The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
As far as I can tell, this subject fails Wikipedia's notability requirements. While Pandora may be listed on the French wiki, I can find no reliable sources which describe that comic (and none which describe its title character, who is prominently featured in this article). There's little question that the series exists; there are external links to Goodreads, Amazon, and other sites (see
WP:USERG) but I have found nothing in reviews of the genre, Google books, or even news articles. Further, while the notability guidelines for books (
WP:NB) may not cover comics (although they do apparently cover manga), I can find nothing to indicate that it satisfies any of those criteria. For these reasons, I have listed this article at AfD.
RexSueciae (
talk) 23:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and (loosely) looking at
WP:NBOOK. No claim to notability and the French Wiki is little more than a bare stub.
Ifnord (
talk) 01:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 21:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Album track fails
WP:NSONGS; failed to chart (only in Bubbling Under) and content is based on album reviews, not articles about the song.
Cornerstonepicker (
talk) 23:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect to
Queen (Nicki Minaj album) as it is the parent album. I understand a preference for deletion though to avoid the article being recreated in the future.
Aoba47 (
talk) 00:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete for only getting mentions within album reviews. Something I should however note,
Cornerstonepicker, is that charts (or lack thereof) are completely irrelevant to whether tracks meet WP:NSONGS, which states a song needs to be covered at least decently within multiple secondary sources that aren't album reviews or affiliated with artist/label.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits) 01:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete article. Not necessary to create pages for just any song. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Qualitist (
talk •
contribs) 10:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not have reliable independent sources to convince the importance and thus fails
WP:GNG and the song was not that popular enought so fails
WP:NSONGS.
Vinodbasker (
talk) 12:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Album track fails
WP:NSONGS; failed to chart (only in Bubbling Under) and content is based on album reviews, not articles about the song.
Cornerstonepicker (
talk) 23:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
(as AFC reviewer) I thought it had a chance to go through since Bubbling Under was still considered Billboard charting but given that those charts were practically inaccessible now, buried under the biz subscribed section as opposed to the other regular Hot 100 and R&B / Hip Hop charts, I have second thoughts about retaining this. There was also the comment that it would be the next music video release, but given that it was just a Twitter poll on her account, and not taken seriously with no news articles written about her making it her next single, I'm okay with deletion / protected redirect until it is released as a single.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 00:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect to
Queen (Nicki Minaj album). Charting alone does not give a song enough notability for a separate article. This article can be recreated in the future if it is released as a single and receives more independent coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but that is purely speculation at this point.
Aoba47 (
talk) 01:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Queen (Nicki Minaj album) as non-charting, non-notable single with no coverage in reliable and independent sources.--
NØ 07:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another eminently non-notable oldster. Only two very unremarkable sources, and evading the reaper for a long time is not inherently notable, so
WP:NOPAGE applies.
The Blade of the Northern Lights (
話して下さい) 23:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete This article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO1E because there is only
WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her family and the documentation proving her age claim. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails
WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent
WP:PERMASTUB is not needed.
Newshunter12 (
talk) 23:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Could people please refrain from using ageist derogatory terms like oldster. It is disrepectful. I have no opinion whether or not this article is kept or deleted, but this ongoing debasing term on several of the AfD is unencyclopedic, if not bigoted.
Netherzone (
talk) 23:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge to list Complete and utter lack of content other than longevity fancruft like past confusion over who held the "title".
EEng 02:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete – Nothing to preserve aside from longevity trivia, which is well-covered in relevant tables. —
JFGtalk 11:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to
Kalapi. Tone 21:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Is this a misspelling? The word Kalapi does not appear anywhere in the text of the article. Kalpi is used throughout.SpinningSpark 22:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Selective merge and redirect to
Kalapi, or to the town where the museum is located.
SpinningSpark 22:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Kalapi per Spinningspark and Coolabahapple. Doesn't pass
WP:GNG on it's own, but it's worth a mention elsewhere. --
Nathan2055talk -
contribs 06:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Editors disagree about source quality, and I can't decide that by fiat. Sandstein 20:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Activist organization that does not meet
WP:ORGCRITE. ORGCRITE specifically requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Virtually all coverage is in news reporting (i.e. a primary source), and most of it is mere-mentions in articles that are primarily about whatever issue was being protested (by other groups as well). Exactly one source
[1] appears to be secondary coverage in a reliable independent source, but that falls short of the requirement that there be multiple such sources. I was not able to turn up more sources in internet searches, but perhaps someone with more familiarity with Indian sources and languages will be more successful and I'm open to dissent provided that better sources can be found. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep News reporting is exactly the secondary source coverage this kind of org needs to get over GNG.
Legacypac (
talk) 22:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
My evaluations of the sources:
[2] Secondary, independent, reliable, but not significant.
[3] Reliable source, but the article is almost entirely reliant on direct quotes from affiliates of the subject.
[4] Reliable, secondary, independent, but mere mention, not significant.
[5] Reliable, secondary, independent, but mere mention, not significant.
[6] Mere mention of subject in coverage of murder case. No in-depth analysis.
[7] Again, mere mention of the subject in reportage about a murder case. No in-depth analysis.
[8] Reliable, secondary, independent, but mere mention, not significant.
[9] Reliable, secondary, independent, but no in-depth coverage of the subject.
[10] The one reliable, secondary, independent, in-depth citation mentioned above.
[11] Not in depth, not secondary, doesn't even mention the subject.
[12] Article about founder of the subject, no real analysis, barely mentions the subject
[13] Mere mention of subject in article about wider protest, no in-depth analysis.
[15] Timeline of events relating to a murder case that the subject protested around. Reliable, independent, but a mere mention, not significant.
[16] Report of a speech without analysis, not secondary, not really about the subject either.
[17] Announcement of a speech, mere mention of subject.
[18] More speech coverage, mere mention of subject
[19] Coverage of event hosted by subject, no analysis or in-depth coverage of subject.
[20] Summary of murder case and proceedings, brief mention of subject and minimal coverage
All together, there appears to be one source that meets
WP:ORGCRITE's criteria (#10, also listed as #1). Note that ORGCRITE specifies that each source contributing toward notability must meet all requirements (independence, reliability, depth, secondary). Thus, we cannot combine more trivial mentions (such as #20 or #2) together to demonstrate significant coverage, as is allowed by some other notability guidelines like NBIO. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not meet
WP:GNG. If every protest group got a Wikipedia page, there wouldn't be enough Wikipedia left for the rest of the world. A good amount of the article reads as promotional material for the founder - prior to my edits, it was definitely written by somebody unfamiliar with Wikipedia (coming from somebody still pretty unfamiliar with Wikipedia); a lot of spacing issues and the like. The sources are more about the matters they're protesting than the group itself, and in common a vein of AfD discussions, 'notability is not inherited.'
LikeMeercats (
talk) 00:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
News reporting is independent secondary sources. What other sources do you expect to find? The fact that the media report what they say about issues and use their quotes is evidence of notability. Mention of the founder does not reduce notability. It only affects the issue of whether the article should be about him or about the organisation. Keep.Rathfelder (
talk) 09:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Per
Rathfelder. Nom's dismissive analysis of sources is not convincing.
LikeMeercats's argument is especially not convincing per
WP:PAPER. And the use of
WP:INHERITED is particularly off base. That the org's POV is cited in articles on matters being protested is precisely an indicator of notability for such a group. Finally, regardless of the "spacing issues and the like" we don't delete articles for being written by "somebody unfamiliar with Wikipedia."
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 14:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The argument I was trying to make, that you refute by citing
WP:PAPER directly supports it. It's tongue in cheek by saying 'there's not enough wikipedia'
WP:PAPER makes a clear distinction by what "can be done" and "what should be done" - this article shouldn't be done. The second comment is in regard to promotion, not the poor writing. Often these promotional articles are just written at a different quality - agreed circumstantial at best, but not irrelevant. For your direct comment "That the org's POV is cited in articles on matters being protested is precisely an indicator of notability" does that mean that if a random Joe on the street gives a comment to a newspaper he is now notable? That's nonsense! Newspapers can, and will, take comments from anybody and any organization then print whatever ones get the most clicks. We should seek to distinguish between truly notable groups and ones that are good at getting quips in the paper.
LikeMeercats (
talk) 17:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Nice straw man. How about this? If a random Joe on the street is sought out for comment by a number of different mainstream sources specifically to give comment on a range of issues that said random Joe has taken an official position on, then he's not really a random Joe, so your example is completely irrelevant. Newspapers absolutely will not take comments from anybody, and especially will not take comments repeatedly from the same source unless that source's POV is notable.
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I disagree, I just don't think being quoted in a newspaper is grounds for notability. A lot of people, organizations, and randoms are frequently quoted, it does not make them authoritative or important. It seems like this one is pretty personal to you so I'll let it be, but maintain that these do not meet requirements for notability.
LikeMeercats (
talk) 18:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment -- It seems like it's personal to me?! What are you talking about? Please, enlighten me. What did I say that makes you think that this "seems like it's pretty personal to me"? What kind of weird accusation is that? I never heard of this organization before I saw this AfD and I never expect to hear of it after the discussion is over. Please try to refrain from making unfounded insinuations.
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 18:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Frankly, I'm astonished anybody can read through that list generously posted by
User:Rosguill and think that meets the requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Emphasis on Significant.
LikeMeercats (
talk) 17:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as per the analysis by Rosguill.
Dom from Paris (
talk) 19:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I read the first item on the Rosegill list - see my comment above - and it is SIGCOV. out of time for now, but I think close examination of topic, searches for sources is warranted.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 12:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. I am so appreciative when a run-down of sources is analyzed, as the nom has done. Unfortunately, I have to concur with
E.M.Gregory that the first source indeeds meets criteria. Therefore I have to question the analysis and assume the article meets
WP:GNG at the least.
Ifnord (
talk) 01:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep There is sufficient coverage to pass
WP:GNG, even though some of it is in passages of a few sentences within articles about wider topics. Relatively brief material can be
WP:SIGCOV, and there is a lot of it.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 02:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to
Skimo. Tone 21:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge Into the article about the show. Good nom by
User:Kintetsubuffalo but I think we can spare the deletion and keep the info on another page.
LikeMeercats (
talk) 00:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 21:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Article on a defunct, minor league basketball team that never played a single game has only one questionably RS source. A BEFORE finds no references.
