Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 14: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:35, 14 May 2019

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 May	15 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to The Ohio State University Libraries. Seems like consensus here is that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's particular definition of notability. Since a redirect target has been offered and the possibility stated to copy some material over, with no disagreement, redirect it is per WP:ATD. If someone wants to retarget the redirect or get rid of it anyway, WP:RFD is thereaway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical Musicology Review

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "The page should not be deleted as the journal is impactful for the field of Computational Musicology and is hosted by an R1 research institution in the USA." There is no evidence of impact and being hosted by an institution, no matter how reputed, is no grounds for notability. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I turned up a few mentions of the journal: [1][2][3][4]. No judgment as yet. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw these, but none of it goes beyond an in-passing mention. --Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nothing I've found goes into depth or substance. I'd suggest redirecting to the publisher, but we don't seem to have an article on them. XOR'easter (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I noticed that about a dozen WP articles cite it. Having an article about the journal will allow readers to assess its value. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when are citations in WP a criterium for notability? I could start publishing a journal, insert citations in some articles, and presto, my journal is notable?? Please provide a policy-based argument. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty: You could start publishing a journal, insert citations in some articles, and without an article on the journal, readers would have no way of assessing the quality of that journal. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And without any reliable sources or indexing in any selective database, all you would have to write an article about this hypothetical journal would be the information that the publisher puts online (unless you'd engage in some serious OR, of course). You seem to be arguing that any academic journal should be regarded as notable, a notion that has been rejected in AfD upon AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. Creating The Ohio State University Libraries and merging there would be ideal, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Huh. We have an article for the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library & Museum, which is affiliated with the OSU library system, but not the OSU library system itself. There are oodles of other articles about OSU (see {{Ohio State University}}), so there may be another redirect/merge target already about. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to somewhere in the voluminous Category:Ohio State University or Category:Musicology, if a reasonable target can be found, and include a sentence or two there. Having a brief description of a journal that Wikipedia articles use as a reference would be helpful for readers, but that description doesn't have to be a stand-alone article. I think the mentions tallied above are substantial enough to warrant a, well, mention, but not enough for an entire article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that The Ohio State University Libraries exists now (thanks @Headbomb!). That would be a fine redirect target. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The subject is legally recognised town, which can be verified through reliable sources. Hence WP:GEOLAND applies. (non-admin closure) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maharajapuram

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

I am still not convinced that it's notable. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -- WP:GEOLAND which is an English Wikipedia notability guideline states that populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Thousands of AfDs have been decided on the basis of this guideline and I am yet to come across a legally recognized place, that was deleted in contravention of this guideline. The nominator ought to put their efforts into something else, where they might be more productive. ∯WBG^converse 07:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
English Press trivially mentions the village over here, here, here....... ∯WBG^converse 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- WP:GEOLAND as noted by Winged Blades of Godric. There are plenty of places wayyyy smaller than this on the wiki. Cabayi (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 17:40, 16 May 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 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportsLogos.net

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

I don't think it's notable as it fails WP:WEBCRIT criteria. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 14:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm hardly a neutral party in this having written the article, but I obviously disagree that it doesn't meet WP:WEBCRIT. I wouldn't have published it if I felt it wasn't going to meet WP:N. The content of the website—not only the logos themselves but their evolution—is sourced in the given reliable citations more than just trivial mentions, along with articles that talk about the site itself. That's on top of a significant number of Wikipedia articles that use the website as a reliable source (usually to reference logos) and the increasing number of other websites that reference sportslogos.net for anything logo-related and even uniform related. Is it overwhelming notability at this point? No, but there is definitely ongoing and widespread coverage across various media outlets and sports beyond a few trivial mentions here and there. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the go-to site for sports logos, but could do with some more third-party sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely promotional for a website - WP:NOTPROMOTION - Epinoia (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on account of the reliable sources out there establishing the subject's notability per WP:NCORP & WP:NWEB. E.g. "How Chris Creamer and Chris Smith became the NHL's jersey insiders" in The Hockey News; "Toronto Maple Leafs logo news spreads from Port Perry man cave of Chris Creamer" on Durham's website; "Stanley Cup Socks 1918-2019 : SportsLogos.Net News" on E!; "Greatest NHL logos of all time" on NHLcom; acknowledgements in "Courageously ranking each MLB team's home uniforms" on CBS Sports and in "Every NBA team’s best logo of all time" at Fox Sports; and so on. As to the admittedly promotional aspect of the text, it can and will be expunged as soon as this AfD is over. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Wilson

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

Article appears to be an attempted promotion of her business, radio show, and book. Most of the article's sources are about her general line of work, and not her own accomplishments. No reliable media coverage can be found for her radio show; her book and private practice have some notice in professional newsletters (e.g. [5]). All other sources found are routine business listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this "Expert, Advocate and Speaker" as mere PROMO for a self-promoting owner of a home care agency. she wrote a How-to book about homecare, which sank with hardly a ripple. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:PROMOTION, WP:ORGIND Book looks like a vanity press publication. The referenced blog posts are generally fawning and promotional, e.g. including subject in a list with Oprah Winfrey and Katherine Graham. ogenstein (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete UNAMBIGUOUS advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION Lubbad85 (☎) 23:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG or any SNG (handwaves towards a couple) and has promotional aspects which are unencylopedic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Woking

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

Non-notable community radio station. The article sounds like a promotion for the station. Quite a few refs relating to the station nowbeing on DAB, but not sure this is enough. I could be wrong. I'm happy to be corrected. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The lack of notability for the article can be argued but I vote for borderline articles such as this to be kept to allow for further improvement, especially given that it contains several independent references. Rillington (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - three refs to the station's own website, one to a blog, one not working and one with a passing mention in a list - hardly the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" required by WP:ORG - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhosddu United Y.F.C.

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

Been uncited for years, but this is simply a non-notable youth club from Wales. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable youth football club, doesn't appear to have produced any superstars or had anything of note happen to the club. Seasider91 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it takes something special for a youth club to be notable and there's no evidence of it here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking through the news articles, the only one that has popped up is this one in 2018. Other than that, sources for this youth club is rare. Fails WP:N Matt294069 (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:29, 20 May 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 List of Gilligan's Island characters. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gilligan's Island Cast

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

There already exists List of Gilligan's Island characters where all the cast information is provided. The subject of that list is character instead of cast, though. If some information in this article is not given in that list, content can be merged. A redirect can be considered but I am not sure if it is suitable. Prod was declined by author. But I would sincerely suggest the author choose to work on and improve that list. 94rain ^Talk 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either the suggested article or the main Gilligan's Island article. Bensci54 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gilligan's Island characters, there is nothing in this article that is worth merging. Ajf773 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gilligan's Island characters. This article is redundant to an already existing one. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as information is already there. Could merge if there is anything new to merge, but at the moment there isn't. Probably could also just be speedy'd via A10? WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the title may be used for a redirect but I just doubt whether it could be a suitable one. But I think for now there is consensus to redirect? --94rain ^Talk 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect given lack of things that could be merged. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has no information that is not on existing cast list. A redirect would be my second choice.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gilligan's Island as this same cast list appears in the Gilligan's Island article - unnecessary duplicate content fork - I actually think a Delete is a better idea - Epinoia (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Chandrasekaran

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

Delete Fails the criteria for notability. A technology executive hoping to up their profile. References are primarily announcements and are not considered for establishing notability. Fails WP:BLP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the criteria for notability. Wall Street Journal and The Economic Times articles, which are GREAT verifiable sources have articles with his name in the title. He is an experienced and well known executive. Having not contributed to the article at all, still I can see from the first glance of the article that the references that the articles has are in accordance with the criteria of notability. Rest is the decision of the well experienced editors. Sentiments777 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sock !vote deleted. Editor blocked by Berean Hunter. See block log here. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable facebook employee. Facebook engages in horrible lack of review of duplicate accounts to inflate their number of users and make them seem a bigger factor than they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 19 May 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 Chumbawamba. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agit-Prop Records

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

Unsourced NCORP fail. Cannot find anything more in sourcing. Not to be confused wit the similarly named Agitprop! Records ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chumbawamba. Seems like a proper merge target, easy enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chumbawamba - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - does not meet WP:ORGSIG - therefore, Redirect - Epinoia (talk) 00:34, 20 May 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 10:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acme Records

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

NCORP fail. Not to be confused with numerous Acme Records stores and other similarly named record labels. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non-notable record label. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100% Records

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

NCORP fail. Tagged for sourcing since 2015. Cannot find adequate RS in a search. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valea Făgetului River (Misir)

