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The result was Nomination withdrawn. There is consensus to rename the article.
Pax:Vobiscum (
talk) 14:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
A hoax, but not quite blatant enough for
WP:SPEEDY. Not surprisingly, none of the bios of the people linked in this article mention this "Free Government".
Clarityfiend (
talk) 23:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Not even backed up by the only verifiable source given. The Bannertalk 00:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Maybe just poorly sourced and incorrectly named. The Bannertalk 10:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Question: The naming of this article might be questionable, but it appears that there was a short-lived de-facto governing entity of Judea under Ananus
[1] as described by the article. What grounds are there for identifying part or all of the article as a hoax (or otherwise inaccurate) other than its name and limited sourcing? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~ 05:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Edit conflict - I noticed this article originally redirected to
First_Jewish–Roman_War#Gallus'_campaign_and_Judean_Free_Government - and the Judean Free Government content in both places was created by the same person {u|Greyshark09}}. He was notified on his talk page about this discussion so I hope he will come here eventually. He is quite prolific with ancient history and wrote 182 articles. The sourcing for this is poor, and I flagged
First_Jewish–Roman_War#Gallus'_campaign_and_Judean_Free_Government for being unreferenced. I did Google Judean Free Government and it appears what little coverage there is is lifted from this article, but I'm wondering why you think it's a hoax.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 06:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
That's where I saw it too. While I'm no expert, like the help desk inquirer, I don't see any sources for a "Judean Free Government" or a "People's Assembly". Maybe hoax is too strong a word, but something is definitely not right if the terminology is so screwy. Also, what function does this article serve?
First Jewish–Roman War covers the same ground in as much detail and with much more context.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Maybe there's some explanatory translation going on somewhere? For "People's Assembly" see
Sanhedrin? I think a separate well-sourced article would be needed -- there looks enough to justify spinout from previous target, and a government should have a separate article even if permanently relatively short ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~ 07:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Beyond the
Sanhedrin (literally assembly) which was invovled, Josephus does describe an assembly of the people in the Temple (organized by
Simeon ben Gamliel) , which preceded forming of the provisional government.
Icewhiz (
talk) 13:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
They are distinct. The great assembly (or Knesset) is the namesake of the modern Knesset (as well as the basis for choosing 120 MKs).
Icewhiz (
talk) 20:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment The book given as Ref 2 does support the statement where it is cited (p. 11) Bradley W. Root (17 October 2014).
First Century Galilee: A Fresh Examination of the Sources. Mohr Siebeck. p. 11.
ISBN978-3-16-153489-8. and also
refers to "the rebel government" (p. 181) and "the government in Judea that left the region [Galilee] in a state of anarchy" (p. 34). Maybe the article should be retitled "Rebel government in Judea AD **-**" or similar
: Bhunacat10 (talk), 13:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The page title is an issue (but
Judean rebel government /
Judean provisional government would be supported by sources, as would a number of other permutations). There was a provisional or rebel government in Judea in 66-68. See for instance -
[2],
[3], Ilan, Tal, and Jonathan J. Price. "Seven Onomastic Problems in Josephus'" Bellum Judaicum"." The Jewish Quarterly Review (1993): 189-208., or
this Routledge book (which uses provisional government as well as the occasional Jerusalem junta). The article is not a hoax - the sole glaring issue I see is the use of "free".
Icewhiz (
talk) 13:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep It's not a badly written article. It gives a pretty accurate description of the short-lived
provisional government that existed during a Revolt often described as the most serious rebellion in the entire history of the Roman Empire (obviously referring to internal rebellions, not foreign wars, wars of conquest, and invasions of the Empire.) I suggest we go with a modern usage:
Judean provisional government (66-68 AD). Note that it was a "real" government while it lasted, mustering and paying armies, issuing coinage.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Note that we have an article,
First Jewish Revolt coinage, about the coins minted by this government. (Similar to
Early American currency#Continental currency, except, George Washington could call on the French Navy to outflank the British Empire at
Yorktown, but the Judeans has to fight the Romans without the support of the King of France. And so they lost.) There is no consensus name for the rebel government of Judea in this period, invalidating comments above about failed searches for "Judean Free government".
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Note I was the one who originally thought something was up and posted to the help desk. To be clear, the questionable issues for me were specifically the name (and its use in other articles about the first Jewish-Roman War as well), as well as the article mentioning a "Judean People's Assembly" (which could maybe be a reference to the Sanhedrin, but does not appear to be referred to with this name). The Jewish revolt itself definitely seems legit, but the particular terminology made me suspicious of a subtle joke on the "People's Front of Judea/Judean Peoples' Front" from Monty Python's Life of Brian. Like it was referring to real things, just with anachronistic terminology. That being said, there were apparently some references in Josephus' Jewish War to Ananus (a leader of the Jewish rebellion) as being "unique in his love for liberty and an enthusiast for democracy", and some coins minted from the Jewish revolt being inscribed with mentions of freedom, so the terminology might not be that crazy, but then on the other hand, it may have just served to make a subtle Monty Python joke here less immediately noticeable. Again considering there's still little to no sources specifically claiming a "Judean Free Government" or "Judean People's Assembly"
HelpPls? (
talk) 18:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Oh,
WP:HEY, my mind went straight to Monty Python when I saw this one listed at AfD. It isn't. It is, an article about a real government (real revolt, real army, real coins, real
Sanhedrin, real politicians - all verifiable using real
WP:RS.) Page needs improvement, but all this discussion lacks to support notability is consensus on a page name. And there are sources from which an article can be created.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 18:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
You have a point on "free" (though it might be possible to source in Hebrew, English, or another langauge). The "People's Assembly" seems to me to refer to a gathering of a crowd of people in the Temple by
Simeon ben Gamliel prior to forming the government (a bit like
Mattathias's call some 200 years prior) - the choice of words may be off, but this is in Josephus.
Icewhiz (
talk) 19:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Thanks all. That's my remaing concerns gone. Prefer [[Judean provisional government (66-68 AD)]] as there was another rebel government formed in 132CE - see
Bar Kokhba revolt~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~ 21:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
We should probably go with [[Judean provisional government (66-70 AD)]] because 70 is the year the Temple and the city of Jerusalem were destroyed; and the last year coins were minted (coins are valuable in setting dates because they are so concrete.)
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 22:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Withdraw nomination and rename.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 09:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
FWIW
Monty Python's Life of Brian#Plot is actually quite a rational presentation of material present in less rational texts - the skit itself is well grounded in history (with "People's Front of Judea" and "Judean People's Front" being merely name adaptations of the inter-fighting between the Jewish factions - following the
Zealot Temple Siege the Zealots fought amongs themselves, different factions laid seige to different portions of Jerusalem, and destroyed food stores of each other - making the Roman task in
Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) much easier (probably hopeless for the Jews regardless - but without the interfighting the city might have held out more than the few months it did)).
Icewhiz (
talk) 09:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - as already mentioned, the "hoax" claim for deleting the article doesn't stand and i'm glad the community decided to keep it and expand. Thanks
user:Icewhiz for bringing more references, those would benefit the article. My choice for rename would be [[Judean provisional government (66-68 AD)]] .
GreyShark (
dibra) 21:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Vanamonde (
Talk) 23:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as some of their claims on this page and here
[4] are notable, but I can find no good secondary coverage. (
Dushan Jugum (
talk) 00:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).reply
Ping the reviewer also KeepDelete After reading and rereading the article I have decided that this may not have been my best decision but I do go by what I said when I reviewed it that news articles would be sufficient coverage. [
UsernameNeeded 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Is there a reason why you said to ping the reviewer, as the reviewer yourself? Can you provide that significant coverage,
Username Needed? Because the sources in the article don't establish that:
I thought I saw two news sources in there, but I may have been mistaken. [
UsernameNeeded 10:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
After reading the sources in question more thoroughly (something I should have done already) I have re-decided that there is only one shaky at best suitable source, and have changed my vote accordingly. [
UsernameNeeded 11:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The subject is no more noteworthy than any other business on the highstreet. Its sources are either cursory mentions or self-referential with several from its own website.
Pupsbunch (
talk) 20:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Mostly PR pieces nothing substantial and reliable enough to have a page.
PlotHelpful (
talk) 22:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Neither being a smalltown mayor nor a non-winning candidate for election to a higher level of office constitutes an instant free pass over
WP:NPOL, but the article is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to make him a special case over and above most other people in those classes of topic.
Bearcat (
talk) 01:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete the local article about him being apprehended is interesting, but he fails
WP:NPOL/
WP:GNG generally.
SportingFlyerT·C 07:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete neither unelected candidates nor mayors of places with less than 5,000 people are notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 18:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn.
clpo13(
talk) 23:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Non-notable politician, fails GNG, only coverage is WP:1E over some remarks that caused him to resign.
HouseOfChange (
talk) 22:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Withdrawing my nomination of the page for AfD. He passes NPOL so GNG is irrelevant here. Apologies.
HouseOfChange (
talk) 01:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets
WP:NPOL, specifically "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature."
Bakazaka (
talk) 23:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Also, not that it makes a difference under NPOL, but the subject did not resign from the legislature after those remarks, just his position as assistant majority leader in the legislature. I've added some sources to help clarify the situation.
Bakazaka (
talk) 00:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Article does need some improvement, yes, but he has verifiably served in a state legislature — an office that passes
WP:NPOL #1 right on its face.
Bearcat (
talk) 01:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Bearcat and Bakazaka are correct. I should have looked more closely at NPOL before making this AfD. I will withdraw it. Apologies for my mistake.
HouseOfChange (
talk) 01:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Vanamonde (
Talk) 22:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Entirely promotional article about a candidate in the upcoming Australian federal election, does not meet any typical
WP:GNG notability standards. No significant media coverage at all.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 22:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:NPOL, also seems to fail
WP:GNG. Feels very promotionally written and if kept will need a lot of cleanup.
SportingFlyerT·C 23:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in future elections they haven't won yet, but all of his claims to preexisting notability for other reasons are based on
primary sources rather than
reliable ones that actually support notability. Winning a "Young Australian of the Year" award, frex, does not constitute notability if your source for the information is the Australian of the Year committee's own
self-published website — the path to notability for that passes through receiving media coverage for the distinction, but none is shown here. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the seat, but nothing here entitles him to already have an article today.
Bearcat (
talk) 01:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete. This article is too self=promotional and the subject lacks notability. Poorly sourced, fails
WP:GNG.
Pupsbunch (
talk) 20:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
A poet who self publishes a magazine of his work. He is also an author of 2 poetry books but they didn't attract any coverage of note. Tagged for notability since 2010.
Szzuk (
talk) 21:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete.. This fails
WP:GNG. Requires more work if a decision is taken to keep or dratify it.
Mgbo120 (
talk) 19:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 22:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No claim to notability. --
Lockley (
talk) 01:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I couldn't find anything to show where this person is notable. There's not really anything about there about him, his work, or the book.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。) 02:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete. The subject fails
WP:GNG, there are no claims made (or evidence provided) that this person is notable or their works exceptional or that they warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
Pupsbunch (
talk) 20:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ridiculously promotional article based on some random local sources and no independent coverage.
Praxidicae (
talk) 21:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Are you serious? 'Random local sources' and 'no independent coverage'?