Chetsford (
talk) 21:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Yet another minor-league basketball team in a questionable league which never got off the ground. Nate•(
chatter) 02:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG. Article on a minor league team has no references. A BEFORE search finds only references to the defunct NHL team of the same name.
Chetsford (
talk) 21:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect per Aoziwe, as it is a likely search term, but not independently notable.
SportingFlyertalk 10:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I think that a lot of people who would put in that search term would not be looking for information about a football or defunct hockey team.
Ifnord (
talk) 01:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect per Aoziwe. While a lot of people who type this title will be disappointed by the redirect target, some will be satisfied, and
WP:CHEAP. wumbolo^^^ 22:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 21:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Wikipedia is not here to help people promote their clients
[22].
duffbeerforme (
talk) 12:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Cannot find anywhere near sufficient
WP:NEXIST to support GNG or MUSIC.
Aoziwe (
talk) 12:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete.Feels like the article is just for promotion as there is very less sources to suggest the person and his music so fails
WP;GNG and
WP:MUSICBIOVinodbasker (
talk) 12:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete does not pass WP:MUSICBIO or other equivalent standard for notability.
shaidar cuebiyar (
talk) 10:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted under
WP:CSD G4
Mjroots (
talk) 09:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't mind whether this article is deleted or not. Similar article
List of Formula One drivers who have achieved a podium finish was deleted in May (
AfD), but the !votes were about 50/50. The main reason I've nominated the article is that it contains about 300 incorrect table sort keys which either need to be fixed or deleted; I'm happy to invest the effort to do this, but I'd like to avoid a situation where I invest a couple of hours effort in the article and it then gets deleted, so I thought I'd start the deletion discussion first.
DH85868993 (
talk) 20:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as per the other AfD,
WP:NOTSTATS applies here. Second place is the first loser, which means third place is the second loser. List of winners is notable, but list of podium finishers not so much.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 21:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination and user above. This is not the first time that such or similar list is created and they all get deleted at some point. –
Sabbatino (
talk) 21:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. Speedy deletion should be request since this has been deleted through AFD before.
Tvx1 13:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per all of the above. --
Marbe166 (
talk) 08:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Per discussion at
WikiProject NFL, bringing this article to AfD. Reasons mentioned at that discussion include
WP:INDISCRIMINATE,
WP:OR, and the fact that there is no clear definition of what is considered "lore". This article has numerous edit wars over what should and shouldn't be included.
Natg 19 (
talk) 20:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. –
Sabbatino (
talk) 08:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No clear criteria for what is and is not "lore," which results in a lot of
original research and either unsourced or poorly sourced entries Frank AnchorTalk 12:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
While I believe that we should Delete the article, some of the data collected in there is pretty interesting and it seems to be researched and sourced well. I recommend that before a hasty deletion takes place that we find a way to best use the information in the article and merge it among perhaps a large number of other articles. It seems that they belong there... --
Paul McDonald (
talk) 13:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment most of the entries on this page have their own Wikipedia articles that provide more information than is listed on this page. Frank AnchorTalk 13:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. At best this is an attempt to chronologically organize NFL-related articles without any specific criteria for inclusion other than a vague "it's what people talk about." Most of the content is discussed in more depth at their respective articles and/or articles linked from
History of the National Football League. --Kinut/c 21:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Totally non-notable defunct local business. The refs establish that it existed, moved, then closed, and that's it. Zero notice outside of the Seattle area, which means it fails
WP:N for lack of a non-local audience. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 19:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
There are quite a few recipes on the web but I can't find any RS that discuss history, culture, or any aspect of this drink other than preparation and serving.
Kendall-K1 (
talk) 19:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - the article does not cite any references or sources.
Vorbee (
talk) 20:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. I am not saying that nobody ever did this, or something similar, but no references are given to verify the claim never mind demonstrate that it is notable. There is nothing in the search links to suggest that it is notable and the vast majority of the Google hits fail to verify that this drink is consumed in the stupid way described in the article, although they do verify that a drink of this name does exist. Most suggest it is drunk out of a glass, like a normal drink drunk by a normal person. The few that do agree with the article (
1,
2) are not RS and they agree to a suspicious degree. This suggests that either the article content was largely pasted from there or vice-versa. Anyway, this is no good however you look at it. --
DanielRigal (
talk) 23:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete a dictionary definition not an encyclopedic article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article clearly fails
WP:GNG as there is no reliable source to suggest the history and preparation of the drink and thus fails notability.
Vinodbasker (
talk) 12:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - the article cites no sources, and has the tag saying that this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music. A Google search for Tronic does not throw up many hits for this band.
Vorbee (
talk) 08:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Michig (
talk) 08:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
No coverage in reliable sources, does not meet
WP:GNG,
WP:NAUTHOR,
WP:NMUSICBIO. Appears to have been created by the subject, whose argument in favor of keeping the article on the talk page is that it would be great to have, finally, credit on Wikipedia for the work I did with the band Almah', which is
not a valid reason for creating an article. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Almah (band) have listed the subject as a co-writer so an article was built to reflect this
Note: The above comment was added by the subject of the article. --
Darth Mike(talk) 19:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Article creator, this could make some contribution to notability if it is covered in SECONDARY,
WP:RS. Overall, what we lack here is
WP:SIGCOV of this writer.18:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete as
WP:PROMO for a non-notable poet/lyricist, possibly
WP:TOOSOON. Searches failed to find secondary. Note that the Q&A cited on page is a blog post, and the lyrics credits are PRIMARY. Fails
WP:SIGCOV. fails
WP:AUTHOR.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 14:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
This one ought not to have slipped past AfC.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 14:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Michig (
talk) 08:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I can't find any reliable sources covering the subject. Even the provided link to
his biography page on African Success just says that his biography hasn't been written yet. Per
WP:WORLDVIEW, I'd encourage French-speaking editors (and particularly those familiar with Senegalese sources) to find coverage, but in the absence of sources I have to conclude that the subject does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:NAUTHOR. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I feel that it is more productive to encourage English-speaking editors from the French Wikipedia ;) Regards,
Comte0 (
talk) 00:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, the French WP article has no references. It does contain some links to databases of which libraries hold the subject's books, but if I'm reading
this correctly, it seems that these databases claim that very few libraries hold them. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete so few hits come up in searches, and they are so inadequate, that I am confident that there is no notability here.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 02:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability.
Deb (
talk) 13:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Even his own webpage, which lists some of his works, doesn't claim notability - no awards, etc. Perhaps
WP:TOOSOON.
Ifnord (
talk) 02:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Numerically, it's 15:6 in favor of keeping the article. Deletion discussions are not votes, but are closed according to whatever rough consensus emerges, with opinions weighted based on the strength of the arguments expressed, in the light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This means that I need to determine whether there are any unusually compelling opinions in favor of deletion, or any weakly argued opinions against it. I don't think that this is the case here. The issue here is notability, as described at
WP:GNG, which is essentially a function of a person's coverage in reliable sources. Most of the "delete" opinions do not address the sources that have been found to cover the subject, such as those provided in this discussion by
Debra Soh herself, and one "delete" opinion has to be discounted for being just a personal attack on Debra Soh. This leads me to give less weight to the "delete" side and find that we have a consensus to keep the article. Sandstein 09:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete I do not think that this person meets the standards for Notability. I raised this point on the talk page two months ago and it has not been addressed. I believe that the point still holds - "On what grounds does Soh meet
WP:JOURNALIST? I don't think a single interview and an off-hand mention in an article about a larger movement meets the criteria 'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.'. Neither has she produced any significant new concepts, theories or techniques, or a well-known body of work."
TropicalFishes (
talk) 18:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
See below, I have changed my opinion to keep.
TropicalFishes (
talk) 03:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
She's published dozens of articles in such publications as the Globe and Mail, Quillette, and Playboy. Her interview with Dave Rubin has a total of 370K views. Her interview with Joe Rogan has 1.6 million views. She hosts a podcast which has 40K listens on SoundCloud alone. In what universe is she not notable? Signed - me. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
45.72.202.220 (
talk) 18:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Joe Rogan draws a large number of views regardless of who his guest is, since the Joe Rogan Experience is one of the most popular podcasts in the world. Her own podcast is much smaller in its audience, and has only received a small amount of media coverage. It also seems to only have 5 episodes.
135.23.140.125 (
talk) 22:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
No number of views or likes or streams any piece of content has on any social networking platform has anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's notability criteria. We count how many pieces of
reliable source coverage about the person do or don't exist in real media, not how many people did or didn't view or listen to a podcast or a SoundCloud stream.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Soh is known for having contrarian views, grounded in science. She's one of a select group of legit, credentialed scientists who have studied
Gender dysphoria in children and dared to publicly ask the question, "How young is too young to transition?" To me, this makes her significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.
Seandevelops (
talk) 22:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
This doesn't appear to be accurate. I can find no research that Dr. Soh has done that is related to gender dysphoria in children, though she has done research on a number of other topics (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Soh%20DW%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=26494360). Her work in journalism / science communication is unrelated to her research work. Many clinicians have expressed concerns about the age at which medical gender transition is appropriate.
Ray Blanchard and
Kenneth Zucker are two examples, who both meet
WP:ACADEMIC because of their research contributions. Far from being a select group, their views were the norm in the field until fairly recently.
TropicalFishes (
talk) 00:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi
TropicalFishes, I didn't mean to imply you would find original research on that topic by Debra Soh. But as a science journalist, I believe her contributions in that area (and others) could be considered to be unusual and notable. She does not sidestep taboo topics.
#3 - Too Young To Transition? My two cents, anyway.
Seandevelops (
talk) 05:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
In my experience of seeing her writings' influence in online forums, it seems to be that Soh is more than adequately notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Some indication of this is provided in
this article in Psychology Today. I would strongly oppose having this article deleted.
Yahboo (
talk) 22:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The guidelines for what makes a creative professional notable are unambiguous (
WP:JOURNALIST). Her work being well-received in online forums does not provide evidence that she is regarded as an important figure. A single magazine interview doesn't provide evidence of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TropicalFishes (
talk •
contribs) 01:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Unsure - She has also published 4 articles in Scientific American, plus articles in the LA Times, CBC News, the Independent (UK), etc, and been interviewed (or had interviews published) in other languages and countries (eg Brazil, Chile). She is cited by other journalists to some extent, but I'm not sure that she meets WP:JOURNALIST, yet.