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

The article is probably a hoax. The river does not exist on maps or in its vicinity. Apart from that, it has no information other than it exists. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have spent a long time looking into this river and see no existence of it being real. I a valley with this name but the two closest rivers were named Raul Aries and Mures who share a Romanian Wikipedia article [6] and don't seem to mention this place. Following up the chain of articles starting with the article proper leads me to the Crișul Repede which looks to be in a whole different part of the country than the valley. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very small river indeed. I have found it on one map: https://bihor-county.map2web.eu/. It is about 4 km south of the village Șuncuiuș and 2-3 km northeast of Zece Hotare, around 46°54′40″N 22°31′01″E / 46.911°N 22.517°E / 46.911; 22.517. From what I see there it may be 3 km long. I don't think it's notable, that's why I redirected it to the river it flows into, Misir (which was reverted by an anonymus). Markussep ^Talk 07:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's something - thanks! I couldn't verify whether it even existed either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not sure this is a useful redirect but redirects are cheap so no big deal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a hoax per User:Markussep, but redirect to Misir anyway, ditto. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 21:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... every river on earth is notable. 77.13.19.9 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. From WP:GEOLAND, Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. (Emphasis mine.) As such, we should describe this in the article of the Misir since it doesn't have enough information for its own article. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 02:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"We" should stop using "we" in discussions, when posting opinions. 77.13.19.9 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an accepted guideline, not an opinion. Markussep ^Talk 08:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He was referring to the statement by John M Wolfson, not to the guideline. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was still a bit insolent and wiseacre-y, IMO. In any event I still think we should redirect per my earlier statement. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Misir, for reasons above (i note that the Romanian WP has an article on Valea Făgetului, Alba only, and its around 80miles away from this location). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would say Redirect, but the Misir article does not mention Valea Făgetului River - does not meet WP:GEOLAND guideline "Named natural features" which requires verifiable sources - the article doesn't even give geographical coordinates - One sentence does not an article make - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does mention Valea Făgetului, in the infobox. That's not much, I know. BTW WP:1S is an essay (which I don't quite agree with), not a guideline. Markussep ^Talk 07:20, 20 May 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. Apparently the topic is notable to the degree that it should be mentioned somewhere. If a good target is found, a merge is probably the best solution. Until then, default keep. Tone 18:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric and the Dread Gazebo

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

This appears to be an obscure meme. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, it predates the concept of internet meme as I first heard it more than 20 years ago. More of an "amusing anecdote" if you're familiar with RPGs. BOZ (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, I would say that it has become a meme. Regardless, I cannot find any reliable sources that prove that this "anecdote" is notable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 23:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. As a member of the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD, I wouldn't have nominated this if I had seen it, but I'm not particularly opposed to its deletion. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:05, 08 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this has (partly) inspired? a play: "Hannah and the Dread Gazebo", that was on 2014 Kilroys' List - list here with description, reviews in Herald and News - "'Hannah and the Dread Gazebo' a play to ... think about .. The gazebo references a place that is neither inside or outside while the “Dread Gazabo” references a humorous video game, “The Tale of Eric and the Dread Gazebo,” ..", BroadwayWorld Los Angeles - "Fountain Theatre Announces 2019-20 Season .. The season opens in February, .. the California premiere of Hannah and the Dread Gazebo by Jiehae Park;" (just a listing), Playbill - ".. The world premiere of Jiehae Park's Hannah and the Dread Gazebo will also be seen in 2017. Directed by Chay Yew, the new play is described as such: ..", American Theatre - "The New Play’s the Thing: As part of this special issue’s exploration of the state of the new American play, we wanted to highlight some of the most exciting works of theatre written within the past five years. So we asked a group that champions new work, dramaturgs and literary managers across the U.S. and Canada, which productions they were most looking forward to this season. EMILIA LAPENTA, literary director, McCarter Theatre Center, Princeton, N.J.: This season is brimming with exciting projects: It’s difficult to choose even a handful of standouts! .. and Jiehae Park’s inventive Hannah and the Dread Gazebo (the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, March 29-Oct. 28, 2017).", KLCC (FM) - "Ashland Theater Review: Hannah and the Dread Gazebo", Theatre Journal - "OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL .. In Hannah and the Dread Gazebo, Jihae Park offered a breathtaking comedic meditation on loss and inheritance, riffing on a Korean origin myth." (so just a snip), Mail Tribune - "OSF's powerful 'Hannah' packs punch" (review), Willamette Week - "Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s Most Ambitious Play Features Kim Jong-Il and A Maimed Bunny" (review), Seattle Gay News - "They've got rhythm, they've got music at OSF .. Hannah and the Dread Gazebo" (review), actually this may mean that this play is notable for an article so it could be a merge/redirect target. (apologies for textwall, i sometimes get carried away:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep the play, plus sources like [7] and apparently [8] discuss it. Lots and lots of coverage in less reliable sources (art for sale based around this, etc.) which makes me think it is something we should be covering. All that said, I'd not object to a merge if someone can find a good target. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If the play is notable, then this article should be a redirect page. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or if the play is barely notable (and reading, I think it is more than that) then it might be good to cover both in the "parent" topic. Not sure. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, per Hobit. BOZ (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 21 May 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 Aztlán. Any mergeable content is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Aztlán

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

This article seems to lack notability and is poorly sourced. Potentially merge information with the larger topic of Aztlán Garuda28 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have, because I haven't done the work yet and may not get round to it before this discussion is closed, no comment about whether this should be kept as a separate article, but if it is merged then I would suggest that Chicano Movement might be a better target. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aztlán per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the sourced content to Chicano Movement, as this flag is a relatively recent invention stemming from that movement and should properly be merged to that main article, rather than to a subsection like Aztlán#Use by the Chicano movement that has a note to see the main article anyway. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hamilton (author)

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

Author, heavily promotional article with a list of their book titles but a distinct lack of secondary sourcing to indicate WP:BLPN. Created years back by a WP:SPA, possibly WP:COI too.

Today it appeared (and why I was influenced to AfD it) as a link from Frome, where it's dubious per WP:UNDUE, see [9] Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ there are sources: "STONE ME Mysterious ‘secret Stonehenges’ of Britain that go back 10,000 years including burial chambers, hillforts and an axe factory. STONE ME Mysterious ‘secret Stonehenges’ of Britain that go back 10,000 years including burial chambers, hillforts and an axe factory...", but almost all of the hits in a gNews search [10] turn out to be articles Hamilton wrote, or travel articles excepting sections of one of his books, or things like The Guardian promoting its MasterChef series in which Hamilton appears. ~~What I can't find is SECONDARY coverage or published reviews of his books.~~ Feel free to ping me if you can, I'm always willing to change my opinion when presented with sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Hamilton and his brother and the authors of The Self-Sufficient-ish Bible, which "has received reviews from publications including Library Journal, Resource Magazine, and Publishers Weekly". All of the reviews are cited in the article on the book. MarkZusab (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Per feature coverage mentioned above and book reviews. Thanks, User:MarkZusab. Book is now bluelinked on page; page remains something of a Wild Ruin in desperate need of renovation. I just found and added a long feature story from the Bristol Post. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Self-Sufficient-ish Bible Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i am a bit uncomfortable that an author is deemed notable for being known for one notable book, there are exceptions of course (covered under point 3. of WP:NAUTHOR - "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, ...") like Harper Lee (until recently:)) and To Kill a Mockingbird, but whenever an author article like this comes to afd, i am reminded of people who are known for one event, now if there were reviews of Hamilton's other works/indepth sources that discussed him that would different (sorry, the sources presently in the article don't cut it, although the BP one looks interesting), i will stay on the fence on this one, btw, i wouldn't mind a background section in the book article covering the two authors, well thats enough of coola's ramblings.....Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Coolabahapple's concerns, I ran a couple of quick searches and added some sources. While there are some book reviews, he gets coverage more often as a feature story: clambering though little-known ancient ruins, foraging wild plants for food, being a minor guru of the sulf-sufficiency (grow your own food) movement.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Potential, but currently not enough RS to support the article. Doesn't quite meet WP:AUTHOR. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
revisiting this. One bluelinked book. 1 or 2 reviews of his other books, and a handful of feature and travel articles about him. But this thing is, these features , where he takes journalists on food foraging walks, or where a journalist writes about the three yeas he spent hiking around Britain's lesser-known ruins in an article focused on recommending which of the ruins in the book readers might want to go see, don't really contain SIGCOV of him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 15 May 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 evidence has been presented that this is "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene", apart from GOOGLEHITS. Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens Connection

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

Less important music group fails WP:BAND. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 18:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can the nominator →Enock4seth please say what the reason is for proposing this deletion? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or a vanity publisher. Spam from the groups only current member. Part of a promo effort for Psalm 1, Christ Junkie aka Psalm 1, the christ junkie aka Psalm 1, the Christ Junkie aka Psalm 1 (the Christ Junkie). Article content is not supported by the sources. Claims of significance are not backed by sourcing. Sourcing is insufficient for GNG. 1,3,5 are mere name checks. 2 is PR. 4 is just a download site. Nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:BAND "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene" - article needs to be rewritten in an ecyclopedic style to remove promotional language such as, "Heavens Connection is set to empower the youth of today with God's Word and light" - Epinoia (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Epinoia--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Epinoia, is there any good sources out there that verify that extrodinary claim? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Search google for Ghanaian+Gospel+rap to find out... is not a large genre, making this group more notable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching under those criteria doesn't bring up a single mention of this group, except on Wikipedia mirrors. Richard3120 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS. What good source exists that verifies that extraordinary claim, keeping in mind that Ghanaian Gospel rap is not a notable style. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Simply no reliable sources found at all, which makes it difficult to believe that they are "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene", as Epinoia claims, if there aren't any sources talking about them at all. Richard3120 (talk) 22:57, 16 May 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. I would like to ask participants in AfD debates to keep their comments at a reasonable length. Admins really have not the time (nor usually the inclination) to go through dozens of external links. Please realize that to keep an article it is sufficient to give only a few good sources. I would encourage especially De-Stavness to familiarize them with WP:RS. Thanks. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graylog

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

A non-notable startup with little to no coverage in reliable independent sources. Nothing unique about it and does not compare to the industry leaders like Splunk(which basically does the same thing at a scale 100x). Daiyusha (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi let's not be too hasty with deleting this article, please. I have some information for you that I hope will change your mind.