This article has a reference to a full thirty minute long interview from graffradio, the largest street-art interview source in history. It contains an image from a flickr group dedicated to photos of this mans artwork that has existed for almost 12 years with no goal other than so share free images of his name. It contains a reference to Atlas Obscura, the largest independent American geographic encyclopedia. A reference to Year Round Metal Enjoyment, a classified and referenced documentary released at various film festivals in 2015. To Google Maps's official landmark designation for heaven's sake. Any editor can plainly see that this is worthy of a genuine article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
00aa0 (
talk •
contribs) 21:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete No substantial source here to establish notability. Fails
WP:CREATIVE.
PlotHelpful (
talk) 22:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
PlotHelpful can you please tell me which aspect this article does not comply with? If you read the reference you'll find this is a prolific artist that has influenced many people, has become a cult figure and is the creator of a well known geographic monument outside of their artistic circle. What exactly do they NOT have to be granted a Wikipedia article?
00aa0 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 22:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Click on the blue links we've cited, they'll take you to Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable, verifiable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and "notable" here does not mean famous.
Aurornisxui (
talk) 22:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:Basic. No
WP:RS One "source" is a Google search about Skull Cliff and not ICHABOD.
Aurornisxui (
talk) 22:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't know whether you've misunderstood the link, but that 'google search' is actually not a search. It's a link to the google maps reviews of the site of the monument that contains 16 different reviews of the art. This was the reference I used to show that this artist has made a prolific art piece and if you search you'll find this is actually the highest-rated art piece on Google Maps in the whole county. With respect, I do not think your criticism is at all valid.
00aa0 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 22:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm happy to replace the Google tags and replace them with that of the individual authors if you want.
00aa0 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 22:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is for,
00aa0. You also have written a lot of detailed information for someone, per your article "not much is known about." As far as your sources, they are pretty much all useless. Here's a detailed analysis:
a blog/podcast - not even remotely notable as a source, nor is it an independent reliable source.
So all in all, not a single source is worth anything in establishing
notability.
Praxidicae (
talk) 22:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Do you understand the culture of said article's interest? Do you want an autobiography from him or something? Do yo you not frequent the circles of the article you're banhammering? Feel free to go through the Wikipedia pages of street artists and look through their sources, you will find they mostly consist of magazines from varying names that frequently are not available online. This page is entirely inline with other artists pages. Issues like this are what arise when users try and gatekeep topics they have no interest in. I don't think one fully realises the gravity of denying ICHABOD a wikipedia article. Do a search for him, a proper one, and you'll quickly realise his impact on bombing
graffiti is far beyond what some everyman wikipedia-editor judges topics to be. All the published interviews you've labelled as simply 'a blog' and 'not reliable' just shows how far out of touch you are with the topic in hand. You literally called the largest graffiti magazine in the world 'not reliable'.
00aa0 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I speedied this first time round. I'm afraid that
00aa0 is so intent on creating a fanpage for this artist that's he appears unwilling to read the advice he's been given, let alone attempt to follow it. I have no idea if Ichabod is notable enough for an article, but with the mainly junk sources we are given here, there's nothing to convince me he is.
Jimfbleak -
talk to me? 07:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete A search for "Ichabod graffiti artist" produced
one weak book source, and a couple of independent blog mentions. There isn't enough in RS to establish GNG.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk) 07:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete All of these sources are garbage. I don't know why the G11 was removed. I haven't found better sources, and if someone were actually able to find sources showing that the subject was notable, the article would have to be entirely rewritten anyway.
Natureium (
talk) 18:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is consensus to keep in that GNG is met, although obvious the article is in need of significant improvement. There are no policy-based arguments for "delete", including the nomination statement.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 22:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
It's notable, though you may need to translate Polish-language sources. Maybe just merge it into
High-speed rail in Poland for now. –
wbm1058 (
talk) 22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article is badly in need of expansion and clarification, but a physical railway line, with recent modern investment, would certainly pass the GNG.
Mackensen(talk) 11:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment The name should be translated per
WP:UE, I tried but Google doesn't help with this one.--
Pontificalibus 16:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep in some form per comments on the usual notability of railway lines, but at the same time I don't see a good reason to have a standalone article here based on what we have at this point. On the talk page there is a proposal to merge to
Częstochowa#Transport, which seems reasonable. As for translation Google is stumbling on this: I can see that koniecpolska refers to a place (
Koniecpol), but could proteza be a misspelling for something else, or missing a diacritic?
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentProteza is not a misspelling nor is it missing a diacritic. Source: I am Polish. Literally, it means "prosthesis" or "artificial limb". I, for one, would translate the name as "Koniecpol crutch".
MCiura (
talk) 12:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment regarding the name, one of the sources on the Polish Wikipedia article
[5] has a bilingual abstract which describes this line as the "so-called “Koniecpol prosthesis”." I've asked for assistance from Polish speakers at
WT:POLAND.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was first created by the subject's PR, and deleted. It was then re-created by a sock of a banned user, probably for pay. The third iteration is by a user with a small number of edits, with some evidence of promotional editing. The sources in the article are namechecks and press releases.
WP:BEFORE adds a small number of tabloid articles about girlfriends. I cannot find any
WP:SIGCOV to substantiate
WP:GNG. I strongly believe this is a paid article. Guy (
Help!) 21:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
A non-notable subject that continues to fail
WP:BASIC. As stated in the previous nomination, primary sources are not usable to establish notability, and multiple sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. North America1000 17:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep We still have the same situation we did a few months ago. We have clearly 3rd party mentions. This recreation of nominations is getting tiresome.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Mentions ≠ significant coverage, which is required to qualify notability. North America1000 03:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 20:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Nosebagbear (
talk) 20:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete does not meet
WP:BASIC. I searched Google, Google news, Google books, Google.es, I found and searched through
Guatamalan newspapers. The NYT article listed on the article is about Cordón attending an EMBA program in the US on the weekends and about the program itself. There is no salient information on Cordón's life. Everything else I found is coming from or related to the LDS Church so either primary sources or secondary sources related to the primary. Neither are
WP:RS.
Aurornisxui (
talk) 21:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Fails
WP:NBIO.
WP:BEFORE shows he: had a birthday; got married; was interviewed for a 3-paragraph piece in indiatimes.com.
UnitedStatesian (
talk) 19:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - fails
WP:GNG. I think it needs TNT.
Skirts89 (
talk) 19:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - nothing to show this person meetings notability requirements. Ravensfire (
talk) 15:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
For a start this article is contradictory. It's title is "17 Parachute Infantry Brigade" but it is about 21 Parachute Infantry Brigade which is claimed to include 17 Parachute Infantry Battalion. If such basics can't be got right then the article is worthless.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 11:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. SRS 00 t@lk, 11:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unsourced. I did some searching, but could only find mentions in the context of stores selling watches with this feature. Tagged as non-notable for five years with no improvement. --
RoySmith(talk) 17:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 18:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 18:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Not
WP:SIGCOV: Four very short sentences, with the remaining content consisting of quotes. This has no biographical information about the subject, just the subject's opinion relative to their religion.
Keep The so called primary sources are secondary newspaper sources. The attempt to call others not significant coverage is an abuse of the term. The whole nomination is misussing terms. Articles published in news papers, subject to editors other than the subject, are not primary sources. This is part of a long standing pattern of nominations seeking to exclude a huge swath of Latter-day Saint sources. This nomination is even worse considering it is a rehash of a previous nomination. In the last there were two keep votes and no one supported this editors crusade of seeking to wipe out articles on Latter-day Saints, especially Latter-day Saint women. This is becoming tedious. The analysis involves moving the goal posts. Articles do not need to provide biographical information to be signifant coverage. If papers feel the persons remarks are worth reporting on, than this is a sign of notability. Every source adds at least some to notability, and at least 3 are independet, 3rd party sources that have enough coverge to pass GNG.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Regarding "the so called primary sources are secondary newspaper sources":
Church News is owned by the LDS Church. This is a primary source; it is not an independent, secondary source.
Mormon Newsroom is the official newsroom of the LDS Church. This is a primary source; it is not an independent, secondary source.
Liahona (magazine) is the official international magazine of The LDS Church; it is not an independent, secondary source.
Also, this nomination has nothing to do with the subject's gender as insinuated above, and notability is not gender-based.
Furthermore, passing mentions and name checks ≠ significant coverage, and just do not qualify notability. North America1000 03:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Note that user JohnPackLambert as creator of this article is not an uninvolved editor.
valereee (
talk) 11:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional input on independence of sources required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Concur with the nominator's evaluation of sources as not independent (lds.org, Liahona, Church News) or routine coverage and quotes from church PR that are not significant coverage of this article's subject. The two sources with question marks above are no better. The St. Cloud Times article's entire coverage of the subject is "Cheryl A. Esplin, a counselor in the General Primary Presidency of the Church, provided training to women who support parents in teaching children." The Deseret News story on the visit to Asia is actually the church's newsroom PR blurb, lightly edited for republication, and is therefore not independent. It doesn't add up to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so the subject does not pass
WP:GNG. Readers can find the church's PR publications without Wikipedia's help.
Bakazaka (
talk) 23:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 18:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - The subject fails multiple notability criteria:
WP:BIO,
WP:GNG, and probably is a COI as well.
Skirts89 (
talk) 19:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete—I agree with Bakazaka and the views expressed in earlier noms. The sources simply aren't independent or notable enough in coverage otherwise.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The first part of the article seems to be about the term as a concept but cites nothing to suggest it passes
WP:NEO. The second part of the article seems to be about a company providing a service, and there’s no indication that passes
WP:NCORP. Basically, it looks like an unfocused pile of original research, something
we don’t do. SITH(talk) 18:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I have deleted the section about the trademark. As well as this section being spammy, the application was abandoned in 2010, as can be seen by searching at
[6].
Phil Bridger (
talk) 09:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This looks like OR. Perhaps it is an Essay. Perhaps it is a niche term.
Szzuk (
talk) 19:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 18:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
No sources in article for preceding 11 years. A BEFORE finds copious sources such as press releases, analyst reports, etc., but nothing constituting SIG,
WP:INDEPENDENT or RS coverage. (Note there are false positives due to an EP also named Dixie Narco.) Part of a walled garden with
Crane Co. as its centerpiece.
Chetsford (
talk) 16:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Crane Merchandising Systems. Crane Co. has unified all of its brands (National, Dixie-Narco, Automatic Products, and GPL) under the CMS umbrella and the D-N brand no longer exists.
ANDROS1337TALK 13:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
So I appear to be in my normal situation of starting out ready to vote delete, but by the end of doing
WP:BEFORE thinking that notability is just about met. KEEPFOARP (
talk) 13:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Which criteria are you applying to the references in order to establish notability? You should apply
WP:NCORP.
This NYT reference fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and is essentially a mention-in-passing. I believe that
the reference from "Text with Cases and Software to Strategic Management and Business" is good and meets the criteria in NCORP (although I can only see a snippet). The
page from the "Beverage Industry" magazine appears to be based on a company announcement as as such, fails
WP:ORGIND. Finally, the entry in
Factory magazine is difficult to evaluate. I cannot get access to the full copy. I'm leaning towards a Keep since we have at least one good source and giving the benefit of the doubt, have at least one other potential.
HighKing++ 18:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 18:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect and Lock We have agreed before this should be redirected, but for some reason this has reverted, I strongly suggest to put the redirect back and
WP:FULL padlock the page.
