catholic bishops as notable, but the fact that he is an Apostolic Nuncio to a predominately Catholic country (one that does not speak English at that), means that there will be abundant sourcing as the is the pope's personal representative there and has to be present at the installation of all other bishops in the country, which means there will be abundant (non-English) press about him simply because the position is so high-profile. The fact that he is an Indian bishop serving as a nuncio in a non-Anglophone region is likely why it is more difficult to find press, but we can be positive they exist simply by the position, and the primary sourcing in the article is enough for WP:V. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While it may not have initially been a WP:COATRACK, it does seem evident that there isn't sufficient coverage to justify notability of the church and its "events." ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Verity Baptist Church

Verity Baptist Church (  | 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 evidence of notability. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Slatersteven: If there is no credible claim of notability, it would merit speedy deletion. 331dot ( talk) 14:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I might also have given a little more than seven minutes before considering any sort of deletion. 10-15 is usually considered the minimum. 331dot ( talk) 14:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
That is why I did not speedy delete nominate, it may have notability, I just cannot find any. Thus I find no evidence of notability, but am giving peopel the chance to provide some. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
In the future my suggestion would be that if you want to first give people the chance to find sources, simply maintenance tag the article first(as I had done) and/or discuss on the article talk page, and give some time. Opening a deletion discussion sends the message that you believe the article merits deletion and there is not much prospect of the article being kept. 331dot ( talk) 14:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I do believe it merits deletion. I also note it has been 10-15 minutes since I nominated this for deletion, and no sources have been forthcoming, so if I had waited that long it would still have been AFD'd. So I stand by the AFD. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Seems notable for one incident, maybe enough based upon 10 (notably controversial), but am not sure. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Repurpose the article to be about this church's pastor, Roger Jiménez. The two sources provided describe controversial statements by this pastor which were widely and publicly condemned- but the coverage is about him and not the church itself. If something here is notable, it is him. 331dot ( talk) 14:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Not sure, he seems to have garnered publicity for a single incident. If anything this is just part of the Orlando shooting controversies, and any material merged to the Orlando shooting article (assuming it is notable enough for even that). Slatersteven ( talk) 14:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, I think BLP1E is relevant here, but whether he merits a standalone article or this should be merged somewhere, at least some of the content would remain. 331dot ( talk) 14:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Assuming we think it should be merged, and I think that this should be asked of those who patrol then Orlando shooting page (after all is this one pastors views really relevant, and would inclusion violate Undue?). Slatersteven ( talk) 14:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

[29], [30] means he has got national and international attention, but still for only the one thing. Really am min tow minds over this. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

My opinion would be that international coverage would merit this a merge with the shooting article and a brief mention there, but yes, the editors that follow that article should be brought into the discussion. 331dot ( talk) 14:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
There is also a reaction article it could be merged with instead, I have notified both articles about this discussion (it seems the edds on the shooting article have already rejected inclusion a while back as not a noteworthy opinion). Slatersteven ( talk) 15:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete totally fails not news guidelines. With the abyssmal state of religion news coverage, especially from California papers, we really have no reason to think this was ever a significantly sized congregation, and Jimenez does not become notable for one statement. The coverage on him could only lead to an unbalanced attack article which would not meet guidelines on biographies of living people. I would also say the article as written seeks to be an attack article against baptists by not dealing with te disparate, non-exclusive use of the term. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think it connects to "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" idea. The statement is the focus of the article, it seems to belong more in a newspaper. Lagrime ( talk) 06:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NEVENTS. I also would oppose merging content into other articles; everything here indicates this group represents an extremely fringe position with no lasting impact. Daask ( talk) 15:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's no evidence that the church is a notable organization, and an article about its pastor would just be a WP:BLP1E of a person "notable" for a single controversial comment at best. Bearcat ( talk) 07:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- The whole thing feels like an ATTACK COATHANGER. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
That is my fault, before that it totally ignored the controversy (caused by trying to find sources about this church, it is all it is really notable for). Slatersteven ( talk) 17:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The Katurran Odyssey

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources; reviews I could find are on Goodreads, Amazon etc. Nominated for one prize (which it didn't win). The soundtrack does not seem to have fared any better. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 16:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Ketchikan Television

Ketchikan Television (  | 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; may be promotional Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 13:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 13:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 13:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 13:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Not notable in the least. No significant edits or references for a decade shows editors don't care. One view a day shows readers don't care either. Rhadow ( talk) 14:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There once was a time when we extended notability to any company that owned television or radio stations regardless of the company's sourceability, on the questionable grounds that our articles on television or radio stations needed articles about the companies that owned them to exist. It doesn't work that way anymore, however — a radio or television company has to be sourced over WP:CORPDEPTH just the same as any other company. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually source it properly, but it's not entitled to an automatic "no sourcing required" freebie just because it exists. Bearcat ( talk) 22:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH as per Bearcat. However, I would not call this promotional, its just a list.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only significant point of contention here is whether the interview in the Boston Globe is a good enough source. WP:INTERVIEW gives some (not strictly policy) advice on that question, but the bottom line is people here at this AfD did not feel the source(s) were sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

L. E. Barrett

L. E. Barrett (  | 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 individual. I am unable to find any substantial coverage of this person in reliable sources. The article is written by the subject as can be seen by looking at the image licensing information. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article can be improved, but E.M.Gregory has demonstrated the existence of RS directly covering the subject. Davey2116 ( talk) 22:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am skeptical that the articles can be improved - because sufficient sourcing does not seem to exist. Author who has written 2 novels, either self-published or with a very small press. One got a single review in a local paper, which I added to article. Some books of poetry and essays, no sources found. And three books about food/cooking in Maine: one on blueberries, one on dandelions, and one on Fiddlehead ferns. Full disclosure: I enjoy and eat all of these foods, especially Maine wild blueberries (intensely better than farmed blueberries.) 2 of these food books sank witout a trace, but the third, Fiddlemainia generated feature stories in USA Today and the Boston Globe, as well as at least four feature stories in Maine newspapers, but these are more about the fern than about the authors. I looked for additional sources, diligently. but despite my pro-fiddlehead prejudices (very fresh ones, lightly steamed, are delicious) I cannot see enough SIGCOV here to justify keeping under WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

ELIX Polymers

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

Miles away from meeting WP:CORP. SmartSE ( talk) 11:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear (unamimous?) consensus to delete, once you ignore the sock-o-rama. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Arthur Riedacker