1. ---> "A non-notable startup with little to no coverage in reliable independent sources" Graylog is consistently mentioned alongside Splunk and is reliably in the top 5-10 when discussing the top log management companies. A quick Google search will tell you that.

Look through some of these links, these sources below which are considered to be very reliable and independent.

https://www.comparitech.com/net-admin/log-management-tools/ - a company that openly admits it earns by linking to various softwares it "advertises". Not-independent
https://stackify.com/best-log-management-tools/ - This is a list of 51 logging tools, this is not an acceptable claim of notability even for companies like splunk.
https://www.infoworld.com/article/3063614/9-splunk-alternatives-for-log-analysis.html - Again a list of 9 Splunk alternatives, not considered significant coverage
https://dzone.com/articles/top-10-log-management-tools-1 - Again a list
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2885752/open-source-graylog-puts-splunk-on-notice.html - A significant mention, this one counts.
https://opensource.com/article/18/9/open-source-log-aggregation-tools - Not a reliable source, anyone can have a chance to contribute here.

2. ---> "Nothing unique about it" There are many unique aspects. I can add in an extra paragraph about why Graylog is unique if you think that will help improve the quality of the article. I don't this it is reasonable to request outright deletion over this, perhaps do you have a suggestion or constructive criticism on this?

3. ---> "does not compare to the industry leaders like Splunk(which basically does the same thing at a scale 100x)" - Sir, people are having this conversation all the time. DevOps teams, sysadmins & others are comparing Graylog to Splunk legitimately. For many businesses, they can't pay the high cost to have Splunk so they look to other more affordable options (open source or enterprise). Again, there are pros and cons to both, but there is nothing wrong with including a comparison if that conversation is already being had.

Here are links to notable reliable 3rd party sources where these comparisons are happening all the time:

https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/security-information-event-management/compare/graylog-vs-splunk - This is a comparison tool, not an article. There are about 30 logging tools here and you can compare any permutation of those. Usually articles written by a person are accpeted.
https://devops.com/log-monitoring-and-analysis-comparing-elk-splunk-and-graylog/ - similar to opensource.com anyone can contribute. Thus not reliable.
https://www.trustradius.com/compare-products/graylog-vs-splunk-enterprise - Another comparison tools
https://stackshare.io/stackups/graylog-vs-logstash-vs-splunk-cloud - Comparison tool
https://www.itcentralstation.com/products/comparisons/graylog_vs_splunk - Comparison tool
https://www.slant.co/versus/963/965/~splunk_vs_graylog2 - Non-reliable site, comparison tool

Splunk is clearly the leader in the log management space, nobody disputes this. Just because Splunk happens to be the leader in the space doesn't mean Graylog should be banned from Wikipedia or make Graylog any less legitimate. You seem to be very concerned about mentioning Splunk in the article. Is there anything wrong with that?

I am asking for you to reconsider this deletion request and instead tell me where you think this article needs to be adjusted. This is a legitimate company that is well known in the log management space and deserves to be on Wikipedia.

Thank you I look forward to working with you and the other editors to make this article better. De-Stavness (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: People will have a discussion for about a week, and If people find sources that are supportive, your article stays. That said, there are a lot of problems with most sources you mentioned .I've marked the reason why they aren't reliable enough, Please don't be offended. Wikipedia usually asks for multiple independent, reliable sources for companies. Daiyusha (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I've put together another list of sources that I believe to be reliable and independent. I've included a mix of sources from education and governmental websites, to news sources, and to articles mentioning the company or product in a significant way. Graylog has international users/clients so some of the sources come from all around the globe.

Again there are more mentions and sources I am just trying to find what you consider legitimate. Please look these through and let me know what you think. Thank you.

In the news

Articles where Graylog is the focus

Education mentions

Goverment mentions

Award Graylog and Splunk Enterprise Security among Security Incident and Event Management Data Quadrant Gold Medalists

http://virtual-strategy.com/2018/08/30/software-reviews-names-graylog-and-splunk-enterprise-security-among/

Wikipedia pages already linking to Graylog --> (http://docs.graylog.org/en/latest/pages/gelf.html)

Graylog has been around since 2009 so there are a lot or sources I am just trying to find the ones you will consider to be the most important. Thank you and I am looking forward to the discussion.

De-Stavness (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a solid independent/reliable article as well. Not a comparison article:

https://blogs.gartner.com/jonah-kowall/2015/01/27/cool-vendor-pick-graylog/

De-Stavness (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is notable and informative Germcrow (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage at Gartner and InfoWorld suggests coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources providing signficant coverage and thus meeting WP:NCORP requirements. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is largely promotional, WP:NOTPROMOTION - Graylog has not done anything unique, just a different version of existing services - does not meet WP:ORGSIG, the company has not "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." - Epinoia (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, the topic meets the criteria. I removed the repeated sentence and I removed the part about "regularly attending" conferences as it is not relevant to the topic. I would like to see a little more information on the actual product with references. But as it is, it passes the criteria in WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per HighKing. Article seems to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. The article observed WP:NCORP.Forest90 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 14 May 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 Revere, Massachusetts. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beachmont, Massachusetts

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

A neighborhood with no particular separate notability. Qwirkle (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Was Beachmont ever a separate village? Many neighborhoods of cities trace their origins to independent villages that were eventually annexed by a nearby city. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Revere, Massachusetts as a categorized {{R to related topic}}, as subject lacks non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Per WP:GEOLAND populated places without legal recognition such as subdivisions should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it, if a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources. Sam Sailor 07:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree if its not notable merging with Revere makes sense, assuming as Eastmain points out that is wasn't formerly a separate settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an officially-recognized place like the Community areas in Chicago? If so, keep, but otherwise redirect to Revere per User:Sam Sailor. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 23:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Revere, Massachusetts - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - does not meet WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NGEO and Eastmain's hypothetical above — it was once, in fact, a 'village' recognized as such in A Gazetteer of the State of Massachusetts (1890). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And also in the USGS' A Geographic Dictionary of Massachusetts (1894). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s village-as-neighborhood, not village-as-political-entity. Qwirkle (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the context, however, makes it clear that this was a legally recognized distinct place at the time, which is how I've understood WP:NGEO.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by הסרפד (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, what would make you say that? Qwirkle (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds of the two mentions, they are, howere, purely trivial. Sam Sailor 05:23, 21 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Miyata

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

Notable: Fails GNG, ANYBIO, and all NMUSIC criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 14 May 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 now leans towards this being notable enough for an article, and some content issues have been resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outrage porn

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

The article is about a neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. There are no reliable sources that mention the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a number of reliable sources mentioning the subject and giving examples of it. The term was first used in The New York Times in 2009, was still being discussed in 2014, 2016. As they are discussing examples of the concept this goes beyond a pure WP:DICDEF. I did think about whether a merge with Clickbait might not be a better idea but they don't seem to be quite the same thing. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are all op-eds, they are unreliable sources in this context. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's three books also referencing Kreider's definition in reasonable depth: 1 2 3. There's also this book that seems to be entirely about what it describes as "Outrage journalism" and "Outrage-based political media content" which appears to be an identical concept - however I don't have access to a complete copy of it though per WP:NEXIST all we need to know is that the sourcing likely exists. From what can be seen in the preview version available on Amazon, it offers a full definition of "Outrage journalism" and "outrage media". FOARP (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So improve the article. Come on mate, this is getting a bit tired to say the least. Bacondrum (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what matters is showing that the references exist. The present state of the article is not the deciding point as there is no deadline on Wiki. If you're tired, have a nap - Wiki will still be there tomorrow. FOARP (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, what matters is that it actually belongs here. As it stands this article is not an established terminology, or an encyclopedic subject and does not cite reliable sources. Improve it if you want. I am going to bed.