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 10:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. A journalist's notability is measured in terms of the extent to which she is the subject of
reliable source coverage — but of the twelve footnotes here, six of them represent her speaking or writing about herself or other things; four more are glancing namechecks of her existence in articles whose primary subjects are not her; one is a
primary source directory listing; and the last is her own
LinkedIn. A journalist does not become notable by getting interviewed, or by getting cited by other journalists, or by being the bylined author of content about other things — she becomes notable by being the subject of
reliable source coverage about her, written in the third person by somebody else, but exactly zero of the sources here represent any such thing.
Bearcat (
talk) 06:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article needs improvement to be sure, but Soh's notability, as per Bearcat's accurate description of it, has only grown in the past six months and can likely be expected to grow much more in the coming years. Maybe it wasn't created to the best of standards, but deleting the page entirely seems radically premature.
Jg2904 (
talk) 20:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
If you think that she doesn't currently meet the standards for notability but might in the future, then it seems like the right response would be to remove the page until she unambiguously does meet the standards. The discussion can always be revisited if circumstances change. However, it doesn't seem like she currently qualifies as notable, given the criteria set by the site, which apply equally to everybody.
TropicalFishes (
talk) 22:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
No,
TropicalFishes, and sorry for any confusion; I think the article does meet notability standards, even if it's hitherto not in the best condition. I believe the article needs improvements, not deletion, as per
JFG's remarks. Also, you have to tag me in your responses, otherwise I won't get notified about them.
Jg2904 (
talk) 20:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. She’s been written about in the New York Times and we’re arguing if she’s notable? Lol. This is genuinely embarrassing for Wikipedia. Try to make your grudges a bit less obvious next time.
Fig (
talk) 20:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
She has not "been written about in the New York Times". One New York Times article about other people glancingly mentions Debra Soh's name a single time in the process of not being about Debra Soh, which is not the same thing as notability-conferring coverage about her.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. She's regularly published in Canada's biggest national newspaper, as well as Playboy & Quillette. She's been written about repeatedly in the New York Times alone, her appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast has 1.6 million views. She is noted for defending James Damore & she's also a notable voice in the criticism on how transgenderism is studied in academia. It should be noted she's often been targeted for censorship (YouTube just banned an ad for one of her videos with We The Internet for example), this AfD might be part of such a campaign. --
TheTruthiness (
talk) 23:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Where she's published has no bearing on notability — the notability test is not passed by being the bylined author of content about other things, it's passed by being the written-about subject of content by other people. And it wouldn't matter if the podcast had eleventy squillion bazillion views, either — if the correct kind of sourcing to get her past
WP:GNG is not present in the article, then no number of views or likes or streams on any piece of unreliable social networking content counts as "inherently" notable enough to exemot the correct kind of sourcing to get her past GNG from having to be present. It's also not our job to concern ourselves with whether an article subject perceives themselves as being "censored" or not — our job is to concern ourselves with whether the person is properly sourceable to the correct kind of coverage needed to make them notable, not with anybody's political agenda in either direction.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Bearcat: We've heard you. Please refrain from
bludgeoning the discussion with further repeats of the same argument. —
JFGtalk 08:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. She is a widely published writer, research scientist, and public intellectual (of a sort). Many people view and refer to her work, and I personally searched for a Wikipedia article about her the first time I saw her name mentioned in an article.
Aaron Muir Hamilton <[email protected]> (
talk) 02:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
People do not get Wikipedia articles by being widely published, they get Wikipedia articles by having other people write about them. Yet the kind of sources it takes to make her notable have not been and are not being shown here at all — wonder why that is, could it be that they don't exist?
Bearcat (
talk) 02:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
In addition to the media appearances and interviews listed by others, here are 10 links to coverage written by other journalists about me, of which I am the main subject. I'd be happy to provide more.
Keep This actually convinces me that there's enough coverage to merit an article. Since most of the stories from mainstream sources (except Politiken / Discover / Psychology Today) are quoting you rather than directly about you, they were difficult to turn up with a google search of your name. This list will be valuable in helping to improve the article - thanks for taking the time to compile it.
TropicalFishes (
talk) 03:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. The arguments that she is not yet sufficiently "notable" seem rather petty and ignorant. She seems to be already adequately notable for there to be a Wikipedia article about her.
Yahboo (
talk) 02:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Soh is primarily known for her opinion pieces in various publications, and is not widely cited by other authors. She has been mentioned briefly in a number of articles, but nothing that would suggest she is any more notable than many other journalists who do not have their own Wikipedia articles. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but neither the references given in the article nor any other sources I could find support the case for her being notable.
Hpesoj00 (
talk) 05:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep – While a lot of the article's sources are indeed citing the subject's own writings, which do not qualify her for notability, her coverage in The New York Times by itself passes
WP:GNG. A case could also be made that her work has attracted "significant critical attention", per criterion 4(c) of
WP:AUTHOR, or that she is "regarded as an important figure" per criterion 1 (although it is debatable who regards her as important). I hate to delve into
WP:OTHERSTUFF, but we have hundreds if not thousands of articles about less-notable journalists, academics and scientists. —
JFGtalk 09:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
If that case could be made, people should provide evidence for it by adding reliable sources to the article. As it stands, I disagree that the NYT coverage suffices to meet
WP:GNG, because both are passing mentions to her or her work. In neither case is she the focus of the article.
TropicalFishes (
talk) 18:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - This appears to be a rather childish attempt by two individuals to remove a page by a known and frequently published author, journalist, and neuroscientist. Wikipedia users rely us to provide accurate information, without injecting our biases or personal points of view. The article clearly needs further editing, but that's no reason to delete it. I agree with JFG. Keep. —
Omegabyte7talk 09:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - A well known neuroscientist, who is also a journalist and writer. Passes
WP:GNG and
WP:AUTHOR. Searching turns up numerous reliable sources.
Netherzone (
talk) 03:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not particularly well-known as a neuroscientist more than the average neuroscience grad with a PhD and has a verified Twitter account. This does not make someone notable just by the virtue of her following and her verified status. --
Parkbenchmonster (
talk) 03:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Straw man. No one is arguing that she would pass N as a neuroscience researcher. The argument is that she earned the doctorate, then segued into a notable writing career, as
Edward Rothstein,
Charles Krauthammer and many ohters have done.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 13:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Many of the reasons for deletion have already been outlined above, but it is worth noting that even within her opinion pieces, that she claims is scientifically valid, she uses evidence that is either put in the wrong context or has been repeatedly debunked. She has a large following as a contrarian, transphobic writer, but this does not make her notable than the next reactionary grifter. Controversy is not a measure of notability. --
DiasporaCryptid (
talk) 03:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi
DiasporaCryptid, a closer look and an open mind will reveal to you that Soh argues in good faith, and most certainly is not transphobic. I say this as someone who is politically liberal (if that grants me any extra credibility ). Thanks.
Seandevelops (
talk) 08:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Whether or not you think her arguments are good doesn't affect whether or not she is notable. Plenty of people who might be labeled 'transphobic' meet the guidelines for notability, and so they have articles. However, I agree with you that contrarian views (without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources) are not a stand-in for notability.
TropicalFishes (
talk) 04:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia editors don't get to decide whether something is factually correct or not. Secondary sources do and wiki articles present them in unbiased manner. Its astonishing that this has to be said, its basic rule and I would recommend anyone who isn't aware of it to take time off their day and re-read them.
EllsworthSK (
talk) 09:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Science journalist, sexologist, neuroscientist. Published in
Globe and Mail,
Playboy,
Scientific American, at least a dozen others. Appearances on several major podcasts:
Joe Rogan Experience,
Rubin Report,
Savage Lovecast,
Hidden Brain. Cited in
New York Times articles by
David Brooks and
Bari Weiss. The article by Weiss alone should pass
WP:GNG. Note how the guideline defines "significant coverage" and compare with how Weiss covered Soh. Soh is an influential thinker, an influential writer, and in contrast to above, surprisingly more notable than the "average neuroscience grad with a PhD and verified Twitter account". Keep.
Seandevelops (
talk) 08:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:GNG defines "significant coverage" as, "addresses the topic directly and in detail", and, "more than a trivial mention". I would probably consider the mention of her in the NYT article (one short paragraph describing her as one of two "other figures" associated with the IDW) to be trivial, and I certainly wouldn't say it covered her in detail. Most other mentions of her in the media are even more trivial, and are usually quotes taken from her opinion pieces which, again, I wouldn't say qualify her as "widely cited", in support of
WP:AUTHOR.
Hpesoj00 (
talk) 14:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep reading below that first paragraph, you'll find a couple more. While not the main topic of the source material [and doesn't need to be], I'd say the coverage is non-trivial with respect to the topic at hand. The coverage is quite clearly something in between
Bill Clinton and
Robert Sobel in
WP:GNG-speak.
Seandevelops (
talk) 20:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Published author, sourced wiki article. I can't understand why someone would nominate this for deletion. While No-Gatekeeping isn't Wikipedia official rule, it goes without saying that this shouldn't be tool for any editor.
EllsworthSK (
talk) 09:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep passes
WP:SIGCOV. And I do think it meaningful that she has been getting hundreds of hits ever day for for a long while - page is reliably sourced and useful to readers.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 21:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per Bearcat's reasoning.
Rab V (
talk) 23:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I see 4 interviews (
Quillette,
Joe Rogan,
Psych Today,
some Brazilian site), and a bunch of mentions in various large media. Soh herself provided a list of these above (>=10). Also, contrary to stated above,
Politiken is a mainstream media, large general purpose Danish newspaper with center-left leanings.
Deleet (
talk) 08:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Michig (
talk) 08:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I could not see a single IRS on this subject. Fails GNG. At best way TOOSOON.
Aoziwe (
talk) 11:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Member of several ensembles, toured nationally and has been reviewed in various media. Content and refs add recently support notability per WP:MUSICBIO.shaidar cuebiyar (
talk) 05:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I have reversed my position per duffbeerformore below.
shaidar cuebiyar (
talk) 10:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
AmericanAir88(
talk) 11:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Nosebagbear (
talk) 18:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
May be a member of several ensembles but WP:MUSIC talks of notable ensembles which is not the case here. Touring lacks coverage. Reviewed in various media? I see one OK review, the AU Review. That is not various.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 13:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I would have to say
WP:TOOSOON - the AU Review talks of her as promising, hopefully more to come - and as others have noted, that's the only in-depth review.