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

Strangely not listed as a nobel prize (co-)winner. Fails WP:GNG. Sources mentioned are hardly independent. Kleuske ( talk) 10:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 11:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 11:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hmm. I've dug and dug trying to find specific reference to Riedacker being connected to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. His connection to it does in fact exist, in his role as one of the (many) reviewers of the IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report from 2007 (see list). I don't know that I would claim he won the prize per se, but I don't think the claim is exactly false. Really on the fence about that. Regardless of this, this academic has made an impact in his field. This (scroll down for him as one of the keynotes) is worth a reading. Perhaps most compelling is ResearchGate showing him being cited 243 times. That seems significant to me. Google Scholar also has considerable entries on him. Is there enough to pass WP:NACADEMIC? Hmm. Perhaps, perhaps not. Some of this is complicated by his work being largely reported on in French speaking circles. I'm on the fence here, but wanted to put what I found here so others could evaluate. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The article actually claims he won the Noble prize. 😊 Agricola44 ( talk) 02:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Seriously, there doesn't seem to be much to go on here. Not sure about "group Nobel". Will try to do some checking. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Any claim to a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize is spurious. According to the award citation, IPCC received the prize for the totality of its efforts over several decades: "Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming". Moreover, in science, having reviewed/refereed an important article does not entitle you to a credit for that article. GScholar citations appear to be fairly low, even for a field like agronomy, with h-index around 7, and the top-cited article having only 30 citations. I am not seeing anything else here to justify passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 ( talk) 13:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep He is notable Scientist and academician. His contribution in literature is also remarkable. He is writer and public speaker, motivating young generation and he is guiding torch in his specialised area. 2405:205:312F:5E4C:67D9:6CEF:709A:D3C3 ( talk) 01:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) — 2405:205:312F:5E4C:67D9:6CEF:709A:D3C3 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • Please see WP:PROF for the notability requirements for Wikipedia articles about academics. You need to provide specific verifiable evidence of the subject satisfying some criterion/criteria of WP:PROF. Your personal expressions of appreciation don't count. Nsk92 ( talk) 01:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Given that his published papers have been cited 243 times, I think an argument could be made of passing the WP:NACADEMIC standard. People are ignoring that though. Meh. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 04:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
        • No, we are not ignoring it. You are quoting the grand total number of citations for all of the papers he has written (which, according to his ResearchGate profile that you linked to above, is about 34 papers, plus 3 book chapters, and 1 book, with an average number of citations per publication of about 6.4). The total number of citations is never a proof of notability. Note that WP:PROF is quite specific about how to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 on citability grounds: ``either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Neither one of these two requirements is satisfied in this case. The subject's h-index is low, and the top cited paper has only 30 citations, which is also a low number. Nsk92 ( talk) 05:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
          • I'm not suggesting a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I've seen quite a few other WP:NACADEMIC discussions where the traction of their papers was considerably less, and equally had little else to go on. I'm not suggesting a keep here, nor a delete for that matter. As I noted above, I wanted to get what I found onto the discussion. But, people are focusing on the Nobel prize discussion and not elsewhere. Again, meh. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 12:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
            • I don't know whom you mean by "people" in "people are focusing". There have been only one actual delete !vote here (mine) thus far, and I did not ignore the citations, but did address it. Please read my original delete comment again. To repeat: the citability data here is very unremarkable, with the h-index being low (in single digits) and the top-cited papers (30, 28, 18) having rather low citation counts as well. Nothing else in the record indicates passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Looks like a clear-cut 'delete' case to me, unless somebody brings up some substantial new information. Nsk92 ( talk) 14:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He is notable educationists and chair professor. Chair professor are notable. He is expert on climate change issues. 157.36.214.220 ( talk) 15:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC) — 157.36.214.220 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • Whatever do you mean by "chair professor"? Where? When? No evidence has been presented of him holding a faculty appointment at any university, let alone of a named chair appointment, which is what would be required for passing WP:PROF#C5. Nsk92 ( talk) 23:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Citation counts are far too low for WP:PROF#C1, and I can't find evidence to support a pass on any other point of WP:PROF (or any other guideline). XOR'easter ( talk) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    Oh, and an entire section was a copyvio. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • keep He is eminent Scientist and authority on climate change. 171.79.157.226 ( talk) 01:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)— 171.79.157.226 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep He is author, scientist and french speaker. 115.113.72.204 ( talk) 07:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)— 115.113.72.204 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete. does not meet the GNG, or WP:PROF. WP:PROF is based on being an authority in ones field. This is normally judged in the academic world by citations. He has a number of published papers, but the highest citations as shown in Google Scholar are 30, 28, 18,15. Environmental studies is a field where important papers are cited much more than this. We do not add up the total number of citation--that shows more than doing a lot of insignigificant work, which does not make anyone an authority in their subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. He appears to be merely a researcher at INRA, not (as our article says) "the director": this page lists him as "chercheur" and he is nowhere to be found on the INRA org chart. And his citation record is not yet strong enough for WP:PROF#C1. Likewise I can neither verify the claim of being "chair of Oikos Food Security" nor is it clear that even if verified it would be enough for notability. So we have no evidence of any kind of notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 10:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Shuanghe railway station

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

Article quite empty, unreferenced since 2010! Seems to be some confusion with zh:双河站 (also Shuanghe Railway Station in English but not in the same city nor on the same railway line). VIGNERON * discut. 10:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 16:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 16:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- A WP:BEFORE search in English turns up nothing. If no editor found time to insert a reference in eight years, the station must not be of interest. Eight views in the last month tells us readers are not interested, either. Rhadow ( talk) 16:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • It is more likely that a railway station in China would have references in Mandarin. I don't think it is fair to vote a delete based on "he station must not be of interest" or "readers are not interested". An encyclopedia is supposed to preserve history. I have seen many articles about India being deleted simply because people didn't search for sources in any of the Indian languages. This is a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS we need to overcome.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 19:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply

*Keep Consensus is that railroad stations are generally notable. I don't know why this one should be any different. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Unless someone can show the station exists, in light of the circumstances. Railroad stations should generally be kept, but if this one is a hoax, it has no place here. Smartyllama ( talk) 10:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the information is not verifiable and could even be a speculation or hoax. I have always voted for retaining articles about railway stations as I believe they are important locations which need to be documented. However, I have tried a lot and I cannot find any sources about this station. Going through railway timetables and information about the railway line (which is one of the most challenging railways constructed in China), I am unable to see any mention of this station. The creator was blocked for "Appears to be an unapproved bot rapidly creating articles". Considering that the articles was created in March 2010, before the railway line became operational, I believe it is reasonable to assume that this is either a hoax or a speculation.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 19:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Is this a real station? Like DreamLinker, I've been looking and can't find anything verifiable. -- Oakshade ( talk) 02:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unsourced and non notable. MapSGV ( talk) 16:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the station does not seem to exist: it's not on the list of stations of Yichang-Wanzhou railway. - Zanhe ( talk) 19:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