Govvy (
talk) 20:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Restore redirect from previous AfD. It doesn't seem the recent attempt to assert notability (while laudable) clears the bar. Fleeting third-party references, but neither substantial nor reasonably in-depth. --
EEMIV (
talk) 04:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect I've since had a quick go at cleaning the article up a bit, and I think there is some information worth porting over. I do appreciate that work went into trying to establish notability, and it shows Nihilus has had some recurring coverage. But there's not much at all in the way of real commentary -- mostly just short lists that just recap plot details. If I believed there was room for further expansion and chance to proof notability this might be a "keep", but I haven't really found much to support it. There is a
List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters article, so fortunately this isn't just a choice of whether to cover Nihilus at all or not -- we can still cover him sufficiently there. –
The Millionth One (
talk) (
contribs) 16:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Despite the fact that several "keep" !votes are not at all policy-based, there clearly is no consensus to delete this article at this time.
Randykitty (
talk) 18:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This article has been previously redirected to the article about season 13 of AGT, and the redirect has twice been replaced with an article. Listing it to gather consensus to keep a redirect. She hasn't won any talent shows, and isn't notable beyond being a talent show contestant. The article itself is complete showbiz fluff with no substance.
Slashme (
talk) 11:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
The Voice Kids (UK series 1), meets no notability criteria. My recommendation would be to prevent recreation of the article after it is redirected.
Onel5969TT me 13:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep A Google search shows a ton of mainstream media coverage beyond what a typical AGT contestant gets.
Kmusser (
talk) 15:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)reply
As a P.S. she's now been on 3 television talent shows, so where to target a redirect is no longer obvious.
Kmusser (
talk) 15:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Taking into account that 1) at the time of this writing, googling for Courtney Hadwin returns 4,560,000 hits, 2) newspapers such as The Guardian (UK), The Times (UK), Los Angeles Times (US), to name a few, published articles on her, 3) her performances have been viewed more than 100 million times on YouTube, I feel it would be preposterous not to keep this Wikipedia article. I agree, however, that the article should be cleaned up.
Daveohlsson (
talk) 15:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 18:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Wikipedia needs her. That quite remarkable voice and character make her a must.
Bmcln1 (
talk) 15:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
It looks as if the consensus will be "keep" anyway, but for future reference, please remember that this is
not a vote, so you need to explain why a topic is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Our main criterion is notability, not how
remarkable her voice or character is. --
Slashme (
talk) 14:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. She has a quite NOTABLE voice and character and it's being thoroughly noted by several million people.
Bmcln1 (
talk) 15:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to AGT. I think she is notable enough to keep this page as a redirection. Current article is a little bit hasty. As stated before, at this point her international recognition is (almost?) solely due to her appearance in the AGT show. Other achievements are rather localized to the UK. I would keep this redirection for awhile and see if there is going to happen another major public breakthrough in her career in order to gather enough information to compile an article that will be in full accordance with Wikipedia rules.
Themandrak (
talk) 09:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
KeepShe was on AGT
Wc1987 (
talk) 05:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable businessman. Trivial PR awards do not establish notability. A Google search revealed no independent in-depth sources. One detailed article was published
here in
The Economic Times, but that's mostly just an interview with only one paragraph of independent journalistic content (and that's some gossip about a minor recent controversy). 1-2 similar "articles" in other PR platforms exist (for example YourStory and TheNewsMinute), but no reliable independent coverage.
GermanJoe (
talk) 11:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 18:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
delete Don't believe the GNG is met.
Sandals1 (
talk) 15:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Searching on number one newspaper
Thai Rath found several in-depth articles about him spanning from 2009 to 2018
[7] (click on each photo leads to full-length article) His peak was probably around 20 years ago when a lot more news coverage were not online. --
Lerdsuwa (
talk) 18:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Profile piece in Thairath,
[8] interview in Daily News,
[9] lots of entertainment news coverage. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 21:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as national newspapers as described in the two preceding posts so
WP:BASIC is passed and the subject deserves to have an article, thanks
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as per sources provided by Lerdsuwa and Paul, Meets GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 21:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Died in a tragic accident, but no in-depth coverage of his life and career can be found. Fails
WP:GNG.
Edwardx (
talk) 16:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article was created by my other id (
Arunsingh16). In hindsight (and after having edited on WP for years), I feel that the subject does not qualify for an article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
delete Coverage appears to only be about his death so
WP:BIO1E applies. Other significant coverage is lacking so fails to meet the GNG.
Sandals1 (
talk) 15:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Ageas. Tone 15:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NCORP. There are a few trade publication articles but nothing significant in reliable sources. A few general announcements do not add up to
WP:CORPDEPTH.
CNMall41 (
talk) 07:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: does not meet
WP:NCORP; no encyclopedically relevant content or sources in the present article to be worth a merge. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 04:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect then; still not seeing anything worth merging.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 01:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Ageas, which presently has no mention at all. A functional merge per
WP:ATD-M that would immediately improve the merge target article. North America1000 13:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
No significant coverage about this specific award. The winners are already included in the main article of the
Visual Effects Society. There is no need for an independent article here, just to list the nominees.
wikitigresito (
talk) 14:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. And for the fact it has the word "Effects" three times in the same award name. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 15:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable speaker. Does not meet
WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or
WP:SPIP. Created by
Special:Contributions/MrVanDigital with few other contributions outside this topic.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 04:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete; trivial at this point; does not meet
WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not a newspaper (
WP:NOTNEWS).
Kierzek (
talk) 18:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. Seems promising. Requires more work.
Mgbo120 (
talk) 11:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
delete No evidence of meeting any notability standards. Being a "futurist" and organizing your own events to speak at do not show the GNG is met.
Sandals1 (
talk) 15:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If anybody wants to merge some of this content elsewhere, I can userfy these articles upon request.
Randykitty (
talk) 18:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I can think of a number of other reasons why this article shouldn't be here, but let's see if someone can come up with a reason it should be here. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 00:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Pages split out after the nomination and now included in the nomination:
Delete as redundant and too long. Prime factors for numbers up to 1000 are already in
Table of prime factors. Divisors are already in
Table of divisors. 10,000 numbers is too much. The article is nearly three times as large as number 2 at
Special:LongPages.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 01:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Redundant to the others. Being a Fibonacci number is irrelevant to having factors; this list is trying too hard.
Reywas92Talk 01:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The "Some distinctions" column was meant to apply to the number, not necessarily to its factors. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks,
Buaidh talkcontribs 04:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Please keep: I am the creator of this list. I would like to make the following points:
This list is only ten hours old and is still under construction. I appreciate your prompt attention, but I think we should withhold judgement for a few weeks.
Citations are included in the linked articles. This is common for lists.
I created this list as a single 10,000 row table to test load times. I can break this list into shorter tables on multiple pages or on a single page. I have yet to decide. I would appreciate your input.
This list duplicates some of the information contained in several other articles. However, this list brings together this information in a table with a simple format that is easily read by both novice and sophisticated users.
I believe the "Divisor pairs" column heading is appropriate, but I am certainly open to suggestions.
I changed the name of the "Distictions" column to "Some distictions" to avoid confusion. This column could contain virtually anything, but I think editors should use their discretion. I appreciate your comments.
I believe this list contains valuable information that many users will find useful. I've used my own version of this list for over 20 years.
I really appreciate your consideration. Thanks,
Buaidh talkcontribs 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:REDUNDANTFORK (without merging, as the added content over the existing articles is, as Arthur Rubin already states, unmaintainable). —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't understand your concern about maintainability. I certainly don't have any problems. Yours aye,
Buaidh talkcontribs 03:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Please note: I've split this list into five tables on five pages. This should make the list far more manageable. The list is now down to #791 on
Special:LongPages. I could split this list into ten pages to reduce the size further.
Buaidh talkcontribs 03:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment/Question: Buaidh, can I ask the rational behind creating this page? It's possible that this will help us determine whether it is sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia. As to the objections about maintainability, I do not believe that should be an issue. Our understanding of these numbers are not being revised, and it is of finite length.
NoCOBOL (
talk) 05:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Separating the long list into several subarticles (and I don't think a subarticle title like
List of positive integers and factors/2 conforms to MOS) does not address other issues raised. You say this list "brings together this information"; why didn't you propose a merger of the other similar articles rather than duplicating them? If a reader would be better served with certain information in a single place (which I often support), then combine the information rather than adding redundancy (which I do not). However, I doubt any reader will be coming to Wikipedia in search of the factors of 8648; this goes beyond the realm of being encyclopedic.
Reywas92Talk 08:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Table of prime factors as an artilce on an existing topic. I think the tables created here are superior, not least because of the narrative additions in the "Some distinctions" column. However its clear that past a certain point we start running out of things to say in that column...--
Pontificalibus 10:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. There are multiple issues, as noted above:
The article is too long. (This might be resolved by splitting it, but....)
The description column is unmaintainable. (Will anyone notice if a vandal notes something in the line for
4253?) Before that column is populated, a verifiable methodology for determining (and populating) what goes there needs to be determined.
The "Prime factors" column should be "Prime factorization", and should be calculated via the LUA module.
The "Divisor pairs" column should, if included at all, be replaced by "Factors". However, this is one of the fields most frequently vandalized in individual number articles. In addition, this is sufficiently complicated, that if the author made a few mistakes, we'd probably never find them unless someone went to the effort of regenerating the table from time to time.
The split article titles violate
WP:MOS. (This could be resolved, but the author probably wouldn't go along with the necessary changes.) The split tables also are improperly indexed.
Has anyone verified the colors for
accessibility? Furthermore, the colors can and should be maintained by a modification of the LUA factorization module.
Response: I'm happy to address the concerns expressed here and to modify this list as appropriate. The purpose of this AfD entry is to determine whether a list like this should even exist on Wikipedia, not whether it needs to be modified. (Wikipedia has substantial articles on important topics such as
Robert Underdunk Terwilliger Jr., PhD.)
I've split this list into five pages to address length concerns. We can split this list further if there is a consensus. We can certainly change the column headings and indexing if there is a consensus. The "Some distinctions" column is merely to alert the user to other interesting topics for further exploration. I merely added some things I felt were interesting. There are no required or prohibited entries. We can certainly address criteria for inclusion.
Vandalism can be repaired by reversion to previous edits. We can even lock this list if vandalism is a major concern. To maintain this list, I merely download it to an Excel spreadsheet. I converted this list from a personal HTML page I've used for many years. The row colorization is merely an aid to casual examination and does not create accessibility issues.
We can certainly address mergers to avoid duplication. A certain amount of duplication is warranted if it aids the user in pursuit of different topic objectives.
This list is intended as a guide to interested users, and not a monument to number theory. Perhaps we should lighten-up.
Could you address the redundancy issue? We may have
Sideshow Bob, but we don't have a seperate article with more interesting and better-formatted content at
Robert Underdunk Terwilliger Jr. Anyone thinking of creating such an article ought to focus their efforts on improving
Sideshow Bob. Why should we have an article
List of positive integers and factors if the content is already covered in the articles mentioned above?--
Pontificalibus 17:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The content of this list is covered in many different articles. We may need to merge articles. Each of these articles has a different format and different content. Before we start deleting articles, as this AfD entry proposes, we need to contemplate how each of these articles is used and how they may be optimally combined. To merge articles probably means either a loss of information or overly complicating existing articles. I've been involved in a number of these discussions and understand the issues involved. Thanks,
Buaidh talkcontribs 18:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as a
WP:INDISCRIMINATEWP:REDUNDANTFORK. Beyond 1000 (the greatest number in
Table of prime factors), it is not entirely clear where we should draw the line, as such a list could continue ad infinitum with increasingly sparse useful information. Furthermore, many of the numbers listed here are not mentioned at all in
1000 (number),
2000 (number), etc. and do not exist as redirects, which is a strong indication that they are not notable. As such, the distinction column is left blank, or is filled with information which is not clearly related to factors, as the article title would otherwise suggest. Per
Arthur Rubin, there is a lot of content in these lists that is redundant, and for the
fifth list especially, there really isn't much said that is nontrivial (i.e. that would satisfy
WP:1729 or factorizations that one could determine easily) and not already at
8000 (number) or
9000 (number).