Sweet dreams. The present state of the article is not the deciding point at AFD. It is clearly possible for this article to contain a full definition, beyond a dictionary definition, of this term based on significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and therefore it meets WP:GNG and does not fail WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary It's an obscure neologism, the page has no reliable sources, feel free to improve the article. Bacondrum (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Wikipedia is not a dictionary The article is about a neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. There are no reliable sources that mention the subject. All sources provided to date are random op-eds authored by people with no particular expertise in related fields. Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck this !vote as it duplicates the nom which already counts as a "delete" !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an established terminology. Not an encyclopedic subject. Cited sources are poor or do not support statements. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually thought this was a more popular term than it is. I've heard it used to describe "(Ideology X) CRINGE compilation" style videos on Youtube, but it seems like the definition is still being developed and is much broader than that. It's really just slang/neologism right now and doesn't seem deserving of an article. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP. There are a number of books and papers directly about this term. This nomination is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call-out culture (2nd nomination), though the nominator wasn't quite so egregious about removing sources at this article before nominating for deletion. The term is related to many other articles like Milkshake Duck, online shaming, public shaming, cyberbullying, mobbing, mob justice, online boycott, and/or outrage culture and there is likely an argument to be made for a single article that describes each of these terms collectively instead of so many separate articles. But, until that merger happens, there is enough independent, reliable sources for outrage porn to be kept. In the most extreme case it could potentially be merged to one of the above links, but I don't think that is the appropriate outcome given the available sources. - Paul^T+/_C 04:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did consider a merge to Moral panic but I'm not sure they're the same thing. Also a rename to "outrage media" or "outrage journalism" might be warranted - at least one of the references discusses these as being essentially the same phenomena and there seems to be at least some academic, qualitative and quantitative research around its prevalence (e.g., the work by Berry and Sobieraj at Tufts). FOARP (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to Keep though it may seem like synthesis of published material. I understand that there is still concern. If the community tends to delete, can a transwiki soft redirect to wikt:outrage_porn work?--94rain ^Talk 15:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has sufficient WP:RS in the article to at least technically meet WP:GNG (which it does; I have added several more references to the article in this regard). Might not be a major term, but the references show that it has remained in use right up the current date per Ocasio-Cortez Exploited as Clickbait and Outrage Porn Magnet (April 2019). Britishfinance (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now that I have also clicked on the find sources "books" and "scholar" tool, this is a solid "keep" with discussion on the founder and what it means in even more sources. Will try and add more of these; and credit to FOARP and Psantora who have also materially improved this article since nomination with additions. Britishfinance (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Britishfinance and FOARP, and WP:HEY. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 06:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed WP:HEY, I think the article is a lot better now. Bacondrum (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not going to get into the weeds of the sourcing with this one due to the nature of the topic, but my searches show an easy keep on WP:GNG grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 04:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Britishfinance and searches reveal the notability of the subject. Lubbad85 (☎) 22:52, 4 June 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. Well, it seems like while there are many ... debatable sources here, there are also some sources that have gone uncontested and are claimed to support WP:GNG/WP:NEO (as pointed out by WP:NEXIST, even sources that aren't currently used in the article can establish notability). Some proposals for mergers and redirections have been made, not receiving enough support for a consensus in their favour. So keep, but if people still want a merger they can start a talk page discussion to that effect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Call-out culture

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

The article is about a neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. Not an established terminology. Not an encyclopedic subject. Cited sources are poor or do not support statements. Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bacondrum (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not canvasing, just hoping to get experienced and uninvolved editors opinions here. Literally pinging in the 7 editors with the most edits: @Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Koavf, Rich Farmbrough, BD2412, Materialscientist, Tom.Reding, and BrownHairedGirl: I don't believe this article belongs on wikipedia. It is poorly written , poorly cited, it is a neologism and wikipedia is not a dictionary. What do you lot think?. Bacondrum (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is about a neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. There are no reliable sources that mention the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination appears to be a failed WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the pings in the nomination seem to be completely nonsensical at best and malicious/canvassing at worst. There is basically zero overlap with the editors listed at the xtools.wmflabs.org entry for the article. Why is that? - Paul^T+/_C 04:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note for context, the above paragraph was originally: Not canvasing, just hoping to get experienced and uninvolved editors opinions here as I don't believe this article belongs on wikipedia by any stretch of the imagination, it is not an established terminology. Not an encyclopedic subject. Cited sources are poor or do not support statements. Literally pinging in the 8 editors with the most edits: @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: @Koavf: @Rich Farmbrough: @BD2412: @Materialscientist: @Tom.Reding: @BrownHairedGirl: @Bearcat: What do you lot think?. - Paul^T+/_C 05:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourced do exist, for example: Hearing Vocation Differently: Meaning, Purpose, and Identity in the Multi-Faith Academy , David Cunningham, Oxford University Press. pp. 46 ff. [11]E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, feel free to improve the article by adding reliable sources you find. Bacondrum (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but RENAME "Social media mob", a more common term for the same phenomenon (also known as "social media mobbing".) Good soruces do exist, including: Amanda Hess, New York Times, 2018 : https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/magazine/some-online-mobs-are-vicious-others-are-perfectly-rational.html].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Op-eds are primary sources, this is a primary sources not a reliable source for statements of fact. Bacondrum (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an op-ed, article is labeled: "Amanda Hess is a critic at large for The New York Times," and, as you say, the opinions of notable literary critics like Amanda Hess can be used to build a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Online shaming - Simply being a neologism is not sufficient reason to delete, it must be shown that it is only a neologism and not a notable topic worthy of a stand-alone Wiki article. Is this a notable phenomenon? Well, there certainly seem to be plenty of articles discussing it. For example this article defines it thus:

"The system of pseudo-peer-reviewing on Tumblr is called a “call-out culture,” where users will police the posts that they feel do not align with Tumblr’s need for inclusivity. “Call-out” culture can be positive in its system of checks and balances because it derails the spread of misinformation, but this policing is generally assumed to be negative due to the aggression from which “calling-out” stems. While “call-out” culture is a double-edged sword, it is ultimately a practice of consciousness-raising partly because of the publicity that stems from the arguments, but mostly because the internet is made into a forum for debate and education."

Undergraduate student essay. Not a reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources that give similar definitions and are enough to sustain notability (e.g., 1 2 3). My main concern is that Online shaming covers similar ground (although not the actual culture so maybe there's room for two articles). FOARP (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first two appear to be reliable sources, please feel free to improve the article using them, the last one is an op-ed and is thus unreliable in this context. Bacondrum (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo, boy. I thought that this page was paltry, but Online shaming is even worse (no attempt to define or to source the term/concept; subheads without sources; long list of subheaded but non -bluelinked "examples") . It is also not a search term I had though of, although I had searched for an article on this topic just yesterday, and failed to find one. On the other hand, our article on Doxing is surprisingly good, proving that we could turn this into a good page. User:FOARP, do we discuss what to do with Online shaming there, here, or somewhere else?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is decided that merge is a better option than keep, then we can talk about what to merge this article to or whether other articles should be merged into this one. If Online shaming needs deleting then it should be AFD'd. Otherwise page quality issues are for the talk page. I think you're right that the problems with Online shaming seem worse than those for Call-out culture. There's also the related concept of Cyberbullying but again that seems a related, but not identical, phenomenon. FOARP (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose keeping the page if it was significanty improved, when I first came across it the page was horrendous and virtually unintelligible, the current version is certainly "paltry", to put it mildly. As it stands the page should be deleted. Bacondrum (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree online shaming is a shocker of a page, but at least it contains some reliable, secondary sources and the secondary sources appear to be authored by people with relevant expertise. Bacondrum (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As was explained to Bacondrum in the article's talk page, despite there being no one clear definition of what it is, there are plenty of reliable sources talking about it, and each defines it more or less similarly. Alex.osheter (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly direct us to a single reliable source used in the article? (keeping in mind that an op-ed is not a reliable source for a neologism)Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The state of referencing in the article is not key to deciding whether the article should be deleted or not. There are multiple reliable sources discussing the concept of "Callout culture". For example, here, Dr. Ealasaid Munro, a lecturer in Communications, Media, and Culture at the University of Stirling, defines "Callout culture" as one "in which sexism or misogyny can be called out and challenged ... facilitat[ing] the creation of a global community of feminists who use the Internet both for discussion and activism" (quoted here). Similarly here, Prof. Michael Berube, a Professor of Literature at Penn State University, states that "In so- cial media, what is known as “callout culture” and “ally theater” (in which people demonstrate their bona fides as allies of a vulnerable population) often produces a swell of online outrage that demands that a post or a tweet be taken down or deleted". There are other such references easily findable through a GScholar search and otherwise, and other references are already provided above. It does not matter that these references are not yet included in the article. FOARP (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not mine or any other editors job to find citations to back other editors assertions. If you find reliable sources and you can improve the article then by all means, do it. As it stood and as it currently stands the article is not encyclopedic, cites sources that are poor, inappropriate and\or do not support statements. I personally had never heard of "callout culture” till I came across the Call-out culture link in a see also section. I'd never heard of “ally theater" at all until now. Bacondrum (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the nominator's job to confirm whether a page should be deleted before nominating it. No, it does not matter that the references are not yet included in the article. No, it does not matter that you've never heard of it. FOARP (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an established terminology. Not an encyclopedic subject. Cited sources are poor or do not support statements. I found no sources, I can't possibly know of them all. Improve the article. if you know better, do better. Bacondrum (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's some serious "Didn't hear that" going on here. How much more of an WP:RS do you get than scholarly articles by established academics in reputable journals? Again, the present state of the article doesn't matter for AFD - it's the possible state that matters. FOARP (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary I heard you, I searched for sources in good faith, it is you who is not listing: I found no sources (and I spent a good amount of my precious time doing so), I couldn't find a single article or paper that even mentioned the term. I can't possibly know of all papers or articles in existence. If you found a quality source, improve the article and it may no longer warrant deletion. Improve the article. If you know better, do better. Or perhaps you are here pushing the term? I dunno? All I know is that I came to read an article and it was very hard to make sense of, pretty much a POV, right-wing biased rant about how terrible feminists are and was structured like a dogs breakfast, I tried to improve it, but found all citations were op-eds, it's a neologism and doesn't belong here as far as I can see, happy to be proved wrong. Bacondrum (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is not perfect but has a lot of good references from reliable sources. The AFD nomination is misguided. Deleting it wipes out an enormous amount of excellent work on an important topic; most of the work that has been done on this article is completely in keeping with the various Wikipedia standards for encyclopedic content and reliable sources. DeRossitt (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This nomination seems to be in bad faith. There were a great many more sources (86) before Bacondrum began to slice up the article. Yes, it was in bad shape as it was in the process of merging in cancel culture, but there was extensive sourcing from a large number of reliable sources (including many prominent authors and publications) that were summarily removed by Bacondrum prior to listing the article here. I understand the intent behind the edits and in some ways the article had definitely grown too large and lost focus, but to suggest the term(s) have little or no usage in reliable sources is bunk. I also agree that there are a number of closely related terms all about the same or extremely similar terms/phrases like Milkshake Duck, online shaming, public shaming, cyberbullying, mobbing, mob justice, online boycott, outrage culture, and/or outrage porn (though I'm sure there are others out there as well) and, in theory, a single article encompassing all of these terms could suffice. (Indeed that was the point of merging cancel culture and call-out culture.) Until such a time as that centralized article about the general phenomenon is created, keeping this article is a fair outcome and deletion serves no purpose. At the very least it should be redirected to one of the similar terms/phrases listed above. - Paul^T+/_C 03:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made the nomination in good faith, and you should assume as much. Poor form. Care to point out a reliable source in the version as it was? It's a neologism and wikipedia is not a dictionary, the article also lacked even a single reliable citation. Bacondrum (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are several, but the first one I saw (that has since been removed) is: Danuta Walters, Suzanna (5 May 2017). "Academe's Poisonous Call-Out Culture". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 21 October 2017. Another (that is still present) is: Friedersdorf, Conor (2017-05-08). "The Destructiveness of Call-Out Culture on Campus". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2019-05-14. I stand by my point: to suggest the term(s) have "little or no usage in reliable sources" is bunk. As is your assertion that the article also lacked even a single reliable citation. Articles by Suzanna Danuta Walters in The Chronicle of Higher Education and Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic both easily qualify as reliable secondary sources for a neologism (not to mention the subsequent sources that others have identified above), and that was just in the opening paragraph of the first merged version of the article that I linked to above. - Paul^T+/_C 04:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Also, removing 95% of an article and then saying it lacks sources in an AfD is pretty egregious. - Paul^T+/_C 04:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Also also, doing stuff like this is a bad idea. Do not change your statements after people have already responded to them per WP:REDACTED. - Paul^T+/_C 05:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable sources for a neologism. They are op-eds, primary sources. Bacondrum (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also also, "a single article encompassing all of these terms could suffice. (Indeed that was the point of merging cancel culture and call-out culture.) Until such a time as that centralized article about the general phenomenon"... you had it right the first time, it is a term, not a phenomena, a phenomena is an event or an occurrence...this is a big part of the problem with this article, the subject is not being clearly defined and calling it a phenomena is misleading. Calling a term a phenomenon is clearly pushing the term and biased in it's presentation of said term. Entirely cited using op-eds, it is therefor 100% POV.~~Bacondrum (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Stop editing comments after others have replied per WP:REDACTED. Changing the time is not apropriate. If you don't know how to fix something, ask how to fix it. Don't make it worse. - Paul^T+/_C 15:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly (1), you are 100% mistaken about The Atlantic: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Is Conor Friedersdorf and the Atlantic a Reliable Source?. (And, in fairness, I was mistaken about the The Chronicle of Higher Education article being a secondary source, as it is from The Chronicle Review, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a RS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 117#The Chronicle of Higher Education. It just happens to be a primary source in this case.) Regardless, as established by many other editors here, there are reliable (primary and secondary) sources for the article. Furthermore, just because a source is a primary source does not mean it needs to be summarily removed from the article.