New Delhi's Ashram Durga Puja Commitee

New Delhi's Ashram Durga Puja Commitee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia already has an article "New Delhi Ashram Durga Puja committee" and an article "Barisha High School". The nominated page looks like a mistitled attempt to create a new Barisha High School page. Orenburg1 ( talk) 10:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 15:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 15:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 15:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

SeaBubble

SeaBubble (  | 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 evidence of any notability. No evidence that this product actually exists. The only independent reference confirms it is an idea, nothing more and the article speaks only of prototypes. Far,far too soon for this. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   09:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 15:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Corpus Christi Veterans Memorial High School

Corpus Christi Veterans Memorial High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage for this school: what I could find were directories or passing mentions in news sites. If there's a school district or other article where this could be redirected to, that could work too. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn, see comments below. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

This is a relatively new high school, and the article is a work in progress. I should have more to add in the next few days to make it a more robust and meaningful article. Michael S Wayne 10:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynems ( talk • contribs)

  • Keep. This is a public high school in a city of more than 300,000 people, with some 2,000 students in a brand new building, the district's first new high school in decades, built at a cost of about $90 million. Here's a summary timeline from the Corpus Christi Caller [39], some news reports [40] [41] [42] [43], and the Texas Tribune info page on the school. [44] Ample additional coverage of the school's creation and activities can be readily found in the usual searches (see the links above). Notability seems certain under the usual Wikipedia standards as they are applied to similar schools. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 20:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Arxiloxos: Really weird, they didn't show up in my original search. Maybe I should have separated "Corpus Christi" in my search. Mea culpa. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Some of this needs to go in the article. Just the fact it cost $93.2 million to build makes it seem notable! Jack N. Stock ( talk) 22:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Yeah, consider this nomination withdrawn. In fact, let me even change my !vote to Keep per the sources above. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz talk 19:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

E. J. Montini

AfDs for this article:
E. J. Montini (  | 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:Notability Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. ( talk) 07:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 15:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 15:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 15:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the article is almost completely sourced to works by him or his employer. A journalist needs widespread coverage of him as a subject to show notability. The fact that such an unsubstantial article has existed for 14 years shows that we need to better follow inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Tiger Baba

Tiger Baba (  | 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 person. Dial911 ( talk) 06:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 16:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Tomb Raider (disambiguation)

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

Pointless disambiguation, as it mirrors all the entries on Tomb Raider's page. All there needs to be is a single hatnote, if anything. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 07:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Completely unnecessary. AndreyKva ( talk) 07:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm ( talk) 17:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm ( talk) 17:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against re-nom if the Bengali language sources turn out to be red herrings Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Titan Chowdhury

Titan Chowdhury (  | 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 seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMBIO. the 'best' source is this one which looks like it might be a press release. Not finding anything better in searches. Seems WP:TOOSOON. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens ( talk) 07:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The International Press and Media Group

The International Press and Media Group (  | 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:NORG. ALL of the sources are from the company or its fully owned news outlets. Fails WP:NOTPROMOTION and was created by a user recently blocked as a sockpuppet Dom from Paris ( talk) 09:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 12:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens ( talk) 07:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

G-Aerosports

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

Lack of quality sources to meet WP:GNG, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. searches revealed nothing better. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 08:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 08:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

This is a legitimate manufacturer and has to be included in Wikipedia, like tons of other plane, car etc. manufacturers. Even extremely rare car models (some single prototypes) have been included. There is absloutely no reason for deletion Skartsis ( talk) 19:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens ( talk) 07:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- A bunch of photos in Flying does not confer notability on the company, which is what the article is about. Rhadow ( talk) 16:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The scant coverage (I have not been able to find much in my BEFORE that was not in the article) seems to be on this really cool looking faux-fighter ultralight. I do not think the ultralight itself would be notable. This very small single-product company definitely does not pass GNG or CORPDEPTH. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Subexya Bhadel

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

Biography whose sourcing is poor at best; Google News turns up nothing useful. — Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 07:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 12:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete PROMO, no real RS, no legit notability claim, signs of vanity, etc. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - highly promotional article, currently very poorly sourced. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show she meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article needs work (I did add several sources), but it's apparent Bhadel is notable. I can see she's regularly mentioned as a notable Nepali designer. I don't have access to articles in her native language, but considering how often she's mentioned in English casually (I saw more than one example of a model saying they got their break by modeling at a Subexya Bhadel show, and several examples of English sources covering her shows) I believe the article should be kept via WP:NEXIST. Lonehexagon ( talk) 19:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree that there are a lot of websites that discuss Bhadel and that Lonehexagon has added 2 of them to the article. But there is still nothing reliable and the article is still basically PROMO. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Rova Mevo Ha'ir

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

Article on a proposed building project that still doesn't seem to have happened. I don't believe it's notable enough for an article. Number 5 7 10:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 11:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per soruces brought by Icewhiz above. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify Probably will be notable but still largely WP:CRYSTAL for now as are all the sources about what will be built - I am relying on machine translations so I would reconsider if Icewhiz or E.M.Gregory or another editor can point to the specific source that says construction has already started and add this to the article. Seraphim System ( talk) 08:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Seraphim System: From what I see here - [56] (cornerstone + work on a tunnel) and here [57] (building permit for one of the buildings) - some construction has started. The planning of this thing dates back to 2009 or so. I'll note that this is a municipal driven plan (with entrepreneurs doing various sub-parts - the district plan is municipal, individual companies do different buildings) - so concerns of PROMO are less of an issue (and most coverage I see is not promotional driven). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply
It doesn't have to be, but it is CRYSTAL. What content is there to add to the article that isn't CRYSTAL? Most of what is in there now is CRYSTAL also. The fact that a project has been proposed isn't enough to make it notable. Yes, proposed developments could be notable - if there is a lot of significant in-depth coverage about legal troubles, or financing problems, or opposition, etc. But all I see here are statements about what is planned to be built and statements from politicians about how great it is. Not really enough yet for notability, and no rush. Seraphim System ( talk) 15:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm not saying it should be deleted, just moved back to userspace until there is actually content for the article. The entire article as it stands is WP:CRYSTAL as in Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball, and the sources that Icewhiz posted don't add much to that. This article isn't ready for mainspace yet. Seraphim System ( talk) 05:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Shabnaz Sadia Emi

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

Non-notable actress and model, very few TV roles and modeling, all three references are from non-reliable and fan websites; fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Makhamakhi ( talk) 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Makhamakhi ( talk) 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Makhamakhi ( talk) 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Makhamakhi ( talk) 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Makhamakhi ( talk) 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 02:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, NewsBank, and ProQuest, including by Bengali script name, found a little coverage of her celebrity wedding, [58] [59] [60] [61] some brief announcements of TV appearances, [62] [63] and a couple primary source interviews. [64] [65] The deepest source says she modeled at Dhaka Fashion Week and won a non-notable award there. [66]
This is a good-faith translation of the Bengali Wikipedia article. I don't know what their standards are there, but it's too short on significant coverage in independent sources to pass WP:BIO here. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 16:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Web Liquid