ComplexRational (
talk) 00:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete egregious violation of
WP:NOT ("Excessive listings of unexplained statistics"); also a duplicate of
Table of prime factors which I'm not sure has any rationale to exist. This probably could have been a speedy delete; Buaidh has over 100000 edits and should know better - the article being new is not an excuse to keep a duplicate article here ("withhold judgement for a few weeks").
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 00:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I didn't realize I was egregious. I only have 207,493 edits. Mea culpa.
Buaidh talkcontribs 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
It looks as if I inadvertently stepped into a longstanding mathematics dispute. I did not mean to ruffle any feathers. I normally work elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I thought this table might be of interest. Apparently, I was wrong. Thanks all the same. The elderly curmudgeon,
Buaidh talkcontribs 04:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Yes, there are questions about the suitability of this specific implementation of the list, and fears that it may duplicate existing content. I share those fears about the later, but I believe in this case the implementation is vastly superior to existing content. As such, I believe the effort should be kept while we determine how we wish to implement this general class of pages, with the intent of having this page become the 'standard'.
NoCOBOL (
talk) 05:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Perhaps we should wait and see how all these relevant articles could be improved. This list could be expanded or compacted. The name of this list could be changed to something more appropriate. I'm open to whatever changes a consensus feels are needed. Thanks,
Buaidh talkcontribs 01:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Please note: I have not altered these tables, but I have fixed the page names, table names, indexing, header, and footer. I would appreciate your comments. I 'm having a problem with the navbox not compressing appropriately. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks,
Buaidh talkcontribs 01:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep this article specifically with no preference on the other 4. Could always consider only leaving in the notable numbers (like the Fibonaccis, square, etc. – with sidenotes in the table). ––
Redditaddict69(talk)(contribs) 05:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment What happened to
WP:BEFORE C2 "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article."?
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 14:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
That's a request to consider allowing time, and perhaps the nominator did consider doing so. An alternative view might be "If you think a new article isn't suitable for Wikipedia, consider nominating for deletion immediately so that editors don't waste time developing something that may ultimately be deleted".--
Pontificalibus 16:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This list is finished unless a consensus wishes to add to or remove entries from the "Some distinctions" column. Yours aye,
Buaidh talkcontribs 05:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to indicate that
WP:BIO,
WP:AUTHOR or
WP:PROF are met.
This is the most recent version of the article prior to copyvio blanking.
This book review is the best independent source I can find.
SmartSE (
talk) 13:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment If the aforementioned link is indeed the latest copy of this biography, I see no significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. Most of the sources are by him and the others don't appear independent.
Papaursa (
talk) 22:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Notability in either the article or the draft is no more than marginal, and both are non-
neutral and
promotional. If the promotional language were cleaned out, the resulting stub would not be sufficient to be worth keeping.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 06:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - It doesn't appear possible to bundle an MFD and an AFD, so the AFD should govern.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 06:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree with
Robert McClenon up to the point of saying -essentially- that stubs are "not worthy".There are lots of stub articles. I will add that I asked
Ptarry to parse the article if need be, in numerous posts about rewriting the article to conform to WP standards. This could still be done, but as it stands now, it does not conform. Not to discourage Ptarry from resubmitting when and if they get a handle on WP editing SOP.
Hamster Sandwich (
talk) 01:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
User:Hamster Sandwich - Some stubs are worthy, and some are not. If the stub contains enough information to identify
notability, especially ipso facto notability, the stub is worthy. Not all stubs are worthy, and I meant that this one would not be worthy.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
delete I looked at both the latest version of the article and the draft. Lots of puffery ("world class skier", "internationally recognized martial artist") but no evidence he's notable as a skier (
WP:NSPORTS) or martial artist (
WP:MANOTE). I didn't find the coverage necessary to show he meets
WP:NAUTHOR or the GNG. References are by him or not independent. I think the draft is the better article but I don't see that he meets any notability standards.
Sandals1 (
talk) 15:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Looks like a duck to mereply
Delete pure advertising. DGG (
talk ) 01:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 14:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
These articles provide detailed statistical information for individual editions of the
ICC World Twenty20 with no supporting prose. A clear case of
WP:NOTSTATS. –
Ianblair23(talk) 13:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom. The two most important stats - most runs and most wickets - could/should be included in the main article(s), cited in the prose. There's no need for these stand-alone stat-fests. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 15:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, merging anything useful to the article about the tournament. Far too many stats.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 09:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject is not notable; they neither meet the requirements of
WP:ANYBIO nor
WP:CREATIVE, while the provided references are all in passing and a search for additional ones turn up nothing. However, as a Japanese artist, this may be due to the language barrier, and so should be taken cautiously. --
NoCOBOL(talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator, per reasoning above and below --
NoCOBOL(talk) 19:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep based on the amount of citations on the Japanese wikipedia I am going to say she passes basic
WP:GNG.
Govvy (
talk) 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep She passes
WP:MUSICBIOandWP:GNGand probably
WP:NACTOR#1. This would be apparent from a simple Google search, or by clicking on the link to her jawiki article, so the nominator clearly skipped some steps in
WP:BEFORE.
Bakazaka (
talk) 17:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. She passes each of
WP:MUSICBIO #1, #2 (with number ones), #3 (with several golds, a few platinums, and a double platinum), #4, #5....
Dekimasuよ! 18:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Published a number of albums, music featured in films by Hideaki Anno.
Rama (
talk) 18:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - Yes, I missed two key steps. I forgot to check foreign-language Wikipedia's, and I didn't realize there was a specific protocol for notability of musicians. As such, I retract my proposal for deletion. --
NoCOBOL(talk) 19:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was created and largely edited from 2012 onwards on the basis and the perspective that the allegations were all, mostly or largely true, all the way until the main accuser 'Nick' was (after in June 2017 charged with 4 counts of making indecent images of children, 1 count of possessing indecent images of children and 1 count of Voyeurism
[10]) charged additionally with 12 counts of Perverting the Course of Justice and also 1 count of Fraud, understood to be in connection with him making false allegations of himself being a supposed victim of alleged 'satanic child sexual abuse' by the supposed 'Westminster VIP (Tory) paedophile ring', operated out of the House of Commons, Elm Guest House and Dolphin Square back in the 1970s and the 1980s, on 3 July 2018
[11], and who was then subsequent named on 3 December 2018 as Carl (Carl Stephen) Beech.
[12] It almost certainly contains or contained, past or present, various libellous or highly libellous stuff made either by 'Nick' himself or his supporters from
Exaro News. Best deleted. (I myself just wouldn't resurrect the article, but I would let others decide on that.)
194.207.146.167 (
talk) 13:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep No rationale for deletion, the bottom line is that this passes
WP:GNG. The allegations were indeed bogus and the article reflects this.
LM2000 (
talk) 14:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There was no 'Elm Guest House' and no abuse took place, so the title would have to go for a start. Typically, here in Wikipedia, if false and defamatory/libellous accusations against BLPs were made,
WP:RevDel is initiated, IF the individual defamatory or libellous edits could be found ... the trouble with this one is, where do we even start?! --
194.207.146.167 (
talk) 14:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Certainly notable, even if the allegations aren't true. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
If the allegations are never true in the first place, then surely Notability is false and has not been properly (re)established. --
194.207.146.167 (
talk) 15:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
No, because the case is notable. The abuse may never have happened, but the investigations around the allegations certainly happened. And that's what the article is about. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article may well need a careful rewrite, but there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources sufficient to pass
WP:GNG.
Edwardx (
talk) 14:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Pre-21 March 2016 sources are not reliable, that's the whole point. --
194.207.146.167 (
talk) 15:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Anyone is welcome to improve the article.
Edwardx (
talk) 15:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - per coverage, per sourcing. WP:GNG
BabbaQ (
talk) 15:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The article has to take into account that Carl Beech was charged with perverting the course of justice, but that does not mean that the entire article should be deleted. Instead, it should be rewritten to make sure that it is up to date. It is notable because of the huge amount of time and money that Plod spent on pursuing the "credible and true" allegations of Operation Midland.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 16:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Notable topic, needs updating not deletion. I don't see any of the "libelous stuff" in the article that the proposer mentions.--
Pawnkingthree (
talk) 19:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep, meets
WP:GNG, article contains numerous
sources that discuss the subject (a rename to just "Elm Guest House" may be appropriate though).
Coolabahapple (
talk) 05:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There is no agreement about whether this is a hoax or not, whether it passes
WP:NCORP or not. No prejudice against renomination in few weeks or months.
(non-admin closure)Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 13:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I added a speedy delete thing onto the page. I wrote "Still not deleted.
Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia refers to a edit description rather than a proper delete." but then felt like taking it off and discussing it here for my same reason.
TapLover (
talk) 08:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think this is a hoax article (the hoax listed on that page was a bit of long lasting vandalism as far as I can tell). That said, it's not entirely clear if this company passes
WP:NCORP or not, all the sources I found when doing a
WP:BEFORE-style search were in German (which I don't have the time or ability to evaluate effectively).
Iffy★
Chat -- 10:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't think they have actually been renamed, as they are referred to by this name
as recently as 2017. It's probably that the formal registered name is Wüstenrot-Gruppe but that they are known as simply Wüstenrot or Wuestenrot ("ü" is rendered as "ue" in German when a keyboard doesn't have a "ü" character) as a snappier name for marketing purposes. That's pretty standard practice for companies.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 18:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Right. I think the main problem is that they're eponymous with the German company that seems to be in the same line of work. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk) 21:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I didn't see any German company of this name when I was looking for sources. Could you say where you got that idea from?
Phil Bridger (
talk) 21:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The other one on
Wüstenrot (disambiguation). If you examine their websites, they mostly don't operate in the same countries, but are quite similar. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk) 16:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Oh, I see now. I was searching with "gruppe" or "group" included, rather than for just "Wüstenrot". We need to be careful to disentangle the two companies, but both seem notable. I know some German (I passed an
A level over 40 years ago) so will see what I can do over the weekend to make sure that sources in the two articles are about the right company.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 17:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 11:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Firstly there was never any suggestion that this article was a hoax - the entry at
Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia is about some content that was previously in the article, not the existence of this group itself, which is trivially verifiable. Many of the sources found by the Google Books search linked above have significant coverage of the group, such as the one that I have cited in the article with several pages of coverage, and, for example,
this source says that it had over 6000 employees in 1983.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 18:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: does not meet
WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Just a directory listing. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 03:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. No objections to deletion (or any commentary at all) after two relists.
RL0919 (
talk) 17:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Two minor reviews (the ones in the external links section) are all I can find, likely fails
WP:NPRODUCT. I'm an audiophile myself but I just don't see the notability here. SITH(talk) 19:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A failed urban redevelopment proposal from 12 years ago. From archive.org records their website stopped being updated for at least four years after they didn't get lottery funding, and went offline some time after that.