Secondly (2), call-out culture, cancel culture and outrage culture are all terms (each one being an individual "term") that describe the same/a very similar type of behavior or phenomenon. There are a series of similar terms/articles (inclusive of the three above) that each describe similar behaviors/phenomena: e.g. outrage porn/outrage media/outrage journalism, Milkshake Duck, public shaming, online shaming, online boycott, cyberbullying, mobbing, mob justice, moral panic, and likely others. I don't know how you managed to lose sight of that in what I wrote. I thought it was fairly clear.

Regarding some kind of merger (3), WP:NEO states: In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. In this case there are a great many "short-hand term[s]" all describing very similar things. I would support some kind of merged page with "a descriptive phrase in plain English" that encompasses the described phenomena (across more than just the "culture" terms) generally, but I don't think this is the proper venue for hashing that kind of thing out.

Finally (4), I'd like to kindly ask you to stop your disruptive editing at the article in question. You are right at the WP:3RR threshold. (1 2 3 each restoring this addition of the {{neologism}} template.)

P.S. Why was this AfD listed as the 2nd nomination. I can't find the 1st one. Does it exist? - Paul^T+/_C 08:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Conor Friedersdorf and the Atlantic a Reliable Source?" not as a primary source (op-ed) about a neologism. Not at all. Thanks for acknowledging the other source is not good enough, now we are making some progress, I hope you understand the rest of the citations used are also primary sources.

"Regardless, as established by many other editors here, there are reliable (primary and secondary) sources for the article" kindly point one out then. There are none as far as I can see, all op-eds, 100% of them.

"I thought it was fairly clear" not at all. You lot keep saying there are secondary sources, but there are none. If other editors have found some I'd ask them to improve the article.

"I would support some kind of merged page" I'd possibly support the term being mentioned on a page about social media terms more broadly...I might not oppose this page as a stand alone if it can be demonstrated that the subject is encyclopedic, the page is edited into a well written, clear and reliably cited article, or it is demonstrated that it's more than just a passing fad or a term a handful of university activists or op-ed writers have used - remembering that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

I've switched out the neologism template for the primary source template, it should not be removed until the issues have been addressed, namely the complete lack of secondary source, secondly the need to establish that this is an encyclopedic subject. I have no axe to grind here, the page is just nothing like an encyclopedic entry, primary sources are not reliable for this subject even if it can be demonstrated that it is encyclopedic. It absolutely needs to be improved or removed. I'm interested as to why editors who claim to have secondary sources have not improved the article, looks like pushing a particular view or the term itself to me. Bacondrum (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Why was this AfD listed as the 2nd nomination." I can't find it either, my mistake. I must have gotten mixed up with another article I was looking at or something. Bacondrum (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes happen to everyone (including myself as I noted above), but perhaps you should recognize that you have been making a lot of mistakes with this article and begin to self-reflect. My responses to your previous comments are below:

Para1: There is nothing wrong with using reliable primary sources in support of specific points in the article as long as they are properly attributed. You keep on removing these points simply because they are primary sources without any regard for their reliability. Please stop.

Para2: Here are several (and I'm sure there are more):

Bérubé, Michael (January 2018). "The Way We Review Now". Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. 133 (1): 132–138. Retrieved 15 May 2019.
Anderson, Dianna E. (2018). Problematic: How Toxic Callout Culture Is Destroying Feminism. University of Nebraska Press. p. 84. ISBN 1612349617. Retrieved 15 May 2019.
Munro, Ealasaid. "Feminism: A Fourth Wave?". SAGE Publishing. Retrieved 15 May 2019.

They have been pointed out to you multiple times but you just seem to ignore them. The fact that they exist and discuss the term is enough to satisfy WP:NEO, and therefore the article should be kept.

Para3: Stop twisting my words. The sources I listed above are already in the article and you keep asserting there are none. Furthermore, this does not mean that reliable primary sources are completely worthless on their own.

Para4: Well, lucky for everyone, we don't need to satisfy you in particular, especially since you are being disruptive.

Para5: This could be interpreted as a self-revert, except that it shows that you are continuing to edit disruptively. In fact, it was noted at this edit warring report that you have done this at this article in the past. Please stop and gain consenses for your edits if they are disputed going forward. - Paul^T+/_C 15:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not a neologism when it is a mixture of very simple words. This meets WP:GNG, I found [12], the book Kill All Normies has a "culture war" perspective on this, and the British book Feminism: A Fourth Wave? discusses this. wumbolo ^^^ 13:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's exactly what an neologism is, a new term, often created by combining words. Bacondrum (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument editors above make is that his term passes WP:NEO E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's clearly a notable neologism discussed at length in multiple reliable sources. summoned by bot to the RfC, felt it was more appropriate to comment here _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Online shaming - The scope of this article is already covered by Online shaming. I don't think it warrants an entirely separate article. Kaldari (talk) 05:42, 20 May 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. I am not sure what "111 user review" is supposed to mean but as noted by others citing e.g WP:SUSTAINED news coverage alone is not always enough to justify an article, and the consensus here leans into the direction that it is not enough in this case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 East London mosque shooting

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

WP:NOTNEWS + not a killing (shooting blanks in front of the mosque. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. It's notable itself and in one day recorded 111 user review. Also it's not Blank Article. It's look like the article pay to a uncompleted terrorist attack in London city which the attacker left the scene.Forest90 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep this has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS. Also the amount of killed people is not a reason for deletion and nothing in the article seems to suggest that there was a killing. The deletion should most likely to be about notability and it is based on whether there are extensive reports about the subject on reliable sources or not. The event seems notable and have got attention from newspapers and so passes WP:GNG (this is based on a quick check on google). The reason for the speedy keep is because the reason that was given by the nominator doesn't seem to be a good reason for the deletion so I think this article should be kept unless there is a good reason presented for the deletion.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the general principle I meant was from NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." WP:NEWSEVENT would have been more precise. Many crimes get coverage from multiple reliable sources but that does not mean all such are topics for an encyclopedia. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete local news story with no damage or anyone hurt. Nate • (chatter) 00:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has not been sustained and also fails News reports. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete. No deaths, no injuries, no lasting notability. WWGB (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine incident of someone goofing around with a blank-firing weapon in which nobody was hurt or injured. As parochial a story as it gets. ‑ Iridescent 08:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it was some bloke messing around shooting blanks, what's the point in making a wiki article about it? There's no deaths, no injuries, and hell, it didn't even make national news, maybe not even regional news. Nowhere near notable enough to be handed an article. Cheesy McGee (talk) 08:40, 17 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Air Flight 293