Web Liquid (  | 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 looks like a non-notable marketing company. Google News hits are unrelated. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 18:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Breve (software)

Breve (software) (  | 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 reliable independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 01:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 12:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n( talk page) 20:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Ali al-Hajj al-Amili

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

Only cited sources are WP:BLPSPS and a passing mention. Does not seem to pass WP:BLPNOTE ∰Bellezzasolo✡  Discuss 21:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. At first glance there may not appear to be a clear consensus, although there is a small numerical majority for keeping: 7 for deletion (including the nominator), 2 for simply keeping, and 3 for something short of outright deletion but not simply keeping it as it is (Userfy, keep/merge). However, looking further it becomes apparent that much of the reasoning for "keep" is not in line with policy. For example, although Hijiri 88 says "Userfy", the reasons he or she gives are reasons why this should not be an article, and he/she does not say anything at all about why he/she thinks that despite that it should be kept and moved to user space. For another example, Patnovak says "It seems to be a question of formatting rather than content", but in fact the reasons given for deletion are substantially about content. And to give one last example, despite the argument about what "essay" means and related issues, Andrew D's reason for keeping does not at all address the reasons given for deletion: "If they weren't original, they would be copyvio/plagiarism" is obviously interpreting "original" in a different sense than that in which it was used in the nomination. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 17:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Virtues (number and structure)

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

Original essay. The title is useless as a redirect. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • No hand-waving please. If you want to delete a good faith contribution like this, you need to explain the original or synthetic nature of the ideas presented and explain why this cannot be addressed by ordinary editing. Complaining that the article is in essay format is ridiculous. Per the OED, an essay is "A composition of moderate length on any particular subject, or branch of a subject" and that's what our articles are expected to be. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    • OK here is the very first sentence after the lede (which is bullshitting in its own): In Aristotle’s opinion, the different kinds of virtue arose from the nature of being itself: In order to know what a good man is, he said, we must firstly determine what man himself is. 1, with ref #1 being Aristotle. Please explain how the first part (wikipedian's text) follows from Aristotle's utterance. In my opinion, wikipedia's text is baseless. I can give you more. We have quite a few articles on the subject already, blissfully unknown to the author of this essay. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Complaining that the article is in essay format is ridiculous -- not at all. Encyclopedia articles are in encyclopedic format, not in an essay format. Per the OED, an essay is -- Unfortunately Wikipedia has its own texhnical slang often wildly departing from OED. In Wikipedia, an essay is either WP:ESSAY when in the Wikipedia namespace or chaotic original research when in the article namespace. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Nonsense. WP:ESSAY is irrelevant, being an internal rules concept, and WP:NOR doesn't use the word. What WP:NOR says instead is that statements "must be attributable to a reliable, published source". The author here is clearly attributing the statement to Aristotle. You might argue whether he is correctly summarising Aristotle's views but that's a matter of accurate translation and meaning. Addressing such issues is done by ordinary editing, not wholesale deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Andrew, I see you're still violating WP:NOT in your AFD !votes. Do you know what "original essay" means? A thoroughly sourced scholarly paper on a noteworthy topic is not the same as an "essay". Also, it should be noted that Andrew posted this AFD at ARS here. I'm seriously considering proposing a new rule for ARS where posters to the rescue list are not allowed directly edit the AFD themselves (cast !votes, either before or after ARS) except to notify at the AFD that a message has been posted to ARS (which they would be required to do, with a diff). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
An original essay in the sense of WP:NOTESSAY is text "that state your particular feelings about a topic". They are recognised by personal observations and first-person phrases such as "I think that". That's not what we have here as the author is instead summarising the views of philosophers like Aristotle and Locke. It's personal essays that we don't want and the key word is personal, not essay. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy This is an unfinished draft at best. The first 25 citations (an entire long section of the article) come exclusively from ancient Greek and early modern philosophical texts -- is this an original interpretation of such texts? What do modern Plato scholars think? This is the kind of article that would have passed muster (maybe even passed GA review) back in the bad old days but should not have passed page curation as late as 2015. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Apologies for late arrival at this debate. As writer of the original article I presumably don't have a vote? I do note however that the proposal for deletion of this article and another follow attempted posting of a new piece entitled Western values. I will not comment on these other articles here but on the relevant pages, except to say that all have been written in good faith with no vested interests financial or academic. Neither do I think that any of Wikipedia's guidelines have been violated. If they have I should appreciate greater clarification. One of the earliest principles, I note, was that pieces should look outwards and not inwards. My piece starts with questions that a student might ask on being asked to write an essay on the subject. Why are such questions described above as "bullshit"? Where else can he or she find this kind of information? Certainly looking at other articles on Virtues in Wikipedia I cannot imagine them being much help - but Wikipedia is based on people having different points of view. The next sentence which was criticised also seems perfectly logical to me. It quotes an accepted point of view (Aristotle's opinion) and draws the reasonable conclusion that different kinds of virtue must arise from some differentiation within a human being... which is part of the general concept of being. If this were to be fully argued out in the text the article would become an essay! I confirm, in my opinion, that the piece is not original research but is a restatement of ideas, all cited, that have been around for millenia. It is also a piece that imparts a lot of knowledge in a fairly simple format which is surely what encyclopaedias ought to do. However, having said all this I would of course welcome any positive editorial input which might improve the article. Patnovak ( talk) 12:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Patnovak: The conventional wisdom is that this is not a vote but is instead a discussion and so Patnovak's contribution is welcome. They are entitled to cast a !vote, if they wish, to summarise their view on whether the page should be deleted or not. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
No, it is NOT a false claim, see [70]-- Rusf10 ( talk) 17:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, it is a false claim. The document that Rusf10 suggests is the original is, in fact, an incoherent collection of fragments -- material scraped from the Internet, including Wikipedia. You simply have to look at it to see that it's junk. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Rhadow's claim of copyvio is false. Look at the dates. The blog was created in 2017. The Wikipedia article was created in 2015. The blogger has copied and pasted an entire sentence from the Wikipedia article. Patnovak ( talk) 10:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The simple point I'm reading through this AfD is that it can be improved, even if that includes a move or changing the article content. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Relation (history of concept)