Lord Belbury (
talk) 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment, a few words can be added at
Black Country as an interesting footnote but not significant enough for a standalone article.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 01:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per new sources. My research was hardly exhaustive but I fairly easily found new coverage. I suspect there is more. Even if the project is defunct, that wouldn't be a rationale to delete if the coverage is acceptable. Besides, the details of horribly failed public projects can make for fascinating reading.
31.54.34.61 (
talk) 15:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Black Country. Per
Coolabahapple above. Also, I would argue that
WP:SUSTAINED applies here-- a brief burst of coverage announcing what was then a future event does not give notability if there is no subsequent coverage.
Gilded Snail (
talk) 19:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
Randykitty (
talk) 18:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete not enough sources to show notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep but fundamentally rewrite. The article is garbage in its current state, but the actress gets just enough mainstream press to pass WP:GNG/
WP:BASIC, possibly even WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO criterion 3.
[15][16]. This former porn star has crossed over to a popular TV show.
• Gene93k (
talk) 17:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete, pet
WP:TNT. Not an acceptable state for a BLP. It's unclear whether sufficient reliable sources exist for a biography.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 04:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - meets of WP:GNG. The article needs to be expanded or/and translated from es.Wikipedia.
Subtropical-man(
talk / en-2) 17:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - Article needs rewriting but the notability is certainly there, Meets ENT & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk 21:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No references to support GNG and it doesn't look like any will be forthcoming. Fifth tier regional amateur leagues are almost never of a sufficiently high standard to be notable. Am happy to restore if sources do surface.
Fenix down (
talk) 14:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Fails WP:GNG, and fails notability standards by WP:FOOTBALL
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk) 15:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Adding the following as well for the same reason:reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 15:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability.
GiantSnowman 15:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Giant Add a lot more to this AFD, please review your vote. All articles created by the same editor and are of the same topic/reasoning.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk) 17:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Sportsfan 1234: I strongly suggest you unbundle this AFD ASAP, otherwise it's going to get very messy very quickly, and it will be procedurally closed and you'll have to start again from scratch...
GiantSnowman 17:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Giant Do you suggest splitting the leagues from the teams?
I'd suggest unbundling the lot and nominating individually. Bundled nominations rarely work and from recent experience with very similar AfDs, whilst the consensus is this is a non notable level of football unless a club has played in the national cup, there have been dissenters. Whilst they have never provided sources to show GNG, with so many nominations I think it unlikely we could have a clear discussion. Let me know what you want to do but I would suggest I close this as a procedural keep and you renominate individually.
Fenix down (
talk) 08:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I think splitting the leagues from the teams (and having those as individuals) might be smart? Will remove the teams from this AFD.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk) 15:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
RL0919 (
talk) 13:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete remove article covered eslewhere in more detail.
Spike 'em (
talk) 17:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - the content is covered slightly more effectively at articles such as
List of Bangladesh Test cricket records, although these could use more obviously linking to from various places. Perhaps the article creator didn't know that they existed.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 09:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There's quite a bit of coverage in
this book from a reliable academic publisher.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 10:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I added the book reference noted by Phil Bridger and made an inline cite of the one academic journal cited (for xylitol's effect on dental caries). I did a bit of clean up. Though the article can use more cleanup to tone down the promotional aspects further, the subject matter is sufficiently notable to pass
WP:GNG. There are more references out there, but my first pass found them mostly in trade journals. I was a bit short on time to work on the article further.
Geoff | Who, me? 18:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Has decent news coverage as well.[1][2][3][4] (May add some of these to the article later.)
Gilded Snail (
talk) 18:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep as there appear to be enough sources available for notability, although I wouldn't class the Daily Star as a reliable source for anything other than football results.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 19:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
Randykitty (
talk) 18:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keepDelete: Aside from the routine announcement of its acquisition, I am seeing little about the company in its own right beyond a product announcement item:
[17].No
evidence that it attained
notability.
AllyD (
talk) 08:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Changed opinion after reviewing the sources added today by
Markvs88, though my feeling is that the vending machine development could be better incorporated into the
Mars, Incorporated article to illustrate the wider activities by that company.
AllyD (
talk) 15:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks AllyD! Note however that MEI Conlux was not ever part of Mars, Incorporated. That was apparently added to the article in 2011 during a cleanup by another editor. Though I'm sure that MEI does make vending machines that sell Mars candy.
Markvs88 (
talk) 02:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, that the references ascribe the innovations to a "Mars Electronics International" is the basis for my suggestion that this is better covered in the main Mars article, rather than following around a sequence of corporate structural changes, renaming, divestment and purchase.
AllyD (
talk) 07:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I spent a few minutes looking into this. The firm invented the electronic vending machine, so I'd say it's notable.
Markvs88 (
talk) 13:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately we don't have inherent notability standards for companies which were first to invent vending machines. We have to rely on whether
WP:RS felt it was notable enough to provide
WP:SIGCOV about. While you have found two RS that include one-sentence mentions of the company's achievement in this regard, the other sources you've added include the following: (a) a
WP:ROUTINE transaction announcement, (b) one press release, (c) an email from a company officer to the FTC, and (d) a receipt
[18]. In my BEFORE I saw each of these sources, however, thorough and accurate BEFORE requires critical analysis of each source of the kind I just conducted, not simply googling for any mention of the company and shotgunning it into the article.
Chetsford (
talk) 18:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more discussion of the multiple sources that have been added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 20:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - Seems to meet
WP:CORPDEPTH as per Markvs88 and AllyD. I'm impressed by the Sicco Van Gelder source referring to the company's novel validator fifty years after the Mars company's new approach to vending.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 12:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Since the only
WP:INDEPENDENT sources here are three (3) sentences in a 211-page book, and one (1) paragraph in a 241-page book, I'm surprised you take the position that this passes CORPDEPTH on that basis. The other sources Markvs88 added were two company press releases, a payment receipt, and an email from a company officer.
Chetsford (
talk) 00:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Having looked at the references added, they do not meet the criteria for establishing notability and either fail
WP:ORGIND (PRIMARY sources or the information originates directly from a PRIMARY source such as a company announcement) and/or
WP:CORPDEPTH (mentions-in-passing). There is no significant in-depth coverage to be found. Topic fails
WP:NCORP and GNG.
HighKing++ 22:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: does not meet
WP:NCORP. Coverage is in passing and / or routine notices, not meeting
WP:CORPDEPTH. Just a directory listing.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 04:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
RL0919 (
talk) 13:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Completely unsourced article. Sokolovskaya is a national titleholder but the pageant itself is barely notable and she competed in no international competitions.
{ [ ( jjj1238 ) ] } 11:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment "She competed in no international competitions"? The article could be better formatted, but it clearly states that she has competed in piano competitions in Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, etc. I have not yet checked if she did win first prize in one, but I certainly find sources confirming that she competed, eg
[19],
[20].
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 13:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
That is not what I'm talking about. She gained notability for being a beauty pageant titleholder (
Miss Azerbaijan), and her article was created largely because she was expected to compete in
Miss Universe, but she did not and competed in no other international pageants either.
{ [ ( jjj1238 ) ] } 19:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
What does it matter why the article was created? The content in the article is largely about her career as a pianist. She could be assessed against
WP:BASIC,
WP:ANYBIO,
WP:NMODEL or
WP:MUSICBIO (or any other relevant criteria).
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 01:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets
WP:MUSICBIO #9 "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." She won 1st prize in the María Herrero Piano Competition in 2014
[21] and in the Ricard Viñes International Piano Contest in 2013
[22], among others.
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 02:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
On what planet are those "major music competitions".
{ [ ( jjj1238 ) ] } 04:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentRebeccaGreen, while I agree most of the time on AfD, this is not the case. I need an explanation on how are these two notable and MAJOR music competitions. María Herrero Piano Competition does not even have a wikipedia page, and the Richard Vine could pass as possibly notable, but certainly not a major one in my opinion. This seems like a clear
WP:BLP1E for being a Miss Azerbaijan as her music career does not seem to be notable for me.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 15:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Certainly, not everything that is notable has a Wikipedia article yet. But I admit, I don't know much about piano competitions - she has competed in many international competitions, one of which has a Wikipedia article, so it is presumably notable. I was trying to work out how to add this AfD to music-related pages, but they all seemed to have automatic alerts for articles already part of music wikiprojects. She also has one album, released in 2018, so perhaps it is
WP:TOOSOON. I have access to some English-language digitised newspapers, but not in other languages unless they appear in Google searches, so if her performances have been reviewed in other languages, I have not found them.
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 06:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep She gets a few ProQuest hits. (I've added one citation to the article.) Her Spanish-language Wikipedia article has some material not included here. Between her career as a pianist and winning a national modelling competition, that satisfies notability criteria and is more than
WP:BLP1E.
Bondegezou (
talk) 20:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
PS: Also helpful to search for "Наталья Соколовская", her name in Russian. I've added some more to the article.
Bondegezou (
talk) 21:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
If you go to
http://natalia-sokolovskaya.com/stati-v-presse and then go into each article, they each end with a link to some press coverage. You need better Russian than me, but there appear to be some reasonable sources there.
Bondegezou (
talk) 21:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug! 12:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
1957 African Cup of Nations. A plausible search term. Reliably referenced statistics can be included in the main article and can be retrieved from the page history. Not going to merge as there is a lot of unverified (not to mention excessive) stats listed
Fenix down (
talk) 11:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
These two articles provide detailed statistical information for individual editions of the
Africa Cup of Nations with no supporting prose. A clear case of
WP:NOTSTATS –
Ianblair23(talk) 11:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep all and improve. The topic itself is
notable. I do however agree that providing statistical data without lead and other information is pretty annoying. However, an article needing improvement has never been grounds for deletion.
Tamsier (
talk) 06:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I am now working on the article. There are plenty of sources available and the nominator could have helped by adding a lead and general background with sources rather than just nominating. Clear case of lack of
WP:BEFORE.
Tamsier (
talk) 06:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect both articles.
WP:NOTSTATS failure for their own articles. Both can be accomodated just fine in their respective parent articles. Supposed equivalents provided by Tamsier are false equivalencies; None of those instances provided address individual tournaments, they address stats accumulated across multiple seasons. Additionally, the article
Africa Cup of Nations records and statistics already exists. There's no need for these separate articles.
Jay eyem (
talk) 15:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
Randykitty (
talk) 18:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This article is 13 years old but is only a single line long, with no references. Perhaps we should turn this into a disambiguation leading to 3 articles, 2 of which are already linked on the page:
Keep. According to
this paper, there is a village there of the same name ("Martello, Stelvio and Vallelunga are three small, isolated villages of the Venosta Valley in South Tyrol"), so it is a populated place and notable per
WP:GEOLAND. It is also notable as the subject of the genetic study which that paper carried out. We have an article on the
Venosta Valley which is a possible merge target.
This travel guide confirms that Vallelunga is a side valley, and also gives the German name (Langtaufers) – places in this region are commonly dual-named. If two European languages think a place is notable enough to have a name, then it's notable enough in English to have a Wikipedia article as well. The disambiguation page suggestion is a red herring – that has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion, a disambiguation page can be created whatever the outcome here.
SpinningSpark 00:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment, the Italian WP has a disambiguation page for Vallelunga,
see here, so no problems with having one here, but agree with
Spinningspark above that this is beside the point, Vallelunga meets
WP:NGEO and so should be kept.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 00:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment, now expanded with using sources linked above.
SpinningSpark 18:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Spinningspark: There's a huge problem, this was originally about the valley near Rome when it was nominated. Now it's about a valley in South Tyrol which are not geographically proximate, and the article lists both places. I'd fix it, but figured here would be a better place to start.