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 13:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm a bit torn on this one so I'm bringing it to AfD for more editors to weigh in. On the one hand, there's no in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources (none cited in the article, and I wasn't able to find anything else online) so they don't meet
WP:GNG, and the subject's filmography does not appear to be significant or well-known enough to meet
WP:DIRECTOR. Their strongest claim to notability is having won awards at the
Best of Nollywood Awards and Abuja International Film Festival. The latter doesn't seem to be particularly notable, but the former festival does appear to get extensive coverage in reliable Nigerian sources like Vanguard. However, "Movie with best social message" doesn't really sound like a top-tier award, and I am thus skeptical that this meets the criteria in
WP:ANYBIO of receiving a well-known and significant award or honor. Thus, I am currently leaning toward delete, but would appreciate dissenting opinions per
WP:WORLDVIEWsigned, Rosguilltalk 18:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: I first noted issues of notability in the talk page, while doing page reviewing, and there was no response. This article, in its current form, does not meet the
WP:AUTHOR requirements.--
1l2l3k (
talk) 15:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I usually !vote keep for a filmmaker that has directed at least 3 notable films. I tried searching for his films in the regular Nollywood review sites, but the results wasn't so impressive. Yawa:Nemesis, which is a short film and Love is a Prank won/nom some modest awards that should automatically mean there should be some reviews for it on the internet, but I'm not seeing that. I found a review on
Stop! from
Nollywood Reinvented, which also got an
AMVCA nomination. Excess Luggage and Two Sides of a Coin also have some decent reviews on the internet. I don't know, I would have voted keep if not for the peculiarities of this article.
HandsomeBoy (
talk) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
So after a fair bit of research, I don't see how this person can meet our inclusion criteria. The claims of grammy nomination/wins are...loose at best and the sources contradict the actual claims of notability, like working on an award winning album, specifically
here. I can't find anything else in the way of coverage or sources.
Praxidicae (
talk) 16:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Nosebagbear (
talk) 17:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Having a Grammy nomination is notable for a musician, but this article just doesn’t meet Wikipedia standards.
Trillfendi (
talk) 18:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. The grammy nomination is a feeble claim in that he was given co-producer credit on a single track off an album containing 17 songs and 12 other credited producers. There is no significant independent sources to confirm his importance to the the nomination, nor does his involvement even merit an entry on Grammy's website, where they typically catalog nominees. Same case with the Dove award and nominations, often sharing credit with multiple people via the presence of a single track.
ShelbyMarion (
talk) 14:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Nosebagbear (
talk) 17:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:NFF draftified once already but moved back with insufficient sources. In a before search only routine stuff like this
[23].
WP:TOOSOONDom from Paris (
talk) 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Draft move back to draft for AFC as there is not much coverage now but it is released 8 November so there could be reviews in reliable sources then in which case it can be accepted at AFC. Any moves back without AFC could be reverted if this AFD closes on drafting, thanks
Atlantic306 (
talk) 13:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Atlantic306: The page has already been draftified once and the creator recreated it and so effectively objected to the draftification and as such I do not think we can DRAFTIFY again hence this AfD as per
WP:DRAFTIFY.
Dom from Paris (
talk) 14:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)reply
An AFD decision to draft carries more weight as per the second paragraph of
WP:DRAFTIFY: "Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion, indirectly following deletion and a request for undeletion. When performing such a move, link to the original deletion discussion and the decision to move the article into draftspace. Authors should try to understand and respond to the reason for moving to draft status, and then use the AfC submission process to have the page moved back to mainspace. The author is encouraged to ask other editors questions, or to use the Help me template." so it suggests a move back to mainspace after an AFD draftify has to be through AFC, thanks
Atlantic306 (
talk) 15:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Ah Ok, that makes sense, I must admit I hadn't read it like that because this "indirectly following deletion and a request for undeletion." threw me!
Dom from Paris (
talk) 16:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Szzuk (
talk) 16:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Move Back to draft. Has quite a few notable actors so there is a large chance it will receive suitable coverage.
AlessandroTiandelli333 (
talk) 17:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with
User:Domdeparis initial nomination. Poorly constructed article, actors aren't especially notable, and notability is not inherited. Even if actors are notable, doesn't mean the film is.
LikeMeercats (
talk) 17:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Szzuk (
talk) 16:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete In addition to the above, a good number of the references are dead links.
LikeMeercats (
talk) 17:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - fails GNG
Spiderone 13:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - NOTDIRECTORY.
∯WBGconverse 20:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ignoring socks, clear consensus to delete. --
RoySmith(talk) 19:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Deprodded without rationale, and very little improvement. Might be a case of
WP:TOOSOON, but currently doesn't meet either
WP:GNG or
WP:NACTOR. Also, written in a highly promotional tone.
Onel5969TT me 16:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom - TOOSOON at present, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 15:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom
Spiderone 09:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep satisfy WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Has independent sources from The Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, Malayala Manorama. He has also a cult following in social media platforms, they are known by the name "Shiyas Army".
137.97.79.204 (
talk) 06:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC) comment - SPA IP with only 4 edits, only here and on the subject article.
Onel5969TT me 11:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep the article already has a reference and significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, i agree that the article surely need some improvements. satisfy WP:NACTOR as he represented a country in World level competition, participated in popular television reality show and become the finalist as second runner-up, acted in movies and short films etc. (
Hbinu (
talk) 11:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC) ) Struck per
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hbinu. –
Athaenara ✉ 04:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep he is popular in kerala and middle east countries (
37.245.239.159 (
talk) 11:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC))reply
Agreed and thanks
Onel5969 for starting an SPI, My spidey senses tell me this is all one editor so yeah thanks for doing that. –
Davey2010Talk 13:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The article was edited by some random user that made the article to appear in promotional light. Being the creator of this page, I have made the necessary deletion and corrections with proper references, and I believe that this should be sufficient to keep the article factually relevant. (
Emissaryj (
talk) 14:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC) ) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Emissary j (
talk •
contribs) reply
Delete or redirect to Bigg Boss Malayalam. Fails
WP:NACTOR and
WP:GNG. At most, this is
WP:BLP1E, but finished 3rd so there is no lasting notability from this. Ravensfire (
talk) 20:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The article has been further updated with recent events(with references) that has happened in
Shiyas Kareem's television career. (
Emissaryj (
talk) 06:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Emissary j (
talk •
contribs) reply
You have already voted Keep, so to avoid confusion I have struck out your previous Keep.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 06:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and fails NACTOR and GNG, I redirected this page to
Bigg Boss Malayalam per
WP:ATD-R as I found it non-notable by WP standard but it was removed by the creator so I'm afraid this will continue.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 06:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Can you specifically show how this person meets
WP:NACTOR? Not just saying they meet it, but going point by point and giving specific examples of how they meet each point please. Ravensfire (
talk) 16:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The article includes references that satisfies
WP:NACTOR as per the following points;
1. The career section covers his filmography and his participation in television shows (Satisfies condition number 1 in
WP:NACTOR).
2. The 'External links' section includes a link to his fan page which signifies that he has a large fan base (Satisfies condition number 2 in
WP:NACTOR).
3. His participation and achievements at the Mr. Grand Sea World competition in 2018 shows that he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (Satisfies condition number 3 in
WP:NACTOR).Emissary j(
Emissaryj (
talk) 05:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC) ) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Emissary j (
talk •
contribs) reply
1. Sources fail to show significant roles in multiple shows. Minor parts don't cut it. Fails Criteria 1.
2. Linking to a fan club is not a way to show significant fan base - you need multiple reliable sources from
WP:SECONDARY sources. Fails criteria 2.
3. Competing at a show is not unique, prolific or innovative, especially when they don't even win.
So sorry, no way is
WP:NACTOR met or even close to being met. Ravensfire (
talk) 14:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
1. Having entered the show
Bigg Boss Malayalam on the 14th day, he went on to reach the final. This represents that he had a significant role in the 100-day show. He is a model who has recently started acting in movies, so his acting roles might not have been significant enough to satisfy
WP:NACTOR, but his significant presence in the television show
Bigg Boss Malayalam does satisfy
WP:ENTERTAINER.
2. Under the list of references, the reference number 9 is an article that describes the fan following
Shiyas Kareem has. The article is in Malayalam. I am not sure if you would be comfortable trusting an auto-translated article, but for verification you can cross-check with an admin who has proficiency in reading Malayalam. This should satisfy
WP:CELEBRITY.
3. Competing at a show might not be unique, but representing a nation at an annual international event can be considered unique, particularly if you are the first person from the state of
Kerala to do so. This should be enough to satisfy
WP:NMODEL, along with references that cite that he has been a professional model since 2010.Emissary j(
Emissaryj (
talk) 07:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC) )reply
Re:#2 – Malayalilife.com doesn't seem to be a reliable source to me.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 07:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
GSS Malayalilife.com is a website that primarily focuses on entertainment and lifestyle news of the people of
Kerala. Most of the sources that are usually considered reliable might not cover every event that happens in the state. Being a regional news, Malayalilife has covered the events that occurred(mentioned through reference 9 in the article), which the other major sources such as
Malayala Manorama,
Mathrubhumi,
Times of India,
The Week etc. might have not been able to furnish in their articles.Emissary j(
Emissaryj (
talk) 08:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC) )reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Very promotional article, without a single in-depth source. Searches turned up virtually zero in-depth coverage so fails
WP:GNG, and also does not meet
WP:NSCHOLAR. He's accomplished, simply not notable. There also might be a COI issue with the editor who created the article, since the photo in the article was their own work.
Onel5969TT me 10:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
I think you are correct about the COI and will warn the article creator as a prelude to possible draftifying.
Deb (
talk) 11:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Deb - I thought about draftifying, but in my
WP:BEFORE didn't really find enough to show notability.
Onel5969TT me 12:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
The creator seems to be a very occasional editor. If we draftify it and he doesn't improve it, it will be deleted after a certain length of time in any case. Some of his other creations don't bear much scrutiny either. I'll leave it a couple of days before deciding what to do about this one, just in case someone else comes up with some better content.
Deb (
talk) 14:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Szzuk (
talk) 16:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom
Spiderone 09:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails GNG as well as NSCHOLAR, comprehensively.