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

Dubious original essay. The title is useless as a redirect. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's "rescue list", here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Dubious nomination which does not explain how WP:BEFORE has been followed or provide a solid reason for deletion. AfD is not cleanup but notice that Relation (philosophy) is just a pathetic redirect currently. I'm going to change its target to the page in question and we might then reconsider that as the new title for the page. As an example of a substantial source for the topic, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Andrew D. ( talk) 14:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Here is the solid reason for you: it is an essay of worst WP:SYNTH type I've seen in wikipedia. Every second sentence is a glaring example of this. Traditionally the history of the concept of relation begins with Aristotle and his concept of relative terms. In Metaphysics he states: "Things are called relative as the double to the half... as that which can act to that which can be acted upon... and as the knowable to knowledge"[4] , with ref.#4 being none than Aristotle himself. If you do not see wiki-problems with sentences of this kind, then you must have a very philosophical mind. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
      • That's not a solid reason for deletion because it is our policy that "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." And, it doesn't appear that the article is that bad because, for example, one can read in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that "All theorizing about relations in the Middle Ages begins with Aristotle's short treatise, the Categories. ..." My !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Back off. This is my opinion, which thoroughly differs from yours. Wikipedia is littered with exceptionally poor philosophical articles written in olden days including none else but Larry Sanger himself, who thinks he is a great philosopher. It looks like nobody wants to touch this gobbledygook with 7-foot pole, because all this philotalk is incomprehensible to laymen, who most wikipedians are. While serious philosophers don't want to waste time on endless bickering with wannabe filosofs. If you can rewrite it up to standards, go ahead. Otherwise I am all for WP:NUKE. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – but (1) move to Relation (philosophy) over redirect; and (2) remove the last two sections ( Logical relations and database theory and Relational mathematics), which do not really deal with the philosophical concept.  -- Lambiam 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Per Andrew, I don't see any WP:BEFORE analysis by the nom. Further, technical note: the nom has not notified the creator, which may make this AfD invalid on technical grounds from the very beginning. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Piotrus: There's nothing in WP:AFD indicating that one is obliged to notify the article's creator prior to "the very beginning". In fact it says the opposite: after nominating, it "is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator", "[w]hile not required". In this case in particular, it seems highly unlikely that Patnovak ( talk · contribs) is unaware of this AFD given that they've only contributed a few times in the past (yet are active at the moment) and have specifically alluded to this AFD on their user page. [71] (I'm actually not sure what the policy on preemptively copying AFDed articles into one's user space is, mind you.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Hijiri88: Fair enough, not notifying the author is not sufficient to disqualify the AfD. It is important to note it is, however, not courteous. We should be friendly to new / inexperienced editors, and the nom here did not behave in a way that is friendly/courteous, despite the fact that we are dealing with a good-faith contribution (I wouldn't demand courtesy or criticize the lack of it if we were dealing with some spam...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Piotrus: Yeah, but several of the "keep" !votes in a number of recent AFDs have not only been discourteous but I've found their incivility to be downright atrocious; poor behaviour on the part of "keep" !voters doesn't mean the article should be deleted, and it goes both ways, so this conversation is basically tangential. FWIW, I think criticizing anyone for not following the optional supplemental instructions in these processes is unfair, since the processes themselves have been made overly convoluted. At least with GAR this was a deliberate attempt to discourage its use, so it wouldn't surprise me if the same was true with AFD. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Hijiri88: I find the deterioration of courtesy on Wikipedia sad, if understandable (overwork, stress). Still, I'll point out what I think we can do better, and I can say that having AfDed 1000+ articles I still find time to notify the creator. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Piotrus: See, I see it the other way round: you've opened a lot of AFDs, so you're used to the process. Others who only open one or two AFDs a year like me (I can't speak for Staszek Lem) have to read through the instructions at AFD each time while switching between tabs and desperately trying not to leave any required step unfulfilled for more than 10-15 minutes, so should be forgiven for missing one or two of the optional steps. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Hijiri88: I was and am under the impression that Staszek is familiar with AfDs, which is why I am making this (I hope friendly, I respect his work) rebuke :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Redirect If the article is to be deleted can I (the article's creator) be told which specific principle or principles have been violated please so that I can reply to them prior to deletion. Just because there are a lot of other poor articles out there does not seem like a valid reason for deleting this one. I have looked at wp:synth but the examples given do not seem relevant to this piece. It is true that I have used primary sources, Plato, Aristotle etc., but it is also true that the conclusions, Peirce, Wittgenstein etc., are not my own either. There is a clear history of the subject from ancient Greece to the present day which I have attempted to show in as simple a way as possible. I agree that the title is not the best and could be redirected to Relation (philosophy) or similar. The Stanford article was written later but I will look at it and see if any editing of the Wiki article is required. Comments on individual paragraphs might be better made after a decision is made on deletion. Thank you for your continuing interest. Patnovak ( talk) 11:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Patnovak: WP:NOR is a good guide, at least as far as my rationale is concerned. As a general rule, you should try to avoid citing ancient, medieval, or early modern (including Enlightenment) works directly as much as possible, and not build entire sections of an article around them. If you use modern critical editions and translations of these works, you should cite the version you used, not just "Plato", "Aristotle", etc. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not sure what this article is about. It starts with "concept of relation as a term used in general philosophy" and then talks about science and mathematics and relationship in the brain. There doesn't seem to be a single topic. The main unifying thing besides the word "relation" (which isn't enough" seems to be "three", which almost comes across as a magic number. I'm leaning towards delete as I'm not yet convinced that there is a single topic covering all the material in this article and discussed in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I see it as having sufficient sources. I think the better title would be "Relation (philosophical concept), but that's a minor point. I'm not certain the last section is really appropriate in the article, or whether it's being used in a different sense. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

ASL Rose

ASL Rose (  | 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. PROD denied. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Support. I appreciate what ASL Rose does as a small press publisher for ASL literature, but there are hundreds of small press publishers out there, and they do not rise to the level of notability required by Wikipedia. - Etoile ✩ ( talk) 18:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Justin Yoshimura

Justin Yoshimura (  | 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 and promotional. The references are the usual PR and notices, and do not indicate notability DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm ( talk) 17:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm ( talk) 17:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm ( talk) 17:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm also finding it hard to label this page as WP:PROMO, it's objectively written and well sourced. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 01:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Geir Berthelsen

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

notability tagged for 9 years, sources are all self-promo, the topic is notable, he may not be Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 05:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 05:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 05:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 05:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Halo Dogs

Halo Dogs (  | 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 should be deleted as WP:NOTADVERT. If that's not enough, referencing is terrible including WP:DAILYMAIL and citations in the "media work" section are useless blurbs like this one: "Their playmates were the other dogs I looked after at Halo Dogs". Local non-notable awards like Enterprise Enfield Start up Business Award don't add anything to corp notability. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Marcello Ferrada de Noli