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

WP:GNG for one WP:NOTNEWS for another. Wikipedia is not a repository for articles on trivial everyday occurrences which have noe notability or lasting impact. Runway excursions are an everyday occurrence and would only become notable for other reasons like loss of life or a notable person being involved. Petebutt (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - WP:GNG easily met and demonstrated to be met. A lack of deaths is ≠ to a lack of notability, even though a presence of deaths adds to the case for notability. Aircraft is a hull loss. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Is it a hull loss? I'm not seeing that anywhere. If so, it should be added to the article and would probably sway me to keep, but I'm on the fence at the moment. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Safety Network currently states "substantial damage". Given that the aircraft has been immersed in seawater and is 18 years old, it's almost certainly a constructive total loss. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reference that said the plane will be scrapped after the NTSB finishes its investigation and added it. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial damage to hull, multiple injuries, and a rather unusual aircraft incident. This recent incident was an international news item , and there is some continuing coverage through 13 May (e.g. [13]). As we are unable, at this point point, to assess whether said coverage will be SUSTAINED, we should keep the article per WP:RAPID. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regularly scheduled passenger airline flight crashes, resulting in ~~injuries and~~ a hull loss. (Injuries are described as minor). Meets WP:N with international news coverage including multiple non-trivial coverages on BBC [14] [15], Reuters [16] [17] NBC News [18] [19] CNN [20] [21]
Keep. As a result it is a hull loss which the aircraft overrun and fell to the river which is a bit different from other incidents. Triila73 (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:N is met, along with the WP:CONSENSUS standards that a scheduled airline crash resulting in a hull loss is something that we cover...which, honestly, Pete, you know this. C'mon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Keep Heavy keep, notable enough to have made significant news, PLUS the plane was written off. Had it either been a smaller aircraft and/or wasn't written off, it wouldn't deserve an article. Cheesy McGee (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Might result in changes in regulations and procedures as the plane had only one working thrust reverser and the crew requested to land on runway 10 with a tailwind rather then the planned runway 28 against the wind. Omega13a (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarwan Ali Palejo

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

This is a recreation of Sarwan_Ali_Palijo (Only admin can create now). (Other likely related pages Asad Ali Palijo, Asad Ali Palejo.) Very likely created by LTA Asad_Ali_Palijo. A7 persistently removed by suspected socks (Behavior evidence from their user page edit) 94rain ^Talk 07:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 07:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 07:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Removing CSD template, to creating an article that fails WP:GNG. Currently AFD tag has been removed. I recommend speedy delete and SALTing. User should be blocked too. Lapablo (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: as A7 Ceethekreator (talk) 10:41, 14 May 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. While the keep arguments are a bit thin - it's usually useful if you actually show the sources - some of them have been shown and went uncontested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield Building Society

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

Small local business with four locations; does not meet WP:NCORP. Refs & ELs are all primary sources/directory listings. Unable to find significant in-depth coverage in RS. Searching finds many business-listings and at least one press-release, but no independent coverage. MB 14:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was established in 1869. There will certainly be plenty about it in printed material from the nineteenth century. Notability does not have to be known to Google.Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rathfelder and I are probably going to say here pretty much what we said a couple of months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsden Building Society. Mccapra (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note Two sources are listed here, "The Story of the Mansfield Building Society", Nottingham Observer, 12(94), 1964, [54]-[55] and "A Short History of the Mansfield Building Society", [Mansfield], [c.1957], 12 p. ----Pontificalibus 06:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Building Societies have played an important role in English life and there are plenty of sources going back a long time. I see no reason to delete this one or Marsden Building Society, which was not deleted at that discussion. --Bduke (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions on building societies and points by editors above.Mccapra (talk) 13:36, 14 May 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 17:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KiSel-10

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

I cannot see why this clinical trial is noteworthy. The refs are to stuff by the researchers and there is no reason given as to why it should be considered remarkable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few media mentions, but there's nothing particularly notable about this clinical trial. Examples of other clinical trial articles: Category:Clinical trials by type Natureium (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Published in a peer-review, notable journal, the International Journal of Cardiology. This Google Scholar search says that it has been cited in 100 other articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've got six publications that are cited in 100 other articles. None of them are remotely notable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is insufficient coverage of this clinical trial for it to meet WP:GNG. Many clinicals trials get mentioned a couple of times in the news, but that alone is not enough to establish notability. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article expands on a noteworthy aspect (see section 2.1) of the existing Wikipedia article about Coenzyme Q10, that aspect being the effect of Coenzyme Q10 on heart function. That section contains four lines and is far from comprehensive. As such, it leaves the reader with an incomplete picture of the extent of human knowledge on the subject. If this article about Coenzyme Q10 and heart function in senior citizens is accepted, then it will be possible to link from Wikipedia’s Coenzyme Q10 article to this more comprehensive article. There is too much information here to put it all into section 2.1 of the Wikipedia Coenzyme Q10 article. The presentation of the article is neutral. It is the reporting of facts without bias. The contents of the article are verifiable. All statements of fact are documented. From a bio-medical point of view, it is noteworthy. It is also noteworthy from the point of view of many senior citizens and many people with increased risk of heart disease. Morrillr (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially an argument for expanding the Coenzyme Q10 article, not for keeping this one.TheLongTone (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- The foremost reason for why this article is noteworthy and should remain on Wikipedia is that it addresses not only longevity but also health-related quality of life for senior citizens. People who encounter the term "KiSel-10" may want to look it up in Wikipedia to find a non-biased summary of the results from the study. Morrillr (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of thirteen a dozen clinical trials. No evidence that there is anything distinguishing this one from the dozens of trials run evey single month. --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 21 May 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. But tag for maintenance Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cycleswap

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

Conflict of interest, full of irrelevant (non encyclopedic) material and dropping of unknown names. It could be relevant but the article should be completely rewritten. Phrases like Joran Iedema realized a great demand for rental bikes existed are completely inappropriate for the encyclopedia. — Zanaq (?) 17:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Argree with Zanaq that the article needs a complete rewrite, but it seems to satisfy WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satisfies WP:GNG, but a rewrite is required.--PATH SLOPU 07:38, 14 May 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 List of earthquakes in 2019. Tone 18:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Ecuador earthquake

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

May not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA B dash (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. B dash (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. B dash (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. B dash (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satisfies WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:EFFECT, WP:GNG.--PATH SLOPU 07:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Shows no sign of "enduring notability" per WP:EFFECT - just a news story, per WP:NOTNEWS. Mikenorton (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies GNG & GEOSCOPE, too early to tell for potential EFFECT in academia. This is the strongest earthquake of 2019 so far and is a decent contender for remaining in this position. Daß Wölf 00:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only sources that I can find are either on the day of the earthquake or in one case the day after - this suggests that this event fails the requirement for WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I also note from WP:GEOSCOPE "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article." I have removed all the uncited material from the article, which doesn't leave a lot. Being the largest earthquake in a year doesn't make it notable - there was another 7.5 event on 14 May in Papua New Guinea, and analysis of the previous 20 years suggests that a larger event is very likely to occur (all of those years have M>7.5 earthquakes). Mikenorton (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2019. A stub with little chance of expanded coverage. Sounder Bruce 20:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added a definitive source to the article for the effects of this earthquake from the relevant Ecuadorean government agency. All of the examples shown in this final situation update are of minor damage and in the details of affected educational infrastructure (81 of them), all are listed as having level 1 effects, which in my understanding means light damage only. Mikenorton (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2019 Even with the sources, it's not notable enough for a stand-alone article. It is notable enough to be included in the mentioned article though. INeedSupport ^:3 13:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why is because it has no lasting effect. INeedSupport ^:3 13:28, 28 May 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 Provinces of Thailand. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of capitals in Thailand

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

There is no such thing as the concept of a province "capital" in Thailand. Originally, this listed the towns/cities the provinces were named after (and which served as the seat of the provincial offices), but as the offices of some provinces have moved location, this has morphed into an WP:OR listing of municipalities in which the offices are located, labelling them as "capitals" where no reliable source does. It's absurd to say Ban Tom is the capital of Phayao Province and Bang Rin of Ranong. Paul_012 (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 14#Template:Capitals of provinces of Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, at least procedurally. For instance, searching "Phetchaburi" "capital" brings up a number of sources which cite it as a provincial capital. For instance, [22] lists several regional cities as capitals. The infobox for each province lists a capital as well. If we take the nom at face value, there's going to be a fair bit of cleanup required, but considering there's evidence of provincial "capital"s existing in English, I think this list is valid until otherwise shown. SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect all of them to be informal uses by sources which can't be considered reliable for supporting such claims, per WP:RSCONTEXT. In general settings, it wouldn't be unnatural to refer to the namesake town of each province as its capital, even if technically inaccurate. But can you find any source (that didn't copy the info from Wikipedia) that says Ayothaya, Ban Tom, Bang Rin, Chaeramae, Chai Sathan, Khelang Nakhon, Mai Khet, Non Nam Thaeng, Nong Pling, Sadiang, Sanam Chai, Sukhothai Thani, and Thanon Khat are the capitals of their respective provinces? --Paul_012 (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC) PS Yes, I expect a major clean-up operation for all provinces will be needed. These concerns were raised in previous discussions at Talk:Provinces of Thailand#Province capitals and Talk:List of capitals in Thailand#Untitled --Paul_012 (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It honestly looks incorrect/vandalised as opposed to non-notable. None of those cities/towns actually appear to be capitals of the province, if they exist at all. SportingFlyer T·C 06:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are the municipalities where the provincial halls are physically located, so no, not vandalised, but "updated". The problem is that there is no official designation of what constitutes a "capital", so following the most basic definition—the town or city where the province's seat of government is located—will inevitably constitute original research as seen here. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Honestly, I have no idea why this would be original research. The concept of a "provincial capital" is clearly noted in English-language sources over time, such as [23]. CNN, a reliable source, says the provincial capitals and provinces share names [24]. It's pretty clear this isn't actually a list of capitals, but I'd be shocked if there wasn't a list somewhere noting where all the provincial halls were, if not in the namesake city, which would also constitute renaming the article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Provinces of Thailand which already contains the capitals for each province. The rest of the content is unsourced and probably original research. Ajf773 (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting also seems a plausible solution; this list is redundant and, even if the information is retained, does not warrant a separate article. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has been indefinitely blocked and for quite-related reasons. The notability of the subject is not in doubt and the article can be subject to routine editorial processes as to weeding out the BLP issues. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 06:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me Too movement (India)