∯WBGconverse 09:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Only no consensus because there still aren't any reliable sources in the article itself... Sandstein 09:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Cvetković is not a relevant or notable person. The only reference shown does not show any relevance and does not comply with
WP:SIGCOV.
Vercelas(quaestiones?) 18:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
On the last link, appear only on a cover of a known magazine does not grant immediate relevant. Please note that
this reference just names it and
this is less than a journalistic note. --
Vercelas(quaestiones?) 16:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)reply
You don't need to know much Serbian to figure out that "Ekskluzivni intervju" means "Exclusive interview". While an interview may not be very useful as a source for facts (except for her own statements and opinions), it certainly helps establish notability and SIGCOV. A respectable magazine does not perform "exclusive interviews" with little-known people. Actually, she was featured in over a dozen issues of several fashion magazines, see
http://www.designscene.net/female-models/mina-cvetkovic for the full list. I'm not into the fashion scene at all, but I the sheer range of sources I found negates your statement that she is "not a relevant or notable person".
No such user (
talk) 09:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
For more prestige possess a publisher, an interview should only be used as a source to support a statement, not to demonstrate relevance. An interview is merely the publication of someone's personal objections. Wikipedia is not a directory or annex of any model or similar. Probably dozens, or hundreds of models, mostly devoid of enciclopedic relevance, have posed in such magazines, such as Elle. --
Vercelas(quaestiones?) 23:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SamSailor 18:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dom from Paris (
talk) 16:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep, reading the article says delete, the refs above say keep.
Szzuk (
talk) 09:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Sourced almost entirely to his CV or own work and fails
WP:GNGTheroadislong (
talk) 16:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt. Unambiguous
WP:PROMO, previously BLPPRODed but recreated by the same SPA, blanked and recreated after AfC submission was rejected for copyvio, article creator continues to add copyvio text to the article despite being reverted multiple times. It is a waste of editor and administrator time.
Bakazaka (
talk) 19:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:NBIO. No coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources are all self-published.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk) 23:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete too much promotion here.
Qualitist (
talk) 09:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus that individual doesn't need to be redirected to event via both BIO1E but also occurrence in more than one notable event.
(non-admin closure)Nosebagbear (
talk) 08:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The WP:BIO1E said that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Besides, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. I believe this article meets such rules.
Tokyo subway sarin attack is highly significant, Hirose also plays a very important role in this event. I understand WP:OCE is not a good idea. However, participants in 9/11 such as
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Mohamed Atta is even related with a featured article
Jihad (song). To be honest, it's a little bit irony.
Hirose was involved in a series of events, not only the
Tokyo subway sarin attack, but also the secret assault rifles production by Aum Shinrikyo (
ja:自動小銃密造事件) and production of other weapons in Aum Shinrikyo. Please see
this and
this
I understand that many editors can't read articles in Japanese or Chinese, but a lack in articles/documents in English doesn't mean this article doesn't meet the notability standard. --
クオン·
翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 15:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
KeepUser:Kuon.Haku's point regarding language barrier is a reasonable one. While it will stop us from understanding or getting as much context as possible, we should strive to include as much information in English as possible.
LikeMeercats (
talk) 17:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - per WP:BIO1E and WP:GNG.
BabbaQ (
talk) 19:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
restore redirect,
WP:ONEEVENT. Unless the article is significantly expanded, topic is entirely covered in redirect target.
TheLongTone (
talk) 13:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Involved in a series of events in Aum Shinrikyo. Significant and continuing coverage even with English sources alone.
Icewhiz (
talk) 14:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep because his activities in the years before the subway attack are notable.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Unsourced article on an actor who doesn’t seem too noteworthy. No sources to support his birth or death. Merely serves as a rundown of some of his appearances.
Rusted AutoParts 14:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Of the appearances shown in his IMDB list, only one (in "There Will Be Blood") appears to be at all notable, and even there it is more a peripheral role than a starring one. Doesn't look like he meets
WP:NACTOR.
PohranicniStraze (
talk) 15:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia does not aim to be a comprehensive directory of actors.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
|I favour redirecting this to
Justin Broaderick discography & did so; this was reverted with a claim that 'articles from Exclaim, Stereogum, and Fact that focus on the EP.' None of these are anything more than notices that this recording has been released. Nothing approaching any in-depth coverage.
TheLongTone (
talk) 14:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Fact, Stereogum, The Quietus, Exclaim!, and Metal Injection all found the EP notable enough to write about. These articles offer enough substance to support a section beyond a lead. What's more, this is an EP, not an album, so the requirements for notability shouldn't be as steep. It's my opinion that these sources are non-trivial. Note: I started the article a year ago.
CelestialWeevil(
talk) 14:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
CelestialWeevil: - not a response to your primary argument, but why should an EP have gentler notability requirements than an album?
Nosebagbear (
talk) 19:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Nosebagbear: I read on some rule page once that older albums require less sources to be notable than newer ones (sorry, I don't have the link right now). I figure smaller albums (EPs) could be treated the same way, but with size instead of age. Maybe not, though.
CelestialWeevil(
talk) 19:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
The Grid: I wish I was, but I don't think so. I'll have to look further.
CelestialWeevil(
talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: just because Broadrick says it's an EP doesn't make it one. At nine songs and 55 minutes, this would be classified as an album under the chart rules of any country and it should be treated as such.
Richard3120 (
talk) 12:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Richard3120: Good point! I'm inclined to agree with you. I wouldn't call it an EP, regardless of it being on the cover and it being referred to as such. But it is, so what can ya do.
CelestialWeevil(
talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Richard3120: It's definitely not an album either though, since every article I've seen refers to Rise Above as the official second album. Nothing Is Free is a compilation of tracks that originally weren't intended to sit on an album together.
PalmTreeEden (
talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
comment My point is that the souces don't write about this ep. They mention it, presumabably because they can find nothing of any interest to say about it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheLongTone (
talk •
contribs) 08:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Presumably because they can find nothing of interest to say about it? Sorry, but I can't buy that. I don't want to talk about the musical content here, it doesn't seem relevant, but there could be so many more reasons. Lack of time, lack of readership interest, an over-saturation of similar material. And even then, like I said, they write enough to warrant more prose than just a lead.
CelestialWeevil(
talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Can it at least be demonstrated that the EP meets one of the criteria listed in
WP:NALBUM? Note that criteria 1 would mean anything outside of reviews of the EP. –
The Grid (
talk) 16:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
The Grid: Sorry, but I'm not seeing where criterion 1 precludes reviews. The references are reliable (I verified with
WP:RSMUSIC), not self-published, and independent from the musician.
CelestialWeevil(
talk) 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Another update,
User:PalmTreeEden has added some reviews. I don't really think these are necessarily reputable sources, but someone might know better than me.
CelestialWeevil(
talk) 19:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
TheLongTone:@
CelestialWeevil: All three sources seemed unbiased (not promotional) enough to me. They all have a large following in the thousands on their Twitters so they aren't exactly fan blogs.
PalmTreeEden (
talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
PalmTreeEden: Right. I appreciate your help, by the way. I think the main issue is establishing credibility of the authors. Honestly, though, I don't know how to do that. I've never tried before.
CelestialWeevil(
talk) 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
So there are a few reviews (there's actually another
here) which easily pass Sig Cov. A couple fail independent (or at least, I'm fairly confident in that), Freq is an interesting example. It doesn't have any direct bias (since it generates no revenue), that said, whether it has sufficient editorial control to be reliable, I don't know. BrooklynVegan (and Freq) are fairly big - it's not just some random unreliable blogs. But whether they are sufficiently reliable to count, I'm just not sure.
I added that one and moved down the
Crack Magazine quote since it's de facto a review too.
PalmTreeEden (
talk) 20:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose I think there is now enough interview and review coverage from multiple independent sources to make the subject notable.
PalmTreeEden (
talk) 15:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Between redirect and keep. Sandstein 20:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The subject of the article may not meet the notability guidelines, it is not blatant enough to warrant a CSD.
Kb03 (
talk) 13:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
New Haven Line/weak keep. This was an incident requiring intervention by a member of U.S. Congress, and had minor lasting impact. As such it was barely notable, and should probably be redirected. Pinging @
Smellyshirt5:, the article's creator, and @
RoySmith and
Pi.1415926535:, who also discussed this matter at
Talk:New Haven Line.
epicgenius (
talk) 13:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC) Edit: a few words.
epicgenius (
talk) 14:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect as above. Newsworthy, yes; notable, no.
TheLongTone (
talk) 13:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)#REDIRECT [[]]reply
It is certainly notable as it effected the busiest rail line in the United States, at 125,000 daily week day riders, reducing service for 12 days, warranted a Congressional Hearing where the MTA's president was held accountable, and includes interesting technical details and findings from a public report that epicgenius and his associates seem to enjoy removing and hiding. Thanks.
Smellyshirt5 (
talk) 14:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. Before this article was created, I was thinking that a spin-out might be a reasonable way to resolve
the debate on the talk page. I'm not really convinced this is notable at all, but having it spun out into a side article is certainly preferable to putting this level of technical detail in the main article. To do so would be
WP:UNDUE and
WP:RECENTISM. Compare, for example, the coverage we have of an earlier event which inflicted a similar scale outage: The Great Blizzard of 1888 blocked the rail line in Westport, between the Saugatuck and Green's Farms stations. It took eight days to restore service, as snow was dug out by hand.. That's all we say about that. Why should this event require anything more than a similar two-sentence mention? Railroads are constantly having technical problems. Power outages.
Fires. Derailments. Crashes. Not every one is so notable that it requires this level of detailed coverage in an encyclopedia. But, as I said, if we are going to cover it, at least don't clutter up the (already overly detailed) main article. I have no particular objection to a redirect, but given that it's an unlikely search term, I can't argue that it's necessary. Certainly, merging this back into the main article would be inappropriate. --
RoySmith(talk) 14:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak arguments for political censorship: @RoySmith, why is it so imperative for you and your associates to remove the findings of a public report that impacted the busiest railroad in the United States, at 125,000 daily weekday riders, in the modern era, for 12 days. Not to mention that the MTA has consistently been in the news for poor maintenance and service, which makes this an even more important and enlightening issue for public consumption. The Wikipedia platform is meant to enlighten, not hide. Thanks for your concerns for the laymen.