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcello Ferrada de Noli, which assessed his notability in considerable depth. I haven't seen the previously deleted article and so am not prepared to tag this for G4. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The arguments in favor of deletion in the first AfD are entirely persuasive, and I've found no sources appearing online in the nine months since the AfD to suggest the subject's gained the notability he did not previously have. Ravenswing 05:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notability is completely obvious. Very few academics have such rich careers. Zero talk 09:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Zero, and per the extensive article on es:wp. The article does, however, need substantial copy editing. -- NSH001 ( talk) 11:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. He certainly isn't notable according to academic considerations "rich career" notwithstanding. The article still seems to have PROMO problems, but I don't have time to wade through the prolix notes in the references. However, the rest of the lede does not seem to indicate notability for his other activities the article discusses. Agricola44 ( talk) 18:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I submitted the AfD proposal for the previous version of the article. I have not had an opportunity to look at the updated page. However, I should mention that the articles on this subject in other language wikipedias, including es:wp, are largely direct translations of the previous article. After the previous AfD proposal was accepted, I left a message on the talk page of the Spanish language article mentioning this development, but the editors did not take any action after that. Gamesmaster G-9 ( talk) 20:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable, pr his involvement in MIR, pr WP:NACADEMIC, and pr. his involvement with SWEDHR. Incidentally, the opposition to de Noli and SWEDHR was mainly because they questioned the Western "popular belief" that the Syrian government had used gas in their attacks....however, today, that is being questioned even by persons such as the French President, Emmanuel Macron [72], not to mention people like Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter. Having said all this, I also agree with NSH001 that the article needs substantial copy editing, Huldra ( talk) 20:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notability is obvious. He has played a historic role in Chile's political history as an actor and as a witness, has been a prolific writer documenting in a scientific manner the Media coverage of the Julian Assange case offering uniquely Swedish insights, has decades long record of contributions to society as an academic and Human Rights Defender.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekemmy ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)— Greekemmy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete The original AfD debate focused on three areas of notability - 1) His academic career; 2) His association with MIR; and 3) His recent political advocacy.
For 1), it was determined that he would not meet the notability guidelines as per WP:PROF. The current article has trimmed away most of the bits that played up his academic achievements (which were quite typical of a professor in his field), but retains some. For example:
The word "amazing" taken completely out of context in a book which refers to a study conducted by Ferrada-Noli, is cited as praise for his work. In fact, can be seen in the excerpt, his work is one of many mentioned in the book, and only briefly.
Visiting positions at two universities are cited as examples of honors, when in fact this is a common practice in academia.
The fact that a search on Google Scholar for his name throws up 700 (not 800, as stated) results is cited as an achievement. This is actually a pretty average number for a tenured professor in a medical field.
For 2) The new article still claims in the lede that Ferrada-Noli was one of the founders of MIR, though the previous AfD determined that the evidence for such a claim was shaky. In the rest of the article, the statements of his association with that body have been dialed down - they now state that he was associated with that organization in various capacities, which is verifiably true. However, it is clear that he was one of many left-wing students in Chile at the time for whom such a claim can be made, and does not in itself rise to the level of notability.
For 3) The updated article takes a more balanced view of his work with SWEDHR, a pro-Russian website to which he is a frequent contributor. The controversy over that site is largely covered on their page, and do not add notability to Ferrada-Noli. None of the other regular contributors to SWEDHR have their own pages on Wikipedia, for example.

Gamesmaster G-9 ( talk) 02:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

While it is true that none of the other members of SWEDHR presently have their own en.wp articles, several of them (like the professors Marita Troye-Blomberg and Anders Romelsjö) are quite distinguished scientists, who could merit their own articles. Feel free to start them, if you like, (PS Leif Elinder has an article in sv.wp, [73]) Huldra ( talk) 21:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the argument about other peoples articles fails. The word amazingly is of course over the top, but now removed but in itsef totally irrelevant to notability. 800 hits or so at Google Scholar is an indication of notability. You state that several other students was part of this, but that in itself is irrelevant to an individuals notability and work within an organization etc. In fact most of your argument for deletion is very "he has notability through this, but not really because..." you actually state several things that shows notability. So thank you. BabbaQ ( talk) 10:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Obvious notability, played a significant role in Chiles political history. Good sourcing. per WP:GNG. Per WP:NACADEMIC. Previous deletion doesn't mean automatic Delete again. Any strawman claim about sources is covered by WP:NEXIST. BabbaQ ( talk) 10:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete this page is ...how shall i say. Overdetermined? This person may be marginally notable but given the persistent, unyielding advocacy pressing on this, I have no hope of this ever being an actual WP article. It just some argument dragged in here and left bleeding all over the place. Jytdog ( talk) 22:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I didn't "confirm notability". Marginally notable is not notable. What i DONTLIKE is advocates who waste everyone's else's time beating the hell out of things; the subject of this article has nothing to do with that. Jytdog ( talk) 23:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notability is evident in different activities. And one would be enough.
On notability ref. MIR: Wikipedia articles on MIR, both in Spanish and English, say Ferrada Noli was a co-founder of MIR. In the English MIR article Ferrada de Noli is in the list of MIR "Notable Members". In the article in discussion here, there are a number of NEW, verifiable academic and books references that evidence that too.
On notability ref. academia: N° 1 option in WP to assess academic notability: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."  In the Textbook of Psychiatry used in all medical schools in Sweden, several psychiatric / epidemiological findings of FerradaNoli have been included. As pr. reliable source (verifiable): See ref 36 in the article /info/en/?search=Marcello_Ferrada_de_Noli#cite_ref-36
On notability ref. current events: According Wikipedia, SWEDHR is notable. But not its founder, current president, and main representative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.80.57 ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 88.128.80.57 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep. UN Security Council recently published, as official document, an analysis of Ferrada de Noli of the UN-JIM report, Dec. 2107. A main result of his investigation is that no conclusive evidence on the ‘sarin’ attacks in Syria exists. Same conclusion was repeated by US Def Sec Jim Mattis, 2 Feb 2018. Source: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2017/1010. In the author’s bio section of this UNSEC doc there is a WOW link to his CV [74], where it is found the proof about what he received at the Medical Faculty in Cuba 2005 was an award for his international research, and not a “position” (as it has been equivocally informed in the discussion here). Quote from the statement of two department-head professors at the Karolinska Institute, one of them a Nobel Prize nominee (Karolinska Institute Registra’s Office. N° 1217/2007-2335): “Professor Ferrada-Noli’s research on PTSD and suicidal behavior in a cross-cultural perspective has been internationally recognized, and for that reason he received an academic award from the Instituto Superior de Ciencias Médicas de La Habana, one of Latin America’s oldest and most prestigious medical faculties. The award was reported in The Karolinska Institute’s Year Book 2005.”
Lastly, about notability in MIR, Andrés Pascal Allende, nephew of the late President Salvador Allende and head of the MIR after the death in combat of Miguel Enríquez, issued a statement in 2017 affirming that Ferrada de Noli was one of the MIR founders and coauthor of the “first document approved in the history of the MIR”. The document is found here: [75] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts132 ( talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Facts132 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep I'm not certain how notable Dr. De Noli is, by the usual standards... but it strikes me those supporting deletion seem to also not like his "pro-Russian" views - which they've apparently noted, and felt compelled to sanction by urging this page be deleted because De Noli is not notable enough (or perhaps more notable than they'd like?). I'm a supporter of his views and their value in bringing balance to the debate on "humanitarian interventionism" and other issues. I've also had a few articles published at the Indicter. And here I am arguing to keep the page. Notability is apparently the issue. I was going to mention the new development mentioned above by few-edits user Facts132. In case I have more weight, I'll repeat the same. His views are being circulated as credible - by the Russians - at the United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2017/1010. Also note Facts132 noting the resolution of DeNoli's status as a MIR founder. I can't vouch for that, but this being relevant to his notability, take note that Andrés Pascal Allende at least allegedly confirms the doctor's centrality, according to this letter. -- AdamakaCausticLogic ( talk) 13:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:PROF. Notability depends on being recognized as an authority in oner's subject. This is measured most usually by citations. It is not the total number of citations that matter, because a large number of minor publications does not show one an authority, merely an industrious worker. The distribution is what matters: there need to be some highly cited papers. This depends on the field--fields with a higher publication density have higher citation counts. In analyzing this at WP for people in his field of biomedicine, it has become customary to require at least one publication with 100 or more citations. Google scholar shows 223 for his most cited paper (Ferrada-Noli M, et al, Suicidal behavior after severe trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 1998 Jan 1;11(1):103-12.) and 97, 91, 66 48 for the next most cited. Anyone with this many citations is an authority in their subject. (The reference in Clinical Psychology Reviews confirms it--that's a MEDRS quality secondary source)
I think the political role in Sweden is also notable, though it's a little harder to tell what is his personal notability as compared to the others in his group. His earlier political role in Chile seems to be much disputed, as may depend on the various possible meanings of "founder" -- it is used for anything from the principal organizing figure to those who were members at the beginning.
The excessively laudatory article and the tone of hte discussion here complicates the issue. It's clear that an article more focussed on the scientific work, and giving the range of opinions about his political career would be much more acceptable. (This is characteristic of those who wish to promote someone's significance--they sometimes insist on a wildly excessive article which only discredits the true importance) The article will need to be revised form a neutral POV. Butit's worth doing, because there is no doubt about his meeting WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The Adventures of Max the Minnow