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

The article contains strong WP:BLP concerns, the majority of the article is about specific allegations. If all of these BLP issues are rectified, there would be little meaningful content left on the article. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 05:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with rewrite: Article can be kept by fixing the BLP violations through rewriting.--PATH SLOPU 07:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rewrite: I also agree with this. I think the movement itself was notable enough to happen in India when it did, and had notable enough social effects, to warrant keeping its own article. It happened nearly a year after the original Me Too movement in the west, independently and spontaneously, and so wasn't immediately tied to what happened in the west; also, it was seen as a groundbreaking social-shift in one of the largest and most conservative, hierarchical societies in the world. It was notable enough to warrant prominent worldly publications (CNN, BBC, etc) to publish articles specifically on it, and they treated it as its own movement. On a public level, it eventually introduced behavioral reforms in many industries (entertainment, journalism, education, etc) and prominent social figures were suddenly in a fearful position of having their indiscretions outed, which seemingly returned power to the 'victims' or 'average people' in a way the society had never seen before. A climate of 'healthy fear and restraint' was introduced to the workplace; It was one of the first real examples of the use of a social tool (the internet) to empower the disenfranchised and bring about a serious change (or at least notable social reflection) in mindset throughout that society. And its effects were far reaching; many industries, class levels, etc were affected and continue to be so.

So I think it's important to keep it as it is a valid and notable social movement, but edit any BLP concerns (within reason - as even in the original Me Too article, personal examples and names were used factually to illustrate points) as needed and make it read more professionally. Rush922(talk) 11:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRush922 If the original article contains BLP issue that isn't grounds for this article to have it, I haven't seen the original article, if it has unsubstantiated claims that could cause libel issues for Wikipedia those claims should be challenged and removed. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 23:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am sympathetic to this nomination per WP:TNT but think that editors' time would be better spent re-working the article and addressing the BLP concerns (some listed here) rather than debating the subjects' notability, which is not really in doubt. Abecedare (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator has been indefinitely blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 15 May 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 Rocket Software#Products. T. Canens (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AeroText

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

Software that seems to fail WP:NSOFT. Prod, deleted, recently REFUNDed. There are a few mentions in passing in various academic works, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage, at best the software gets a paragraph length summary in in few papers. Google Scholar reports a total of about ~200 papers using this keyword. This suggests it is very niche, and we can hardly argue it had significant impact on science; for comparison, NVivo software returns 200,000 GScholar mentions and SPSS, 4 million, so it's clear we can't say this software had any major impact - few dozen scholars using it is, well, the very definition of something that's way too niche to be encyclopedic. AeroText has no reviews I can find of, no in-depth coverage, and its use does not suggest it can be said to have made any significant impact. The entry is mostly unreferenced and spammy, and I don't think there is anything to rescue. Such minor software can, at best, be described, in a short summary, in some list-like article, but I don't think we have a list of content analysis software. There is a List of text mining software, which currently does not even mention this soft, but I have no objection to a soft deletion that would redirect there, and add a few lines of text from the article there, through the lead is not very informative and the rest of the content is unreferenced/spammy, so... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep REFUND-requestor here. I guess it really comes down to where you think the threshold/cutoff should be. In my mind, ~200 papers mentioning it, a few papers giving a paragraph-length summary, that's significant enough for inclusion. In your mind, it isn't. Here are the sources I mentioned when requesting REFUND:
- Taniar, David (28 February 2006). Web Semantics & Ontology. Idea Group Inc (IGI). p. 172. ISBN 978-1-59140-907-6.
- Taylor, S.M. (November 2004). "Deciphering human language [information extraction]". IT Professional. 6 (6): 28–34. doi:10.1109/MITP.2004.82. ISSN 1520-9202.
- Reeve, Lawrence; Han, Hyoil; Chen, Chaomei (2006), Geroimenko, Vladimir; Chen, Chaomei (eds.), "Information Visualization and the Semantic Web", Visualizing the Semantic Web, Springer-Verlag, pp. 19–44, doi:10.1007/1-84628-290-x_2, ISBN 9781852339760, retrieved 2019-05-12
- Reeve, Lawrence; Han, Hyoil (2005). "Survey of Semantic Annotation Platforms". Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. SAC '05. New York, NY, USA: ACM: 1634–1638. doi:10.1145/1066677.1067049. ISBN 9781581139648.
- Noble, D.F. (2005). "Fusion of open source information". 2005 7th International Conference on Information Fusion. doi:10.1109/icif.2005.1592015.

I agree the current article is spammy and could be pruned, but AFD is based on whether the topic is sufficiently notable, not the current state of the article. (Also, I'm openly biased in favour of "serious" software that gets used in academic research, as opposed to stuff targeted at consumers that gets far more attention but in my mind is less worthy of encyclopaedic attention.) SJK (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first source above (Taniar) may be OK but perhaps someone ought to confirm that. The second (Taylor) is obviously WP:PRIMARY so I'm not going further. Someone may have to spend their quite possibly to be wasted time clearing up the article resolving dead links and converting further readings to inline cites and identifying best sources per WP:THREE and at this moment this is for the bin anyway.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In my searches I have found a coverage on an unreliable blog, a press release on BusinessWire, and passing mentions in books. Analyzing the references offered here:

1. Not WP:SIGCOV. Literally a one longer sentence about which main components are.

2 Not able to read and seems there are WP:PRIMARY issues per djm-leighpark.

3. Not mentioned in the preview from what I can see, not even once.

4. Seems like a buy to read case of a thing. So nothing.

5. And nothing again from the small preview. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence says "must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." I don't see that here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my keep !vote above, but given that everyone else who has commented thus far has favoured deletion, I'd be willing to support the nominator's suggestion of a merge/redirect to a brief mention in List of text mining software as a compromise. SJK (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem would seem to be that the criteria for the list in that article list per WP:CSC would seem to be members have to have their own article as I can't see an entry that that doen't have its own article (there may actually be one that has sneaked it). This would be a redirect with history not a mergeDjm-leighpark (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another option could be to redirect it to Rocket Software#Products (Rocket Software are its current owners), and a brief mention of it there. SJK (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a brief mention there. SJK (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (To section with history : Rocket Software#Products). Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocket Software#Products per Djm-leighpark. Changing my vote from delete to redirect. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:10, 5 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Copeland (mayor)

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NPOLITICIAN / WP:NBIO nor WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Mayor of the 4th biggest city in Kansas... but mayors are not-auto-notable. WP:POLOUTCOMES says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors". Wellm is the 4th biggest city in Kansas a city of "at least regional prominence"? Debatable, but the current two-line stub and no indication of anything but local coverage/job blurb suggest there is nothing to warrant a separate article. My current suggestion is to ensure that the city he is a mayor in has a referenced list of mayors, and that's it - if all they'd get in their bio is 'he is a mayor... and he lives in his city', sorry, that's not enough. Ping me if better sources are found and more content can be added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesnt meet WP:NPOLITICIAN as a mayor. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOLITICIAN clearly not met. There is no information of sources for anything other than his mayoral position. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 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. Though this has somewhat low input, the points made by editors as to the notability of the subject would appear to support their arguments of keeping the article. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 14:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph O. Legaspi

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

Fails WP:BIO; lack of significant coverage by secondary sources. Blackguard 05:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Blackguard 05:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:NPOET, WP:GNG --PATH SLOPU 07:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it a conflict of interest if this article on the co-founder of Kundiman was written at a Kundiman-sponsored edit-a-thon (see [25])? Bakazaka (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if the article is kept appropriate tags including COI at the top of the article may need to be placed. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:POET, works are "well known" ie. appearing in American Literary Review (here), Apogee (here), Crab Orchard Review (here (page 116)), Poetry (here), New England Review (here), his poetry has been reviewed/discussed in/by The Rumpus - ("The Queer Syllabus: Threshold by Joseph O. Legaspi"), Michigan Quarterly Review ("I Am What Is Missing: Our Stuff, Ourselves"), Asian American Writers' Workshop - ("Straddling Convention: The Erotic in Asian American Poetry"), Orion - ("Seven Poems for National Poetry Month"). Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:POET - is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - is not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" - has not "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" - work has not "won significant critical attention" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors need to be carefull not to re/misinterpret notability guidelines that have been developed by consensus over a number of years ie. "work has not "won significant critical attention"", that is not what the notability guideline no. 3 says, it states: "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" which is what i have provided above. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 19 May 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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 19:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Collins (actor)