Smellyshirt5 (
talk) 14:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
This is not political censorship, but this is better than having excessive detail in the main New Haven Line article. And please don't
ram your argument through. It's not likely to convince people to support keeping this article.
epicgenius (
talk) 16:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per RoySmith and explicitly not per Smellyshirt5 who is attacking all the wrong people in the interest of teh frees peechs. The information on the incident is encyclopedically useful, and RoySmith's statement here is a pretty good explanation of why a merge is not preferable. It's a thing that happened, it was noteworthy on a regional scale (maybe national considering it was investigated by an agency of the US government), has had a lasting (albeit minor) impact, and is sufficiently well-documented. Just for the hell of it I'm also going to throw in that
I like it, having been around for the
1995 Russell Hill incident and lived through the
2003 Northeast Blackout.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep though the background section is a little weak and could use some improvement, it definitely seems like a notable event that affected many people and attracted mass media coverage, and I think the article has potential to be an informative one with some improvement in the background section and perhaps some additional detail on the measures Metro-North took to provide alternative service. TITANOSAURUS 00:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Undecided but waving over redirection because this (and I'm sure it has been) is a common event, it happens in part in the UK but most of them don't reach national news. This would benefit being in the
New Haven Line article as per EpicGenius as in its current form it doesn't warrant an article of its own. Nightfury 15:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The content is clearly significant, and as RoySmith explained, a merge is impractical.
Smartyllama (
talk) 18:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep In this case, disputes at the New Haven Line page, length of that article, and
WP:SIGCOV of this particular power outage justify a separate page.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect I'm going to assume this is notable/that reliable secondary sources exist (other users have noted there may have been media coverage) from the consensus above so I'm not going to vote delete, but the sourcing is terrible and I think the article fails
WP:GNG on its face. I'm not sure any of the sources are truly independent of the incident, several are obviously primary, and I think this can be easily written up concisely in the main article.
SportingFlyertalk 05:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose redirect as WP:UNDUE.
WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. This outage received intense regional coverage, which continued for a couple of years. I just added a series of sources to the page from which article can be expanded. The fact that the page needs improvement is not a reason to delete (or effectively delete via redirect,) since sourcing, including SECONDARY sourcing does exist.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 11:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Don't understand the
WP:UNDUE link. All of the new articles are by the same author in the same time frame, which was all during the outage. I'm also finding this topic incredibly hard to search for on
WP:BEFORE grounds. It's not obvious on its face that this is a notable event to me, or that it can't be covered in a couple sentences on the main page.
SportingFlyertalk 11:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
thinking out loud I wonder whether the thing to do might be to broaden this article into a page about maintenance issues in the 2010s.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 11:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep -- this event was widely covered and affected the USA's busiest rail line. It appears to pass
WP:GNG. I am not against a redirect if consensus prefers that instead.
Redditaddict69(talk)(contribs) 02:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per nom. I looked for significant coverage and failed to find anything that would add up to WP:GNG.
Yilloslime (
talk) 23:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
Yunshui雲水 11:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Subject is not notable independent of his grandfather, Nelson Mandela. Provided coverage consists of interviews with the subject on the topic of his grandfather (including a book that the subject wrote about Nelson Mandela, which does not appear to be notable enough to qualify the subject via
WP:NAUTHOR). Coverage online appears to be more of the same, although I was able to find this coverage
[24] in the NY Daily News which attests that the subject won an award of dubious notability and was profiled as part of a BET feature. I was able to find BET's coverage
[25], which appears to be almost entirely an interview with the subject and is thus not sufficiently independent to satisfy notability guidelines. He's cooperated with celebrities to promote AIDS awareness, but coverage of Mandela in relation to this is not in-depth. He's also the founder of the Africa Rising foundation, which does not appear to be notable (note: there are several unrelated organizations that are also named Africa Rising). In sum, current coverage does not appear to pass
WP:GNG–there's a lot of smoke here due to his connection to Nelson Mandela and his eagerness to defend his grandfather's legacy in the public eye, but no flame. signed, Rosguilltalk 01:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Notability is not inherited, but I believe there is coverage in reliable sources with regards to his campaigning on AIDS. There is a lot of significant coverage about his life growing up with Nelson Mandela, which although is clearly related to Nelson Mandela they are specifically about Ndaba's own experiences. I think this makes them notable in their own right. Polyamorph (
talk) 21:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete Notability is not inherited.
User:Polyamorph Would you still think his work is 'notable' or meetings
WP:GNG without the relation to Mandela? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
LikeMeercats (
talk •
contribs) 17:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
As I said in my comment, the significant coverage about their own life, even though it is intertwined with Nelson Mandela's, make them notable in their own right. The important thing is there are reliable sources giving this person significant coverage. It's not someone who just happens to be Nelson Mandela's grandson and has kept out of the public eye, in which case I would agree that notability is not inherited. There is sufficient coverage to satisy
WP:GNG. Polyamorph (
talk) 09:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The two interviews, one from The Independent and the other from BET, are sufficient to establish notability. Before you all start going on about whether interviews are reliable sources keep in mind that that's not what we're talking about here. No doubt interviews are not RS for facts about a subject, but they are perfectly reasonable indicators of a subject's notability. Why are these mainstream high quality sources interviewing this guy if he's not notable?
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 18:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Media sources generally don't follow
WP:NOTINHERITED and are more than happy to interview people because they are related to more notable people. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Oh. So? The point is that regardless of whether media sources follow any particular WP policies, if they choose to interview people, especially if more than one of them choose to interview people over time, then those people are notable. We don't worry about why sources are choosing their interview subjects, only that they are choosing them.
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 18:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Well, the Independent interview is primarily the subject talking about Nelson Mandela, so I'm not sure how much that counts. You may have a point about the BET interview, but I'd like to see what other editors have to say as well. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
If this person had kept out of the public eye, then sure, notability would not be inherited. But they are the subject of numerous reliable sources for their own experiences and charity work. So they are notable in their own right. Polyamorph (
talk) 09:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is an interesting discussion of
WP:NOTINHERITED, I had to go re-read a policy I thought I knew. To the point that I found the line "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. [My underlining]. There is sufficient coverage across the articles, even if you filter out everything specifically said by the subject.
Nosebagbear (
talk) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Historically there have been multiple colleges by this or similar names, we have already e.g. articles about
Bethel Bible College and
Bethel Bible College, Guntur. This college in Alabama, founded in 2012, does not appear to be notable under
WP:NCORP.
Delete. "We almost always keep colleges" is
outcome based and does not address the notability issues at hand.
I could not find an independent source covering the college except for the Troy Messenger source; to assert
notability we need multiple independent sources.
BenKuykendall (
talk) 16:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete we keep most colleges because they are accredited and impactful. This is a local Church that put together a prgram to give degrees in divity, within a tradtion that does not put a premium on standards of education for ministers. If we had more 3rd party sources it would be keepable, but not every fly by night basement seminary is notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
The Eighties Matchbox B-Line Disaster as there doesn't appear to be anything more than mentions on the album. Thus notability is not demonstrated. As an aside, @
Woodensuperman: - do you have anything against it being a redirect to the band as the logical link?
Nosebagbear (
talk) 19:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
No strong objection, although it doesn't seem to be a likely search term as it appears to be a fabricated name for the sampler. --
woodensuperman 11:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
True, but as always, redirects are cheap
Nosebagbear (
talk)
The title of this article is wrong because that is not the name of the record. So a search for that false title is certainly unlikely. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 20:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - I do realize that redirecting to the band's article is now the accepted procedure for non-notable albums, but see my comment above on the actual title of the record. The article under discussion here has a title that is unlikely to be used as a search term because it's not the item's name, thus making a redirect nonsensical. Therefore my recommendation is to simply delete due to lack of
significant coverage in
reliable sources. In effect, the record is a one-time curiosity for fans that has not been noticed by the rest of the world. See also
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eighties Matchbox Original Two Track Demo, which has a false title too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 20:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. The album doesn't appear to be notable. This title doesn't seem useful to retain as a redirect. --
Michig (
talk) 07:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This, well, it's unclear what it actually is, a disambiguation?, is filled with things which are not called the "000s" in reliable sources. In fact, "000s" seems to be used almost exclusively to mean "thousands", as in "in 000s" in tables or charts. Looking for e.g. "lived in the 800s" yields some results
[26], but looking for the similar "lived in the 000s"
[27] gives no results at all. This article seems to be based on some OR extrapolation that if we have 800s or 900s or 1000s, we should have a page for "000s" as well, but I think we shouldn't actually, as it would be a novel invention, not a common expression.
Fram (
talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep It's used with thousands such as 1000s, 2000s and 3000s. –
BrandonXLF(t@lk) 13:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Any evidence for this? "Born in the 00s" gives 63 results
[28]: "born in the 000s" gives no results at all
[29]. I doubt it is used for most of the entries on that page (has anyone really ever used "000s" for "The century from 0-99 almost aligned with the 1st century.", even ignoring that the century starts at 1 and there is no year 0?), so if it is only used for the 2000s (which remains to be seen), it could be a redirect to that at most.
Fram (
talk) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Contrary to
BrandonXLF's claim, a
search of the wiki shows that 000s is only used as a method for neatly tabulating numbers in multiples of 1000. I'm not seeing a usage in relation to years. This article creates its own ambiguity in need of diambiguation. In its lack of usage elsewhere it verges on
WP:A11, something made up. The same argument holds for
000s (century).
Cabayi (
talk) 13:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Cabayi, That's metioned first on the page. Doesn't the argument hold for
0s and
00s aswell? –
BrandonXLF(t@lk) 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
BrandonXLF, "00s" is actually in use to refer to at least the eearly 2000s, as in "music of the 00s". "000s" however is not in use for this. No one says "music of the 000s" or "books of the 000s", but the "00s" versions of these is relatively common.
Fram (
talk) 14:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
BrandonXLF, if you nominate them I'll consider them & !vote. You've been around the block enough times to know
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work.
Cabayi (
talk) 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
DElete -- This is a particularly useless disambiguation page.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep There are certainly useful things to direct people to at this page, but I'm not sure the present ones are the best. The 000s play an important role in the Dewey System, for instance
List_of_Dewey_Decimal_classes#Class_000_–_Computer_science,_information_&_general_works. I have found a few instances of people using 000s to refer to thousands over the internet, including some in
WP:RS such as
[30] to refer to thousands of people. I am dubious, however, about 000s referring to the millennium/century and would like evidence of this from Brandon.