The Adventures of Max the Minnow (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by page's creator. Non-notable book lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains( talk) 03:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 19:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Friends of a Feather

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

PROD removed by page's creator. Non-notable book lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains( talk) 03:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jim Harris (illustrator/author). MBisanz talk 19:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Ten Little Dinosaurs

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

PROD removed by page's creator. Non-notable book lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains( talk) 03:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
E.M.Gregory, i am shocked! Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Snow. University of Cambridge Prof. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 10:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Grae Worster

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

Entry appears to be a short-form curriculum vitae, there is no evidence of notability nor references from reliable sources to support any notability. User:HopsonRoad 02:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Normally, a redirect per WP:ATD and/or WP:CHEAP would be implemented, but Jollywood (disambiguation) just doesn't seem like something anybody would ever type into a search box, so it's a pointless redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Jollywood (disambiguation)

Jollywood (disambiguation) (  | 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 don't see any acceptable support for the premise that Jollywood refers to Sanskrit cinema. For one thing, Sanskrit cinema tells us that there have been only six films in Sanskrit, so it's hardly the sort of industry likely to have a snappy name. Second, on the Web the only corroboration I find is this press release asserting that somebody named Manoj decided in 2018 (that is, in the last six and a half weeks) that Sanskrit cinema should be called Jollywood, and claiming that the term has already started becoming "popular" in Uttarakhand.

I came across a "Jollywood Films", but that appears to be some group creating videos for YouTube. I don't know any Indian languages so I can't tell what language is being spoken in the films, but there's no mention on their YouTube channel or Facebook page that the language is Sanskrit, and the videos aren't related to the list of films at Sanskrit cinema.

That leaves Assamese cinema. I do find support for the use of "Jollywood" to refer to that industry, such as [76], [77], [78]. It's reportedly named for the Jyoti Chitraban Film Studio and its founder Jyoti Prasad Agarwala.

For now, I've replaced that hatnote at Jollywood that was pointing here with one pointing to Assamese cinema, which should be updated to mention the Jollywood nickname. With that out of the way, there's no valid disambiguation for this page to perform. Largoplazo ( talk) 02:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  • The reference you "found" is the one I mentioned above in my deletion rationale. As was implicit in my remarks, Wikipedia doesn't publish claims based on unfounded assertions in anonymous press releases reporting that someone has coined a term. Accordingly, I removed your mention of the unacceptable source. Largoplazo ( talk) 23:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I think the standards are lower for disambiguation pages which are not considered encyclopedic, and hence no references are allowed. Because the reference is shaky, I made my !vote as "Weak Keep". If the result of this AfD is to delete, we can just put a hat note for the Assamese cinema in the Jollywood article (which makes me wonder -- why isn't this disambiguation page linked from a hat note in the Jollywood article?). BarbadosKen ( talk) 00:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
There's no standard under which Wikipedia articles, lists, disambiguation pages, or redirects reflect things that somebody has made up and for which there's no evidence in reliable sources. See WP:MADEUP and WP:V. The hatnote already covers the valid alternatives, so there's no reason also to link here to see one valid alternative and one invalid one. Your question about that reveals yet again that you're commenting in this deletion discussion without having read what the rationale for the nomination was in the first place. In order to contribute constructively to any discussion, please read what has already been discussed first. Largoplazo ( talk) 01:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 18:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 18:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Not a whole lot of discussion, but even less consensus :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Fireworks policy in Belgium

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

Strange article about policies in Belgium, based on one Dutch source. In fact, the article states that there is no Belgian policy about fireworks. Doubt about the notability of this article. The Banner  talk 19:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 20:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I do not understand why it should be a problem that a stub article does not cover all possible aspects of its topic. Obviously the municipalities of the Walloon Region are more aloof when it comes to regulating the lighting of fireworks by non-professional users, being content to only issue warnings to be careful. This regional difference would be interesting by itself enough to be noted, but right now I don't see a reliable source for this observation – although I haven't sought very hard. If this stub turns out to have no growth potential, the road of merging the content with Fireworks policy in the European Union, leaving a redirect, remains open. But for that we don't need to delete the article; that would only make it more difficult.  -- Lambiam 21:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 19:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

99.3 The Game

99.3 The Game (  | 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 unreferenced article about a part 15 radio station. Part 15 stations do not have broadcast licenses, and unlicensed stations do not have the presumption of notability for broadcast stations. Of course, any notability has to be backed up by sufficient coverage in reliable sources — but there's nothing out there about this station, and it seems safe to say it doesn't meet the general notability guideline.