SportingFlyertalk 00:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
My mistake, I've moved my additions to
Vallelunga (South Tyrol) and put the article back how it was. I'm probably still at "keep",
this book (in Italian) describes cycling through it, although it describes the region as a plateau (pianoro) rather than a valley. There seems to be some other stuff in Italian as well, but I don't feel confident enough to write anything from Italian sources.
SpinningSpark 10:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 09:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 11:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As there is an overwhelming majority !voting "delete" (even if the one SPA is taken into account), I am not draftifying this at this moment.
Randykitty (
talk) 19:05, 29 January 2019 (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.
No evidence of notability, largely uncited, one RS and some crypto blogs. This is cut-down from a much more blatantly promotional version
[23], cited to primary sources and crypto blogs.
David Gerard (
talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I assume Parool is the RS that you are talking about, this then means that you think sportnext.nl is a "crypto blog", which it most clearly is not. It seems you are overly hasty in your rush to purge this article, first you attempted a WP:PROD despite it clearly not being the reasonable way forward and now you don't even do basic fact checking in your claim of no notability. If you think sportsnext is a "cryptoblog" then how hard could you possibly have searched to determine notability? I'd say not at all... (
102.182.161.211 (
talk) 19:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)) —
102.182.161.211 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Het Parool "
Internet buys wildly at the Gulden of this Amsterdammer" is about the price rise in October 2016. They do not know why it went up "Waar de plotselinge run op zijn Gulden vandaan komt, weet hij niet./He does not know where the sudden run on his Gulden comes from." Sportnext does not appear to be a reliable source. Their
twitter account says "SPORTNEXT is de grootste sportmarketingcommunity van Nederland./SPORTNEXT is the largest sports marketing community in the Netherlands." The article "
Collaboration FootGolf and digital payment means Gulden; partnership of the future?" has no named author and is most likely a press release or paid promo.
Џ 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
While that may or may not be true (different argument) - it does not change the fact that the original assertion is wrong, he claims that of the four current sources in the article one is a RS and one is a "crypto blog" and this is an inaccurate claim. Changing the argument does not change the inaccuracy of this claim, and the fact remains that anybody who is making such an inaccurate claim is likely either biased or not actually even reading the links in question - or both. (
102.182.163.117 (
talk) 10:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) —
102.182.163.117 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
This is from just a brief search, there are from what I can tell literally dozens more articles across multiple main stream dutch publications, while not all are notable on their own there are definitely many that are and collectively they show that Gulden has achieved a level of main stream awareness in the Netherlands.
I suspect this article is being claimed "non-notable" by people who speak mostly English and are not from the Netherlands and are therefore imposing their own reluctance/inability to translate Dutch and/or intolerance for other cultures as a lack of material.
A single american editor with a clear lack of interest in a dutch coin has taken it upon himself to delete, as opposed to correct, all text added to the article and as such has stunted the willingness of anyone to attempt to contribute to the article.
RTL Z seems like a more significant publication but interviews aren't independent coverage. Same for Business Insider.
I think there is a general misapplication of what 'notability' is going on here, criteria for source inclusion are not the same as criteria for whether an article should exist or not. The former is more to do with "whether it is first hand information or not" while the second is more to do with "is this a subject which has attracted public interest or not", to quote "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" While a source like the above would not meet the criteria for inclusion within an article, an interview like this does show that there was clearly a lot of public and media interest in Gulden at the time, alone it does not make notability but if combined with the dozens of other articles, the independent market survey showing large support for Gulden in the Netherlands and so on it does. (
102.182.163.117 (
talk) 10:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) —
102.182.163.117 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I think
this is an accurate translation of the Dutch
Linux Magazine article (Google Translate says the Dutch pdf is too large). It's the most detailed but I don't think it's the most reliable. It seems to be a guest article. See the "
Write for Us" page in the English version.
Even if this were true (that it is a guest article), magazines do not have to print articles that are submitted and do have editorial oversight, they have not printed a giant disclaimer stating that its a guest view. Further after a bit more searching, it appears they even considered it important enough to include on the cover
https://klant.reshift.nl//STORE1//lin_jaar.png
From a magazine perspective you usually put on the cover what you think will sell copies, this suggests that the magazine considers Gulden a notable enough subject that it should be on the cover to sell copies. While not a huge thing on its own it again speaks towards general notability. (
102.182.163.117 (
talk) 11:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) —
102.182.163.117 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Feature in the bank's magazine doesn't let me copy the text. But the cover and pages 16-24 show that Gulden isn't the only cryptocurrency topic covered.
Џ 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There are two articles about cryptocurrency one to do with Bitcoin and one to do with Gulden amongst many other pages that are not to do with cryptocurrency. The magazine is not about cryptocurrency but they felt the public would want to read about Gulden, this again shows a pattern of interest/notability. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
102.182.163.117 (
talk) 11:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC) —
102.182.163.117 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Additional source
A few more sources from searching, still dozens to work through, strangely I seem to be the only person here actually looking for sources while the people calling for deletion seem unwilling to perform any search whatsoever (this speaks to a possible bias on their behalf)
https://www.rtlz.nl/node/17276 (More coverage by rtl-z - not large or significant on its own but speaks to a pattern of regular media coverage)
Market researchers and crypto blogs still don't pass
WP:RS, even as you keep posting them -
David Gerard (
talk) 15:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Market researchers ... still don't pass
WP:RS". Though you repeatedly attempt to claim that
WP:RS does not in fact say that at all, it appears that for some reason you consider your opinion to be fact and beyond question. Why not let others comment on the link, I'm sure its more the content you find objectionable than the source, you also (delibritely?) ignore all of the other sources only in favour of talking about "crypto blogs" this shows your anti crypto currency bias, you shouldn't be involved in crypto currency articles at all as you clearly are unable to remain objective. (
102.182.163.117 (
talk) 19:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) —
102.182.163.117 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
RTL Z "Cryptocurrencies: not only bitcoin, but also potcoin and gulden" focus is not on gulden but a general video about cryptocurrency. They put up
IOTA's logo at 0:15 and
PotCoin's at 1:53 but not for Gulden.
AT5 local news.
Џ 01:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Further sources
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/02/07/je-hoeft-blockchain-niet-te-snappen-6572486-a1544900 - Major newspaper in the Netherlands does article on blockchain and of the thousands of currencies and entrepreneurs in the space picks Gulden founder to interview, this speaks again to a general notability/interest/recognition of Gulden in the country, people and media want to hear about/from Gulden.
https://www.emerce.nl/nieuws/bitcoin-variant-gulden-opent-spaardeposito - Article on
Emerce.nl an online publication targeted at digital "decision makers" (business focused) which the Dutch wikipedia has this to say (Through emerce.nl and supported by various social channels Emerce keeps daily more than 300,000 followers informed of the latest news in digital business. The site is known for its thorough journalism." - covers Gulden functionality released last year
Emerce [
nl probably a reliable source only if it's written by "Redactie Emerce/Editor Emerce" (they have a lot of
non-staff writers). Though the Dutch Wikipedia article is lacking citations including that part you quoted. And the third Emerce link was submitted by a Gulden person "Dit artikel is een ingezonden bericht en valt buiten de verantwoordelijkheid van de redactie./This article is a sent message and is not the responsibility of the editors."
Џ 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Dagblad van het Noorden asks me to register to view the full article and the second link is about the same thing anyway. Quote magazine sources look okay to me. If you think this is truly notable could you please make an article in Dutch, because this isn't something non-Dutch speakers would hear about.
Џ 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - I considered nominating this myself when I removed some of the cruft from the article this morning. Most of the coverage in sources has the tone of press releases and some of the other coverage is passing in nature. I'm not familiar enough with Dutch sources to be able to make a strong statement in support of deleting, but at least some of the sources do seem like cryptoblogs. We really need to hammer out a guideline for cryptocurrencies and related topics. For now, this does not seem to quite meet
WP:SIGCOV.-
MrX 🖋 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
http://www.tns-nipo.com/nieuws/persberichten/aantal-crypto-investeerders-met-100-000-afgenomen (Same survey agency conducts follow up survey and this time finds Gulden notable enough to state its percentage - stating that of the estimated 480000 Dutch crypto traders 56% hold some Bitcoin while 21% hold Gulden - agency clearly considers this significant to the point that they continue tracking it over time)
These are just the first few I stumbled on, a quick search has turned up a list of dozens upon dozens of newspaper articles or references that need to be trawled through. (
102.182.161.211 (
talk) 06:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)) —
102.182.161.211 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Marketing agencies who talk about how to "grow your brand" are not
WP:RSes, and particularly not for crypto coverage -
David Gerard (
talk) 21:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
That you (probably deliberately) confuse/misrepresent an independent market research group; one of the largest in the world, and that is cited in various other wikipedia articles as a "marketing agency" speaks volumes about your bias here. (
102.182.154.36 (
talk) 08:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC))reply
I see you're working hard on convincing others. In any case, market researchers quite definitely do not pass
WP:RS -
David Gerard (
talk) 10:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
NRC Handelsblad "fifth most circulated newspaper in the Netherlands - seems significant" but it's not. "Drie ondernemers leggen uit hoe zij de wereld overtuigen van blockchain/Three entrepreneurs explain how they convince the world of blockchain" from three different organizations and most of it is quotes.
Џ 01:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Major newspaper does an article on blockchain, of the thousands of currencies and even more entrepreneurs in the space, they pick only 3. One of those 3 is Gulden and is given a significant amount of space in the article. Why? Clearly because they think people want to hear about Gulden. I don't see how you can possibly claim that is not significant, it speaks to notability which is exactly what article inclusion/deletion is about. (
102.182.163.117 (
talk) 10:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)) —
102.182.163.117 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
"Of the thousands" will be limited to those in the Nederlands and available to interview.
Џ 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Clearly as more than software but as a currency project
WP:NSOFT which is intended for articles about more conventional software does not apply here, if it did -all- cryptocurencies outside of Bitcoin and potentially maybe Ethereum would need to be removed, I do not see
WP:NSOFT being applied in other cases therefore this would be inconsistent. (
102.182.154.36 (
talk) 08:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)) —
102.182.154.36 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally considered a failing argument at AFD, so probably doesn't achieve what you want -
David Gerard (
talk) 10:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
What's wrong with articles about all cryptocurrencies outside of Bitcoin being deleted? I, and I'm sure many other editors, would be very happy if that happened.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 11:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep: It is in the public interest to be able to find out unbiased information about cryptocurrencies, and the Gulden wikipedia entry should be part of that Gulden is considerably less controversial than many cryptocurrencies as it is over 5 years old, and was not started as a get rich quick ICO. With regards to notability Gulden has been used by up to 150,000 users and Gulden has attracted controversy, which is notable by itself. The developers have published, developed and implemented innovative blockchain techniques which justifies the term 2nd generation blockchain. The fact that this is not more widely known I would argue is a case to make the wikipedia entry more detailed rather than deleting it or removing much of the content continually on the grounds that it is just marketing. I would argue that technical details of the unique features of Gulden are interesting and are verifiable from the source code and the developers whitepaper. The Developers claim to be making innovation in blockchain technology and the success or failures of the progress should be documented in the entry.