JZCL 22:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Triple zero - an existing disambiguation page that covers any of the theoretical suggestions for possible topics here.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 01:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SamSailor 15:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Triple zero is the best solution. The points on the existing page are pretty far fetched. Add the Dewey system to Triple zero
Legacypac (
talk) 10:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. This page disambiguates between a number of completely unambiguous things, none of which are called the "000s". No one calls the decade 1000-1009 CE the "000s" (if anyone refers to this decade at all). No one calls the century 1000-1099 CE the "000s" either. I can see how "000s" could mean "milenia", as in the 0000s, the 1000s, the 2000s, ..., but I have never seen this usage; plus we already have the page
List of millennia.
I'm neutral towards redirecting to
Triple zero. It seems like all the usages on that disambiguation are for "000" and not "000s".
The usage as "In fact, "000s" seems to be used almost exclusively to mean "thousands", as in "in 000s" in tables or charts." is plausible; however, this is a dictionary definition, and
should not have an article.
Delete - After some internal dithering I think
BenKuykendall's reasoning is correct. Almost none of the things currently on it belong and the only remaining bit would appear to be fail DICDEF - and the fact you don't need a DAB for 1 meaning - or even two. I also don't think triple zero, as it stands, covers the 000"s" - it would need a change in title and content to do so, thus a redirect seems unsuited.
Nosebagbear (
talk) 19:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - I would agree with the arguments put forward by
BenKuykendall and
Nosebagbear. I do not think the page is a useful one and I cannot really see some one searching for 000s when they are looking for any of the articles it lists.
Dunarc (
talk) 23:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Michig (
talk) 07:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Non-notable MMO. Article created by COI account back in 2006, before it was so heavily frowned upon.
References are poor. The four simply under "external links" are all related to the project so I've ignored them. The ones under "further reading", as follows:
PC Gamezone: short, mostly interview, clearly pre-release
RPG Vault Archive: merely a link to an interview, whose link is dead even on archive.org
Stratics.com: link dead even on oldest archive.org copy. Bottom of page notes it's a fansite, so probably not reliable
Indews.com: too short to be in-depth, actual domain now totally dead, archive.org copy barely has any info about what it was so can't even say if it was reliable anyway
Gamer.no: personal reflection about RPGs in general, Era Online mentioned at the bottom as something the author played. rest of article not captured on archive.org that I can tell
Gamer.no: interview with creator (and author of the article), not independent
Novinky.cz: unclear from context what kind of site this was, or how reliable. Domain is now a news site; not sure if it's the same publication as it was then.
[31]: Content on photobucket is not a reliable source.
I wasn't able to find any other reliable information about the game. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 02:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
KCVelaga (
talk) 04:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SamSailor 09:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SamSailor 17:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SamSailor 07:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Similar article at
Draft: Daniel Hardcastle on the same subject recently rejected. Pages
Dan Hardcastle and
Daniel Hardcastle previously deleted due to lack of notability, the latter being indefinitely protected. There’s just not enough content to justify an article.
Koldcuts (
talk) 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)reply
There is a rather large body of evidence for a content creator, who has in excess of 2.6 million YouTube subcribers on his primary channel alone, a published book and a number of other works that have been outlined in this source.
Surely there must be precedents set by the likes of
Jacksepticeye that such figures are of public interest.
Any pointers on how this can be supported with additional content to demonstrate its relevance? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MrPaperwings (
talk •
contribs) 20:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Believe me if anything I’d be biased towards keeping the article as I’m a fan of Dan. However the largest problem for him continues to be third-party reporting. There’s just not enough of it (though maybe that’ll change when his book comes out, as it hasn’t been published yet). In a case like Jacksepticeye, as you can see by searching Google news for his name you get numerous reports from sources like Polygon, Independent, BBC about his recent split. Searching for Dan doesn’t have nearly as much coverage, with only passing mentions in good sources and only a few less-decent sources with full articles about him. The problem now is the same it was 3 years ago; despite his following he just doesn’t have enough external coverage.
Koldcuts (
talk) 22:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SamSailor 16:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SamSailor 07:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No keep vote presents a rationale that satisfies NFOOTY or GNG. Am happy to restore to userspace if someone specifially requests it.
Fenix down (
talk) 08:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete fails GNG and NFooty,
Govvy (
talk) 12:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete or Draftify - fails GNG and NFOOTY pretty clearly. However, I would consider moving this to draftspace as he has previously trained with the Puerto Rico national team, and has a fair chance of making his debut for them at some point in the future – this page has enough info that it may be useful to not delete it entirely.
21.colinthompson (
talk) 16:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Draftify Has played for Puerto Rico before, we just need to wait until he plays against another FIFA member.
AlessandroTiandelli333 (
talk) 17:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep He has played with the U17 and Senior team, and he's gonna make his debut tonight with the U20. Also playing college. I've read wikipedia articles about college players with much less information and sources. He's also a regular player in the last 3 Senior National team call-ups. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JavierAlejandro23 (
talk •
contribs) 17:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Has he played against any FIFA member nation at senior level,
JavierAlejandro23? If so, post evidence because then he will pass
WP:NFOOTY. If not, the page fails notability.
AlessandroTiandelli333 (
talk) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete pretty clear
WP:NFOOTY fail, but he did sit on the subs bench for a recent game (though no idea if this is a RS or not):
[32]SportingFlyertalk 11:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - sitting on the bench is not enough to pass
Spiderone 13:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep* Next week Puerto Rico plays against Belize and there's a pretty good chance he could get some minutes and make his debut.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete No significant coverage to meet
WP:GNG and also fails
WP:NHOCKEY with a pro "career" of apparently 4 ECHL games. Being all-conference is not enough to meet
WP:NCOLLATH.
Papaursa (
talk) 19:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - doesn't meet NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage.
Rlendog (
talk) 15:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Strong consensus that NPOL is satisfied and sufficient consensus that there is sufficient sourcing to satisfy any coverage aspect of that.
(non-admin closure)Nosebagbear (
talk) 22:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
This politician has 0 reliable sources (I checked) and notability cannot be established, as of yet. If she were a U.S. Senator, it’d be a different story, but as a relatively unknown state senator with no sources to verify anything, I propose deletion.
Trillfendi (
talk) 05:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep She has certainly been in the news in the last year or so, with articles about draft bills she has introduced on gun control, confederate monuments, sexual harassment training for legislators, controversial issues in her state.
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 06:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Member of the
Georgia State Senate since 2015. Passes
WP:NPOL. While the current sourcing (as I type) is not nearly adequate, the CV of the subject is housed on the website of the State Senate. --
Enos733 (
talk) 06:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Having now read
WP:NPOL, which clearly states that politicians who have held statewide office are presumed to be notable, I don't understand why this article was proposed for deletion at all.
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 07:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
RebeccaGreen Show me any reliable source on her, I’ll wait. That same
WP:NPOL section says: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
Trillfendi (
talk) 14:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The "major local political figures" criterion is for mayors and city councillors, not state legislators. State legislators hold office at the state level, not the local one, and are covered under NPOL #1, not NPOL #2.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep 870 current results in Google News under her name (even if just quick comments on constituent issues). If
WP:BEFORE was done by nom, it was in a sloppy manner and without good search modifiers. Subject easily passes NPOL. Nate•(
chatter) 13:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I’m reminding you... no reliable sources to verify any statement made in this article. Wikipedia is not for CVs, it’s not supposed to read like a resume, there have to be sources to back it up.
Trillfendi (
talk) 14:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment As the nominator, it is incumbent on you to do a proper BEFORE. You clearly haven't in the barest sense; her name is regularly in Atlanta news media sources. This should be easy to source, and your claim there are 'zero' sources is undone by her state page and the minimum GN sources. Nate•(
chatter) 16:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Mrschimpf Obviously I did do a “before” and that’s how I came to my initial conclusion. The very most I could find was a brief, one sentence mention in the New York Times on the 3rd page of Google. But I guess that’s significant coverage these days. Those new sources you speak of were added by another user after I had proposed deletion of this article. Show me all these other Georgian reliable sources that substantiate the criteria of significant coverage and I would happily add them,
but I won’t hold my breath.
Trillfendi (
talk) 17:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Would you like a hint? Try the "news" tab instead of the "all" tab. You'll suddenly see what everybody else is seeing.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Even in that case I still only see fleeting mentions.... Whenever she decides to run for a higher office or maybe becomes embroiled in a controversy, on then could the article even have room for improvement. But as I said, if you find these wonderful sources be my guest.
Trillfendi (
talk) 23:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
State legislator is in and of itself a high enough office to justify a Wikipedia article.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - 'Local' is clearly distinguished from state level. She is not a local official, she has been elected to statewide office, and is therefore presumed notable.
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 14:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Show me the money sources. (Holding the office is one part, but notability itself simply has to be established through significant coverage which she clearly lacks. These are halves.)
Trillfendi (
talk) 15:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as subject verifiably meets the "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" criterion of
WP:POLITICIAN. That criterion, as is explained in the notes of the guideline, is intended to ensure complete encyclopedic coverage of such subjects even if they do not satisfy other coverage guidelines, so the premise of the nomination is dubious.
Bakazaka (
talk) 18:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep erroneous nomination. A quick Google search turns up many reliable sources. Elected to Georgia Senate November 2014.
Netherzone (
talk) 04:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Clearly meets NPOL as a member of the Georgia state senate. Deletion is not cleanup. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~ 15:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Yes, the article does need some improvement — but state legislators pass
WP:NPOL #1 just the same as federal ones do, and there most certainly is media coverage out there about her to improve the article with.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
This article is surely non-notable. Morgan's acting career apparently totals 4 appearances in Korean productions (at least 1 of which is only a single episode) and 1 episode of an Australian series. There are no sources and are highly unlikely to be any.
Cabrils (
talk) 04:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete speedy even. Unreferenced and out of date BLP. Also style is PROMO, and
this and
this indicate his two movie roles were very minor. I cannot find anything at all to indicate any IRS to meet
WP:NEXIST so big fail on GNG.
Aoziwe (
talk) 12:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete No strong evidence if the subject is notable.