I am also nominating the article for its sister station, for the same reason:

Oldies 106.1 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The second station appears to be one of the stations that have already had an article deleted at a recent AfD under similar grounds; if it means anything, all of the articles in both the earlier AfD and this nomination were created by Martini Lewis X ( talk · contribs). I'm not sure if the current Oldies 106.1 article has enough similarities to the previous version to fall under speedy deletion criterion G4. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
If there's a next time, CSD G4 seems appropriate. Jeh ( talk) 20:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Stereorock ( talk) 22:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Part 15 stations are not granted a presumption of notability under WP:NMEDIA just for existing — their only possible path to a Wikipedia article is the prospect (highly unlikely but not entirely impossible) of getting enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. But no such coverage has been shown here for either station, and as noted these were both already deleted in a prior AFD (the only thing different here this time was the page titles.) In fact, given that their logos are both laughably bad, both Facebook pages and one of the Weeblies deadlink, and the other Weebly barely contains anything more than a statement that the station exists, I'm actually not fully convinced that either station actually exists anywhere outside of the creator's imagination. Creator's been editblocked already. Bearcat ( talk) 21:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment: I agree with Bearcat about Part 15s needing notability. I don't think the small handful of legitimately notable Part 15s like Radio Sausalito & KCHUNG Radio should be deleted like these Part 15s clearly need to be. If the O.P. is indeed their operator (if they even exist at all apart from here), and eventually they do because legitimately noteworthy, I have no problem at that point of them being listed at that future point.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is no sources for almost all the content. There is no possible way it canbe kept until they are obtained, and a sourced article without the promotionalism can be then started in Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Abdillahi Kahin

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

About a person only notable for being CEO of a non-notable company. A quick WP:BEFORE search reveals no reliable sources. Only was worth about USD $10 million. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I think the individual is notable not for being a CEO necessarily, but for being the CEO of the first African corporation to export coffee. That is why I created the page and believe that the individual is notable. I will accept your decision to delete or not either way. Thank you.

Linkjan2014 ( talk) 01:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Linkjan2014: the decision to delete is a community consensus, not my choice. Perhaps the corporation will become notable before the CEO. Whatever happens, I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia! Eddie891 Talk Work 01:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Subject lacks references. A Google search for the exact name returns 82 results - WP:NOTABLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot333 ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename to Mohammed Abdillahi Ogsadey. I can't remember exactly where, but I have seen his company on multiple nominations for Somali notable companies and if i'm not mistaken even an award ceremony. His name is a bit hazy to me but his company is definitely not. However, since the media of Somalia has been largely destroyed in the civil war, i think Somalia related articles should receive more leeway than for example companies within the Anglosphere. Either his company, or this article should remain. I don't mind a merge, but since the company doesn't have an article, at least it could be covered on this page. In a nutshell, there is no doubt to me that the man is notable.; and nominators who are clueless in regards to Somali society should imo acknowledge that. 92.9.152.17 ( talk) 21:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • comment I'm not sure why, but everything seems to point to him more commonly being known as "Mohammed Abdillahi Ogsadey", and while the sourcing is still a bit thin he's clearly well-known as a coffee exporter. Mangoe ( talk) 22:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename to Mohammed Abdillahi Ogsadey. I agree with my colleagues that the page should be kept and the name be changed to Mohammed Abdillahi Ogsadey.I think the individual is notable not for being a CEO necessarily, but for being the CEO of the first African corporation to export coffee. That is why I created the page and believe that the individual is notable. I will accept your decision to delete or not either way. Thank you. I await the final decision. Linkjan2014 ( talk) 18:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete the claim of starting the "first African corporation to export coffee" is both unlikely and under-sourced. The coffee trade has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years, and this person was born in 1942 (edit: or possibly 1920, the article contradicts itself). 67.3.108.87 ( talk) 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Eddie Newquist

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

Creative director who fails WP:BIO. scope_creep ( talk) 00:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 04:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment hard for me to tell what's notable in this industry. But I do note that very few sources appear to be about this person in depth, rather primatily about attractions they were associated with. Also note several primary sources for venues and companies (incl at least one press release, never a good sign). Finally, it seems that none of the industry awards that we have cites for have their own articles, so they may also be iffy indications of notability of a recipient. Possibly Themed Entertainment Association Thea Award, though. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. essentially advertising for him and his productions; the lack of clear notability is a secondary consideration. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A guy who does exhibitions, the only sources are churnalism or PR. Guy ( Help!) 00:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn and only one delete !vote from before the addition of sources showing GNG. ( non-admin closure) Dom from Paris ( talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Frank A. Flower

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

Municipal Statistician of Superior, Wisconsin does not pass WP:POLOUTCOMES. The books authored by Flower do not credibly indicate how they pass WP:AUTHOR. Having once received a letter from Booker T. Washington does not pass WP:GNG as notability is not inherited (or transferred via post). Masters theses (unlike doctoral dissertations) are not generally RS and being the subject of one probably doesn't contribute to GNG. A WP:BEFORE finds a handful of fleeting references largely of a bibliographical nature sourcing his books. Ultimately, this comes down to the question: "if you are from the 19th century, are you inherently notable?" I don't believe so. Chetsford ( talk) 00:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Is 1,467 library holdings the numerical threshold NAUTHOR uses to determine if something constitutes a "significant monument"? Anna Brooke, author of Frommer's Easy Guide to Paris 2013 Edition, has 2,017 library holdings of her book according to Worldcat. Is Frommer's Easy Guide to Paris 2013 Edition also a significant monument of world literature? Chetsford ( talk) 21:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
It has not been in print for 130 years like Flower's works Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
So once a book is 130 years old it becomes a "significant monument" of world literature? I don't think that's what's meant by "monument" in NAUTHOR. Chetsford ( talk) 22:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Edwin Pepping

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

Edwin Pepping was an enlisted man and medic in the U.S. Army during World War II. For a time, he was assigned to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during the Normandy invasion. He suffered a concussion and leg wound, was hospitalized for a while, returned to the company, was hospitalized again, and was assigned to communication duties. Post-War, he held a variety of jobs, including draftsman on the Apollo Project. Pepping does not qualify for a page under WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Harvey Newquist II

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) scope_creep ( talk) 01:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Harvey Newquist II (  | 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 vice president of manufacturing scope_creep ( talk) 00:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator scope_creep ( talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I found a link in an ecclesiastical newspaper, which seems to confirm it, but it was behind a paywall. Seems to be notable. Therefore:

Withdrawn by nominator. scope_creep ( talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_February_16&oldid=1142616630"