WP:NSOFT Does not apply as Gulden is a Blockchain, not a software product
WP:NORG Does not apply again, as Gulden is a blockchain and associated community based infarstrcure which does include some organisations but is not in itself an organisation 12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JBelshaw55 (
talk •
contribs) —
JBelshaw55 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete The best source is the Het Parool article published in October 2016 when the price was going up a lot and they didn't know why (
pump and dump?). The other sources are local news, interviews, features in minor publications (Linux Magazine and that bank's magazine), or otherwise not reliable sources. Not good enough.
Џ 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
These
[24][25] short articles in Emerce could be useful, but still a delete for me.
Џ 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Update Neutral on deletion now per
[26][27][28] Quote magazine sources.
Џ 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Not credible user It should be noted that the user Џ posts negatively on most blockchain related entries other than on, where he/she is super positive. Not credible.
50.29.194.50 (
talk) 02:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC) —
50.29.194.50 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
No policy based argument given by this IP.
Balkywrest (
talk) 15:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (
talk) 11:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:ORGCRIT. The one source I found that actually talks about the company is listed as a scam when I went looking for reviews. Search of Google, Google Books, Google News has nothing significant about the Gulden. Of the sources cited above, the ones I checked look like they mention Gulden, but not talk in depth about the comapny itself.
Aurornisxui (
talk) 16:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:ORGCRIT Does not apply as this article is not about an organisation but a decentralised currency.
Criticism of the multitude of sources already listed is vague, weak, based on speculation and seems more like an out of hand dismissal of the sources by someone who made up their mind in advance as opposed to an actual application of thought toward the sources or reading of them. (
102.182.166.30 (
talk) 17:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)) —
102.182.166.30 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
WP:ORGCRIT says: "A
company,
corporation,
organization,
group,
product, or
service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The citations you mention talk about where the Gulden can be used, not about the specifics of the company and the hows and whys of the currency. Hacked.com had a good article about just that, but I'm not seeing other significant coverage, and it doesn't seem
WP:RS. Endless links to mentions of the Gulden do not go towards notability. Significant does not equal lots and lots.
WP:BLUD.
Aurornisxui (
talk) 17:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Additional sources (business insider)
Seems business insider have been quite consistently and frequently covering Gulden over the last few years.
https://www.businessinsider.nl/digitale-gulden-cryptomunten-2018 - Recent (2019) article abut Gulden and how it has done in the "bad year for cryptocurrencies", not very flattering, however still shows that there is substantial and independent interest even when things are not going well price wise... References also the
Het Parool which lends more notability to the Parool article as well as this one.
Delete: While it's clear there are many unregistered users bombarding blogposts and unreliable sources, there are a few good ones in the batch. This would lean me towards a weak keep, however:
It's unclear to me whether or not any of these actually establish notability
The article is currently written like an advertisement
I think the best approach would be to delete the article and let it be resubmitted through AfC. If there truly is significant coverage and notability, it will be re-added to the encyclopedia without a hitch.
Dr-Bracket (
talk) 19:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Your talk of blog posts are simply inaccurate, while you may question the quality of some of the sources to suggest they are blog posts shows a lack of proper diligence on your behalf.
Note that the article allegedly reading like an advertisement is not reason for deletion. "When to not use deletion process? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing." - if it reads like this it should be improved and not deleted, submit an edit that makes it read less like an advert. The main reason the article is likely so short is that a single editor has consistently and for a long period of time deleted all efforts at improving the page instead of making use of the appropriate processes to facilitate improvement.
Calling for an article to be deleted so that it can go through AfC is silly, the page is here already, if there is any doubt about its removal then it should not be removed. (
102.182.166.30 (
talk) 20:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)) —
102.182.166.30 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Draftify, i note that most of the defense of this article here has been made by an ip who has made no other contributions to WP (apart from the article), they have also
bombarded this afd with numerous (over 35?) sources, all/most of which appear to be questionable, suggest that this goes to draft so that it can be worked on for submission to
afc.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 04:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:ADHOM is not a valid deletion reason. Criticism of sources is vague and makes no attempt to engage in the source discussion, it appears unlikely you have read any of the sources. (
102.182.166.30 (
talk) 06:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC))reply
It appears unlikely that you read what i wrote, i did not say delete as you imply.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 07:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I've given the article some more thought and I agree that a draftify could be appropriate in place of a deletion. The
WP:SPA has dumped many sources, and if some can be verified to establish notability it should get through AfC without a problem - however the current article does not reflect that, and if you could somehow argue it did then you would really have to go look at the dozens of other deleted cryptocurrency articles and contest them the same.
Dr-Bracket (
talk) 21:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
A note on the majority of delete voters on this page
There is an emerging pattern amongst delete voters - Every single delete voter makes only vague criticism of the sources with no attempt to properly engage with them, it appears extremely likely they have not even properly looked at them. The only delete voter
Џ who has properly engaged with the discussion and shown any attempt at some kind of proper source review has changed his vote to Neutral. All delete voters thus far are also in violation of
WP:IGNORINGATD - it is therefore clear that they are less interested in upholding a proper process than they are in seeing this article go due to
WP:IDL and that most of these votes boil down to
WP:JUSTAVOTE (
102.182.166.30 (
talk) 06:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC))reply
COI query posted to IP's talk page -
David Gerard (
talk) 07:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
As nominator - I'd happily support draftifying. The sources are really not convincing people ... but perhaps a non-trash article can be put together -
David Gerard (
talk) 23:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. There appears to be a consensus that she meets
WP:NACTOR and that non-English sources appear to exist. There also appears to be a consensus that the article needs work, but
deletion is not clean up.
Sheldybett's explaination for relisting does not make sense. ~ ONUnicorn(
Talk|
Contribs)problem solving 17:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I can only find 2 sources related to her. Too little to prove notability? Oshawott 12 ==()==
Talk to me! 21:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. See
WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America1000 04:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I believe that she meets
WP:NACTOR, which specifically mentions voice actors, as she #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", and, from what I can see of the German search results, also #2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I don't know how you show that, outside sources related to the films or shows there are fans of. One source I found is an article about stars and their German voice dubbers, ' Synchronsprecher: Star und Stimme - Jippie-jaja, Schweinebacke!' in the Süddeutsche Zeitung[29]. I also note that this is a fairly new article, and some information has been removed as being unsourced. The source I found does have some of that information, so I could put it back in the article. There may well be other sources - I don't have access to older German newspapers and magazines, for example. What are the sources you found, Oshawott?
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 23:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Via Google News. Both were in German, and the rest was unrelated (maybe? I don’t know because it was in German). Oshawott 12 ==()==
Talk to me! 09:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I have checked the English-language titles of all the films listed, and corrected them and the links to Wikipedia articles about those films. As it was translated from the German Wikipedia article, many of the titles were translations of the German titles, and often quite different from the original English title. I note that only 3 of the 69 listed films are not notable (in the sense of having a Wikipedia article about them).
RebeccaGreen (
talk) 13:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
That’s great, but we do need secondary sources for all of them. Oshawott 12 ==()==
Talk to me! 00:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Obviously, the only valid sources available were for her in German websites, but I feel that most of the films listed have citations, just not directly.
Lafayette Baguettetalk 17:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)reply
If you can find citations, do it. If not, we might delete it due to lack of cites. Oshawott 12 ==()==
Talk to me! 03:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 09:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep She meets
WP:NACTOR. There is no doubt that she exists and has had numerous significant roles. The article does need better sourcing, but AfD is not clean-up. Google News throws up more than a page of material that could be used to support material in this article.
Bondegezou (
talk) 20:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sheldybett (
talk) 10:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Question for relister @
Sheldybett:WP:RELIST recommends not relisting a third time, but asks that if you do, you explain it. So, could you please note why you relisted this discussion for a third time?
Bakazaka (
talk) 17:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
CommentBecause of the consensus have not reached even
Bondegezou after second relist has yet to still stand out.
Sheldybett (
talk) 01:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
RL0919 (
talk) 13:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Doesn't pass
WP:NPOL. Could be argued that the subject does meet
WP:GNG for the Miami Herald article, but even so, that's just
one event, and it's not really a notable event at that.
Jmertel23 (
talk) 14:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for mayor of a city does not constitute an
WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, but this does not demonstrate any credible claim to preexisting notability for other reasons and is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to make his unsuccessful candidacy a special case over and above most other people's unsuccessful candidacies.
Bearcat (
talk) 01:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete trounced candidates are never notable. Also, county leaders of a politcial party are not notable for such, let alone of a political party that holds no elective office in the county in question.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Not as bad as the version I deleted as unsourced spam, but relies on a single obituary in a sympathetic publication. If he was genuinely notable I 'd expect multiple mentions in a wider range of RS sources
Jimfbleak -
talk to me? 06:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. I'll raise the Hamodia obit with an
obit in the NYT which is generally a very strong indication of notability. This
book - has some 4 pages on him. I added an interwiki to hewiki and yiwiki which have more sources (amply satisfying GNG). This was a rather major community leader the Viznitz hasidim in the US (Monsey) being fairly large, and his authority over this community being nearly absolute. Article creator is a newbie, and the article needs work, but
WP:DONTBITE.
Icewhiz (
talk) 07:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. By the sources I see in Hebrew he is quite notable. I nominated the first version of the article for Speedy, so in this case I am quite okay with the current article, despite it requires quite a lot of cleanup of language.
Arthistorian1977 (
talk) 07:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. He is a scion of the
Vizhnitz Hasidic dynasty and a major rabbi in his own right in the US. I'll try to add some refs.
Yoninah (
talk) 10:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. All of the above reasons. Please Use the External links as inline References. Thanks. --
תנא קמא (
talk) 12:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I think most of the above issues are already solved. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
תנא קמא (
talk •
contribs) 14:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The sources now in the article establish the strong claim of notability. Why weren't these sources found in a
WP:BEFORE search?
Alansohn (
talk) 16:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Inline citations can be added by using the External Links. --
תנא קמא (
talk) 16:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn and no !votes for Deletion. sufficient independent reviews to pass NAUTHOR SNG. (
non-admin closure)
Icewhiz (
talk) 07:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Recipients of the
Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland are likely to be notable (per (
WP:ANYBIO#1). Further, while his citation record as seen on GScholar is not great (low double digits at best) and while I concur he likely does not pass
WP:PROF, he is the author of quite a few books (see
[31]) which is likely sufficient for
WP:AUTHOR. I think the award + numerous book publications push him into being notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 15:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The order of merit is a low ranking award in the Polish system (see list in
Orders, decorations, and medals of Poland). Just authoring a number of books is not sufficient for AUTHOR (particularly in this age of self published and easily published books) - AUTHOR(3) states - "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - which seems to be a stretch in relation to these books.
Icewhiz (
talk) 15:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Some of his books are published by quite reliable scholarly publishers like
Minnesota Historical Society or Routledge. He is a co-author of an encyclopedia (American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change, 11 cites). His research and activities are significant enough for
Collection: John Radzilowski papers to be made available at the UofM. I disagree he is a minor historian, he seems to be referenced quite often in discussion of Polish-American history. He is important enough to be invited to be reported on by the Polish Embassy in the USA (
[32]) and give lectures in the National Museum of Poland (
[33]). To me this is more than being a no-name, nobody scholar who has nothing but an unimpressive CV to show. PS. Also, let's consider that our notability guidelines are generally too permissive or sport biographies, and too restrictive for academic. Kick a ball and you are notable, publish several books, get a government award and it is unclear? Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 16:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Papers regarding to his lobbying efforts for minor Polish-American institutions. Speaking to high school and university students in Poland (your pl.usembassy link) or giving a lecture (on the same visit in Poland marking the 100 years of Polish-American relations - on a temporary exhibit on US/Polish relations marking 100 years) at the Cinema MUZ in the Warsaw museum are not an indication of notability.... A Tetyana Filevska (
CV here - born 1983, PhD, last entry - a guide) -
gave a lecture in the same hall. Academics give lectures all the time.