Orientls (
talk) 06:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is that, whether or not it happened, reliable sources cover it, and therefore so should we. Any well-sourced doubts about the event should be discussed as part of the article. Sandstein 20:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)reply
This page was deleted previously in 2016, see here:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre. It was reinstated in June 2018, based on new references and edits of
User:A Bicyclette who has since been permanently blocked. I have critiqued those new references here:
Talk:Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre#Restored, but no more WP:RS provided as I do not believe that they are any more reliable than what was there when the page was first deleted. I don't think there are enough WP:RS to say what went on at Bình An/Tây Vinh and certainly not enough to say that a massacre took place there. This page should be deleted as an unconfirmed event as
WP:V applies
Mztourist (
talk) 03:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. It is at least verifiable that there are allegations of a massacre and none of the sources are suggesting that it didn't happen, so this does not amount to a hoax. The sources are largely newspapers and press agencies, so the claim of PRIMARY does not really stand up. This AfD sounds to me very much like an attempt to whitewash the ROK army. In their critique of the sources, Mztourist says that they cannot access Clodfelter's book. Well I can, and this unarguably independent, secondary, reliable source has this to say,
The ROK Capital Division hunted Charlie in its AO in Binh dinh Province. Between September 23 and November 9, the Tigers of the South Korean division reported 1,161 enemy deaths in the course of operation Maeng Ho. A good many of the reported enemy KIAs may have been noncombatants, for the ROK had a reputation for brutality against the pro-VC peasantry of the region. On February 2, 1966, for example, 380 civilians were killed by ROKs in the village of Binh An, in Binh Dinh province. As many as 1,600 noncombatants may have been killed in the provinces of Binh Dinh, Phu Yen, and Quang Ngai in January and February 1966
The newspaper accounts are interviews with villagers many years after the purported events and so they are PRIMARY. There is no photographic evidence or contemporary reporting of the purported events. The AP story shows proper journalistic investigation and indicates serious doubts as to what, if anything, occurred. In relation to Clodfelter, use of "Charlie", "Tigers" indicates a lack of standards in what you say is an "unarguably independent, secondary, reliable sources". What actual sources does Clodfelter give in relation to a massacre at Binh An? Or is he just repeating the same dubious stories that are included on this page? I am not attempting to whitewash anything, but a massacre is a serious allegation and it shouldn't be included on WP without very solid evidence. This page has been deleted once before for lack of evidence.
Mztourist (
talk) 07:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The AP source does not express "serious doubts" of the truthfulness of the eyewitnesses. On the contrary, the whole article is premised on the assumption that their stories are, in fact, true. It is true that the journalist says "[t]he AP was unable to independently confirm their claims", in part because "[a]s is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the [local] officials' allegations." But that is hardly the same as actually casting doubt.
Clodfelter's book is published by
McFarland, a serious, well-eatablished publisher specialising in academic and reference works. On sourcing, Clodfelter says,
Cross-checking and comparison of sources and, most of all, common sense have guided my research and results. i have employed official and supposedly authoritative sources wherever available, have sought statistics from both sides in each war to evaluate the inevitably conflicting claims, and have tried to verify the numbers reported on the battlefield with the records of the various medical corps and military surgeon-general reports.
This does not sound to me like someone with a "lack of standards" or "just repeating the same dubious stories". It is not for Wikipedia to assess the significance of lack of photographic evidence, contemporary reports, or the primary sources used by RS (although Clodfelter has a nine-page bibliography if you really need to know). That kind of assessment is the job of the reliable secondary sources. That's why we use them.
SpinningSpark 11:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I am concerned by the low standards being applied here. A massacre is a very controversial accusation, but you seem willing to accept the existence of an event based on minimal details and very dubious sources. The lack of photographic evidence and contemporaneous reporting should be of concern, because that was available for other massacres, such as
My Lai Massacre,
Đắk Sơn massacre,
Hue Massacre,
Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre,
Son Thang massacre etc. Re the AP, I don't agree that "the whole article is premised on the assumption that their stories are, in fact, true" what gives you that impression? Once again I am asking you specifically what Clodfelter gives as his sources for the Binh An massacre, not general statements as to sourcing, so what are they? If all Clodfelter has done is copy details from WP or those same newspaper reports then it isn't any more reliable than those underlying sources.
Mztourist (
talk) 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
If the accusations are dubious, it is down to you to find reliable sources saying that. The article can then be balanced with that material. Until then, your position is entirely
WP:OR.
SpinningSpark 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
That is a rubbish argument. WP:V and WP:RS are the pillars of Wikipedia. Vietnamese POV pushers have created a number of pages regarding purported massacres based on tenuous sources, I am simply challenging them to ensure that WP:V and WP:RS are met. You haven't answered any of the other issues I raised on the talk page and are refusing to answer the simple question of what Clodfelter gives as his sources for the Binh An massacre.
Mztourist (
talk) 04:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't know what sources Clodfelter used. Presumably they are in his nine-page bibliography that I already pointed you to. There is no reason why I should be required to name Clodfelter's sources; Clodfelter is the source I am citing. If I were to name his sources, would you then ask what sources they used? Eventually, we would get back to primary sources which you have already made a big case of rejecting. I can only surmise that nothing will ever satisfy you.
SpinningSpark 08:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Another copout. If Clodfelter refers to WP or those articles then it becomes circular and he is of no value as a ref.
Mztourist (
talk) 10:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The sources report that something (may have) happened; we report what the sources say.
——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
That sets a very low bar for a very controversial accusation. The sources are minimal and IMO not reliable.
Mztourist (
talk) 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep We need to cover what the sources say, otherwise, if the article is deleted, other mentions may creep in at other articles without a linked place to discuss what the sources say dispassionately. If Mztourist wishes to challenge the veracity of the sources, then there are other avenues for that (eg RS noticeboard, which I have repeatedly directed him to).
Buckshot06(talk) 19:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I retain *serious* concerns about your complete disregard for anything but official U.S. DOD sources, whether that's the AP or Vietnamese sources (just because it's the other side doesn't *automatically* mean it was falsified). I remain also concerned as to whether this disregard may extend to your not being able to be neutral in these matters. My vote stands.
Buckshot06(talk) 11:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
We have
history, I don't expect you to be objective wrt anything I write.
Mztourist (
talk) 03:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Sufficient coverage to meet GNG. Whether the event happened or not doesn't seem particularly relevant. A hoax popularized by numerous sources could still be notable. If the information comes from multiple reliable sources (and the Associated Press, Globe and Mail, and Asian Human Rights Commission articles are sufficient, regardless of the others, for which I would need to look closer to make a determination), it meets WP:V. All of this is not to say that I don't believe the event happened--I am simply speaking to the reasons for opposing the article's inclusion.
GaryColemanFan (
talk) 23:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not convinced that being the Medical Officer of Health for London satisfies
WP:BIO. I'm also not seeing anything other than the cited obituary, so he fails
WP:GNG.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 05:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep 'Medical Officer of Health' is a rather greater role than the name might suggest. Also he was appointed to this at a particularly fraught time during the Great War, and he served through the Spanish Flu period. The idea that "there are no other sources" is of course nonsense: we base such judgements on the existence of such sources, not whether they're currently cited in the article.
His brother probably warrants their own article too, as a president of the BMA.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 11:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Quite a lot of references for him come up on a search for "Dr W M Willoughby". As well as journal articles and government reports, there are articles about his work on plague on ships, food contamination, pigeon, etc.
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 04:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - there are multiple detailed obituaries as well as various articles on his work. More than sufficient coverage, particularly for a historical figure.
Nosebagbear (
talk) 22:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus that there is sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability.
(non-admin closure)Nosebagbear (
talk) 22:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Unclear notability. The article states that he was a pianist and piano teacher who was killed by a taxicab. Was he independently famous before his death? It appears that he was quite wealthy, but that does not assume notability.
Natg 19 (
talk) 00:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep While the article is in pretty sorry shape, it does look like he meets
WP:GNG. There is a chapter on him
here in a 1911 book of interviews with master pianists, and another one
here in a similar work. He has some recordings listed
here at the Discography of American Historical Recordings. I can't see
this one at the NYT, but someone with a subscription might be able to check it out, and the title sounds promising: "Hail Alexander Lambert; Musicians honor him as he rounds out 50 years of teaching piano." So, evidently some people thought he was notable back in his day, and notability is not temporary.
PohranicniStraze (
talk) 02:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Sources found by
PohranicniStraze (
talk) confirm notability. I suggest update/improve article rather than delete.
ShelbyMarion (
talk) 09:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Is not independently notable outside of Ru Paul's Drag Race and does not meet general, entertainer, or biographies notability guidelines. Attempts to restore redirect to Drag Race have been undone and so I am seeking community consensus that Carrion is not yet notable and the redirect should be restored. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 00:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as per Barkeep49. Searches did not turn up anything to show they pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 00:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have not assessed notability or secondary coverage, but if the subject is deemed not notable, the page should be redirected to
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6), not deleted. The redirect serves a purpose. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 00:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I have told you multiple times that the sources I gave for this person ARE reliable and you have completely ignored their other appearances in the documentary, music video, etc. so the claim that their only notable for Drag Race is straight up incorrect. Plus their social media following, and lower placing and lower successful queens from the show have pages, there is no reason this is not notable. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ratherbe2000 (
talk •
contribs) 01:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - minor appearances with no significant coverage - fails
WP:GNG.
Staszek Lem (
talk) 03:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
There are over 20 sources in the references section, so no, there is significant coverage to the article. I don't know what you're on about. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ratherbe2000 (
talk •
contribs) 18:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was accepted for mainspace and there has been no attempt to expand the article as it has only three sentences. There has been no attempt to establish notability. Doing a search for sources and all that was found was what is already in the article. All they said is he was Herbalife CEO and only one said that he helped the company through their troubles. Other than that, there is nothing notable about him.
Since when does CEO of an $8b dollar company for 15+ years not warrant an article on Wikipedia? The guy was Walt Disney International’s President. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:1000:b07a:99fb:9d36:724:55d1:9941 (
talk)
Keep Former CEO of notable multinational corporation. More detailed coverage in reliable sources like
Boston Globe,
LA Times,
NYT. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 05:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep.
WP:TOOLITTLE is not a valid reason to delete an article, and there's plenty of sources available to use to expand it. --
Nathan2055talk -
contribs 08:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Nathan2055: There has been no attempts to expand the article. If nothing else, it should be back in draft until it is suitable for mainspace. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.