Icewhiz (
talk) 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Not invited lectures. Those are given only by high profile academics. Oh, also the various links mention do indicate coverage that may suffice him to pass regular BIO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 16:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – Looks like another nominator not willing to drop the stick, but that's not why I came here. Since the nomination is largely based upon the notion that he's some yokel up here in hillbilly bumfuck Alaska, you would think that
WP:ALASKA might want the opportunity to chime in. Both of the deletion pages relevant to that project are lacking this discussion. Part of that appears to be a matter of the article being tagged for WP United States, as if it didn't matter that WP Alaska exists as an independent project or that there was no consensus to merge into the larger WP when the discussion occurred about seven years ago or so. I haven't had the time necessary to root out and correct incorrectly-tagged pages in probably the past two or three years. There's been a lot of this sort of thing, such as the recent case of another WP not being informed of an RFC affecting the project's main article. Why do we even have WikiProjects anymore if we have so many editors treating them as if they exist purely for show?
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 02:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Passees
WP:BIO and
WP:AUTHOR Lobbying effort was for NATO membership for Poland/Hungary/Czech Rep. not for "minor organization". Haiman medal is the highest honor in the field of Polish diaspora studies. [1] The comment that University of Alaska Southeast is "former community college" is an ad hominem argument. It is a fully accredited four year university and has been for decades.
AK Piast (
talk) 04:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Don't feel too bad about the dis. I have heard a supposedly-sane academic administrator argue (apparently seriously) that NYU should be considered at the level of a former community college. So you're in good company. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is not to delete -> default keep. Merge can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 14:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There is no need for a separate article for each type of implant. Tony85poon (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:OVERLAP: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Kindly read
Idea–expression divide. Despite conventional implant and RAI being different expressions, the idea is the same: to give him/her a tooth that looks good. He/she does NOT want embarrassing
dentures (the joke is that elderly people often leave their false teeth behind at hotel while checking out).
Tony85poon (
talk) 05:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge Relatively new, not commonly used and should be merged into
dental implant, there is no need for a separate article for each type
Gsingh (
talk) 03:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Well, 2008 is kinda relatively new, if you want to delete the article badly.
Staszek Lem (
talk) 02:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep separate - this is not a yet another type of implant: this is a considerably different class of implants: the one not based on screws, and the article is large. Obviously this is not an AfD subject since ["root analogue" implant -wikipedia] google search provides THOUSANDS of hits, with many overview articles, i.e., reliable
secondary sources.
Staszek Lem (
talk) 18:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Mz7 (
talk) 05:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge into
dental implant. This looks like a decently sized article but when the unrefenced content is removed, together with content not specifically about this type of implant, then it's clear that a seperate article is not necessary.--
Pontificalibus 07:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Yep, but with unreferenced content referenced and expanded from numerous overview articles, the article just as well may become larger than the targert atricle.
Staszek Lem (
talk) 02:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep There's already a merge discussion and so this seems to be
forum shopping. The main article about
dental implants is 93K and so it's reasonable to consider splitting the topic for the various types. This particular technique of making a facsimile in the shape of the original tooth seems to be the oldest one, going back thousands of years, and so is a natural and reasonable sub-topic.
Andrew D. (
talk) 12:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Well, in this case forum shopping makes sense (but venue is wrong), because no one seems to join the merge discussion for a long time. I did; after being "shopped". Did you?
Staszek Lem (
talk) 02:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
93k is small,
2018 in paleontology is 490k, FIVE TIMES bigger. No one has asked you to expand the RAI article. Don't throw in the nitty-gritty details. Perhaps add more pictures.
Tony85poon (
talk) 09:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, but articles like
2018 in paleontology are in desparate need of splitting to make them a reasonable size. Remember that not everyone in the world has ultra-fast broadband.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 21:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. The nominator is not asking for deletion, but for merging, about which
a discussion was started some time ago but never closed. I
made the obvious point when I contested
WP:PROD deletion, but
the nominator's reply flew in the face of our copyright policy, which requires the original contributors to be credited with their edits rather than someone who copied the material somewhere else.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 21:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Other than deleting, I cannot think of a feasible solution that can speed up that merger discussion. Let me give an example so that you guys understand. Once upon a time, I saw 2 Chinese Articles about
Deception Island (coz the translation of the Island's name had two Chinese versions). I inserted the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags, but nothing happened. Then, I nominated 1 for deletion, and the Chinese Wikipedia administrator approved the deletion of 1 article + removed the "merge tag" in the remaining article. People do take deletion requests seriously,
https://zh.wikipedia.org/?title=%E8%BF%AA%E5%A1%9E%E6%99%AE%E9%81%9C%E5%B3%B6&oldid=52256775 is the evidence. Who are the policymakers? May I communicate with them? Taking it to the next level would be great.
Tony85poon (
talk) 06:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
You and I and every other editor are the policymakers, who decide policy by consensus, except for a very few cases, usually those with legal implications, where the owners of this web site, the
Wikimedia Foundation, impose policy. The Chinese Wikipedia may have different procedures from the English Wikipedia, but here the procedure to invite more participation at a discussion is
WP:RFC, or to request closure of a discussion is to post at
WP:AN. It is generally frowned upon to start a deletion discussion when what you are asking for is not deletion.
Phil Bridger (
talk) 22:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
"not everyone in the world has ultra-fast broadband" is great-thinking! I went ahead and reduced the size of
prosthesis too (before the reduction, the size was 94.5k);
WP:AN#Request to resolve both Hopefully I am using the correct procedure to close the 2 discussions, cheers.
Tony85poon (
talk) 02:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 14:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relatively junior producer. Hs start two non-notable projects, and helped edit one selection of plays. The article claims scholarly work, but i do not see any. The articles are either PR, or just mentions. DGG (
talk ) 04:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment / weak keep. Boffone does indeed have scholarly work-- see
this list of his citations, and
a book which he was an editor on. (Of course, that doesn't necessarily confer notability, but I think it's worth pointing out.) I think the question here is whether he meets
WP:GNG,
WP:ACADEMIC, or neither.
Gilded Snail (
talk) 23:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't see anything close to meeting WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Like other early-career academics, the subject has written a few journal articles, but he has only been cited a few times total (the first GS entry seems to be erroneous - even the unremarkable four citations are linked to articles completely outside of his field). There's always
WP:AUTHOR, but it seems that the book doesn't even come out for a few months.
Larry Hockett (
Talk) 05:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - Doesn't come close to
WP:NSCHOLAR (10 total citations? Really). And that's his best chance at notability.
Onel5969TT me 15:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 14:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Promotional article for minor theater entrepreneur. Founder of two minor companies, and has worked in some others. No evidence of any actually notable productions. DGG (
talk ) 04:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think that the 3 NYT articles solely about this guy and his works, combined with a whole slew of other reputable sources with significant coverage of him, should establish that the subject meets GNG. While none of his productions are notable of their own right, that doesn't keep Padrón himself from being notable.
Gilded Snail (
talk) 21:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. I've done a little expansion on the Sol Project section. It has attracted some major partnerships.
Markvs88 (
talk) 03:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 14:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The sources provided seem to be passing mentions, and no significant mentions showed up with
WP:GFG. Therefore seems to fail
WP:NBIO (particularly
WP:FILMMAKER)
∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss 03:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. While there are several articles with trivial mentions of him, virtually no
WP:SIGCOV of Mamun is findable. Seems to fail GNG.
Gilded Snail (
talk) 18:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by the creator without providing a reason. —
Michael (
talk) 02:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —
Michael (
talk) 02:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A blogger and tweeter with no claim of importance or significance. The independent references are mostly about his blog/company FanSided being acquired and not about him; one is a quote from him about posting tweets in response to Donald Trump.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 22:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
FanSided (noting that he appears at dab
Adam Best) - with or without delete.
The Intercept states that the "founder of the sports blog FanSided [is] better known for his anti-Donald Trump Twitter presence"
[48]. He has 175K followers
[49], which is a fair quantity, and his tweets have gained a little notice
"Adam+best"+trump and some level of retweeting (there was an 8k ones and a couple of 1.3k ones 2 days back) but coverage is not at a level at which impact-related notability criteria (
WP:CELEBRITY#2...) appear to be satisfied. I suspect that he might end up meeting GNG eventually. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~ 10:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
DannyS712 (
talk) 02:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I agree about RedirectionTrillfendi (
talk) 02:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is an obvious PR piece. This is a non-notable subject who doesn't pass WP:GNG.
Skirts89 (
talk) 19:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect Nothing to show he's notable individually but a redirect seems reasonable--although the notability of FanSided might be debatable.
Sandals1 (
talk) 15:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 14:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Promotional article from a now blocked sock. Subject does not appear to be notable enough, and cannot find any in-depth independent coverage.
Edwardx (
talk) 00:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. I don't have many strong feelings on this AfD, but for other voters: nearly all the news hits I can find on Okon are solely because he is often the spokesperson being quoted in the article. As such, the articles are not 'about' him and should probably not count for much wrt notability. The other two sources[1][2] that came up with a quick search don't seem to be from particularly reliable sources, though that may just be my lack of familiarity with Nigerian news sources.
Gilded Snail (
talk) 03:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Commissioner for Housing and Special Duties" could get him over
WP:NPOL if he could be referenced much better than this — but the references here are his
primary source profile on the government's own website, two glancing namechecks of his existence in routine lists of everybody who got government appointments at the same time as him, and one short blurb about him announcing a government policy. These are not sources about him for the purposes of making him notable enough for an encyclopedia article.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
RL0919 (
talk) 13:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Chairman of a Swedish-language council and a municipal councillor - that would appear to be insufficient to pass
WP:NPOLITICIAN.
Edwardx (
talk) 00:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Finland has 311 municipalities so a councillor from a town of 7,000 people isn't too notable. The Finnish Wikipedia article has some coverage of his controversial blogs and fighting with the SFP party, but nothing lasting. --
Pudeo (
talk) 15:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Serving on the language council might get him an article if he could be shown to clear
WP:GNG for it, but is not "inherently" notable for the purposes of entitling him to have an article just because he exists — but serving on a municipal council in a small town is not a
WP:NPOL pass either, and the amount of coverage shown here isn't even close to enough to get him over GNG.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
ANSA McAL. Not a perfect redirect, but will suffice unless a better target is found. Tone 14:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Can find nothing in the article or online as to why this building is notable, and no in-depth coverage. Seems to fail
WP:GEOFEAT.
Edwardx (
talk) 00:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong delete. No evidence of, or claim to, notability. --
Lockley (
talk) 04:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Note as far as I can tell it was the tallest building in the country until 1986. I couldn't find reliable sources online.--
Pontificalibus 14:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect to
Port of Spain, perhaps. Clearly the building has some relevance to local history, as its anniversary was noted in the locality.
bd2412T 16:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect to the owner
ANSA McAL where it is already mentioned.
MB 02:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An elementary school in the Philippines; no claims of notability and doesn't appear to meet
WP:NSCHOOL. Julietdeltalima(talk) 00:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I must direct all credit to "Random article"... - Julietdeltalima(talk) 17:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delte elementary schools are almost never notable, no reason to see an exception here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.