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

I can't find any significant coverage for this actor. His most significant role only appeared in 13 out of 106 episodes of Trailer Park Boys. Two of the sources are dead and the only one that still works is about his death. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Mysticair667537 (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion Mysticair667537 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think all his credits add up to notability. No results in a search at The Chronicle=Herald, a Halifax newspaper, which is a little puzzling. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn After viewing his filmography on IMDb, I've changed my mind about nominating his article for deletion. I think his article can be expanded if we can find enough sources about him. Judging by the list of films and television shows he's appeared in, I believe he meets minimum WP:RS Mysticair667537 (talk) 16:09, 14 May 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. Withdrawn by nominator, appears the issues with the article have been fixed by various participants, so while it is not the same article we started out with, it is now a more accurate one. How about that! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck (unit)

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

Another almost certainly bogus entry from the ever-unreliable Cardarelli book. No supporting evidence has been produced since the (orphan) page was created, but there is a clue to the actual origin here: User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli#Stuck_(unit). This is not an English word for a unit, but a German word (Stück) meaning "item", and used for counting commodities rather as "piece" is in trading English. The German Wiktionary entry, likely to be more comprehensive than the English one has no mention of Stück having a special meaning for wine. The quote from the British parliamentary proceedings of 1875 [26] suggests that the writer was not necessarily clear on what Stück means, and that was only the beginning of the confusion. @Reyk: Thanks for pointing this out. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per the well researched and argued nomination. Another howler from the discredited Cardarelli book. It's very clear what's happened here: back in the 1870s a German winery sold hock wine at such-and-such a price per piece (per Stück) and those containers happened to be around 260 gallons. That doesn't make Stück a unit of volume, any more than selling fun size candy bars makes "fun (unit)" a unit of weight totalling 21g. Reyk _YO! 07:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk suggested the nomination here and in other conversations with the nominator and so their fulsome praise for the nomination without declaring their own part in the matter is improper canvassing/collusion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked or suggested that Imaginatorium take this to AfD. That is a lie. If you think I've done anything improper you know the way to ANI. Otherwise, quit trying to poison the well. Reyk _YO! 07:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cardarelli is a respectable and reliable source, as recommended by NIST. The unit in this case is confirmed by other compendia of weights and measures such as Jerrard and The Economist's World Measurement Guide. The unit is a customary size of barrel and its specialist use in the production and trade of hock is confirmed by numerous sources including:

Hyatt's Handbook of Grape Culture
The Horticulturist
How We Weigh and Measure
The Economist desk companion
Ridley's Monthly Wine and Spirit Trade Circular
Encyclopedia of Wines & Spirits
Hotel Monthly
Wine, the Vine, and the Cellar

The latter explains that the word does originate from the German stück (piece) but that's not a reason to delete because the names of many customary units have a prosaic origin, e.g. foot (unit) and stone (unit). It says that the unit is "everywhere the same gauge" whereas the aum (a smaller barrel) varied in different regions of Germany. Such details can be used to expand and improve the topic per our editing policy. See also WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the bar is for "reliable". The investigation that Imaginatorium did into the book's "Old Japanese units of weight" shows Imaginatorium and me that this is not at all a reliable source. Are his and my standards for reliability skewed somehow, or are they unrealistically high? Is this book perhaps taken seriously merely because at the time of its publication (and for all I know even now) no other book in English had a similar ambition? There is at least one other book that does have a similar ambition; unfortunately for most people here it's in Japanese, but anyway it's 『単位の辞典』, by an actual metrologist. (A glance at the Japanese website of a multinational retail monopolist also shows interesting-looking Japanese-language alternatives, but I'm unfamiliar with any of them.) The Roman-letter index to the 4th edition of this book shows no "stuck", "stück" or "stueck". Its absence of course doesn't condemn it, but it does hint. ¶ That's an impressively long list of sources for the term's "specialist use in the production and trade of hock"; could you please quote an impressive example among them? I'd like to see signs of care, rather than unthinking recycling of factoids read elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that Jerrard repeats the Salmarazd blunder from the Cardarelli book. This proves that Jerrard has merely cribbed lots of sketchy content from Cardarelli. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I have the 2nd edition of Jerrard and McNeill, pub. 1964 by Chapman and Hall, copyright the authors. But the latest edition is produced by the unreliable Springer. So be careful using the authors' names, since this is not theirs. ¶ I also would really like a quote from each of the sources listed above; if there really is a standard wine barrel size referred to in English as a "stuck", it should be added to the article on wine barrels. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was discussed in a bundled AfD (closed as no consensus). This is to alert contributors there who have not commented above: Alex Rosenberg, AstroCog, Christian75, Dream Focus, Edwardx, Guerillero, Hoary, JTdale, JohnBlackburne, KTo288, kikichugirl, Milowent, NebY, Necrothesp, NorthAmerica, PianoDan, Purplebackpack89, Randykitty, Shevonsilva, Sitush, VQuakr, War wizard90, Pax. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles must satisfy WP:N and WP:NOTDICT. The obscure sources above are copies of each other with the same fundamental flaw as Cardarelli, namely a desire to have a bigger list than anyone else, so anything resembling a unit ends up being included. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So all these major publishers made a mistake, but some random person on the internet figured it all out? Wouldn't they update their books with corrected information if that were true? I found a book published in 1877 about wine uses this measurement on page 27 "He had become possessed of half a stuck (about 750 bottles) of really fine Steinberg Cabinet" and on the book's page 377 "about 40 tuns(stuck) of wine, each of 240 gallons." http://public-library.uk/dailyebook/Wine%20and%20wine%20countries%20-%20a%20record%20and%20manual%20for%20wine%20merchants%20and%20wine%20consumers.pdf Also in the chapter titled WINES OF GERMANY on page 91 "The use of these large casks has been discarded for many years, as it was found that the wines did not mature in them so well as in smaller ones. Those now in use are called "stuck," and contain about seven ohms, of thirty gallons each." Each time the word is used stuck has the double dot over the letter u, but copying and pasting that in Firefox turns it into a regular letter u. Dream Focus 11:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The purported English word "stuck" is not the same as an intended German word "Stück"; so far I have only seen evidence of use of the apparent German, typically written properly (italicised). Perhaps this is indeed a German usage... I don't know, but I do not think we can use Cardarelli (the book, not the man) to answer such questions. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's original research going on behind the nomination here, which is fine, but I'm not aware of any secondary source that has concluded this unit is invented or does not exist, despite being referenced in multiple books. So, our sourcing suggests the unit does exist, but may be obscure. Many words are coined out of misinterpretations of other languages. But as to this AFD, is there really enough to have a separate article on this unit? Our goal as an encyclopedia is to serve our readers, and a one-sentence stub on this obscure unit does not strike me as useful to readers. It provides no context in this format. As I commented in the 2015 bundled AFD, shouldn't this be redirected to some list of related sizes (just as our sources do it)? An analogy might be List of English terms of venery, by animal; most of these terms are not actually used [27], but they do exist.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, "Stueck" means "piece" in German, but this does not make it not a unit if the references say it is one. It is quite possible that this began as a misunderstanding (if that's what it was) but became a customary unit later. For example you can see it being used as a unit here in 1972 and here in 1864. In fact, since it appears to have been used as a unit in the 1860's it's origin cannot have been in the 1870's. At the very least references show it being used as a unit more than a hundred years before Cardarelli, so it cannot be any mistake on their part. PS - as for the matter of whether this and many other articles about customary units should be moved to Wiktionary, I think that's a matter for another discussion. FOARP (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not really part of this afd but anyway .. from nominator, and some editors above - "ever-unreliable Cardarelli book", "discredited Cardarelli book", "same fundamental flaw as Cardarelli", i hope they will be culling this apparently spurious source from wikipedia ie. from Jeroboam (unit), Skein (unit), Gilbert (unit), Puncheon (unit), Flask (unit) - their only source, List of obsolete units of measurement, Unit of length, Centimetre–gram–second system of units, plus 80+ others. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeroboam was redundant to Wine bottle#Sizes, so I redirected it there. Reyk _YO! 11:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As some discussions were conducted about Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures, I re-mention the reliability check carried out by National Institute of Standards and Technology: link: https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Reference/faq.html Shevonsilva (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shevonsilva: "reliability check"?? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references for the article and now we can keep it. thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak TNT delete Both Imaginatorium and FOARP are right on the substance; the problem is that even if what FOARP says is correct, we can't use it to fix the article and expand it beyond a useless, and misleading, substub without more reliable secondary sources. Imaginatorium's analysis of the bogus Cardarelli book's coverage of Japanese units is, AFAICT, accurate, which makes me extremely loath to trust it on stuff that isn't Japanese. We have the same problem with "Harvard University Press"'s Japan Encyclopedia, a completely ridiculous work that very few legit scholars actually looked at closely enough to see the problems, and the NIST source and others seem to have fallen into the same trap as most of the "reliable secondary sources" cited in our Japan Encyclopedia article (which was created in response to me bringing the book to RSN because I noticed the problems with it -- fortunately in that case at least one legit scholar in the real world had also noticed the problems). I am not opposed to the recreation of an article on this subject if reliable secondary sources actually discussing the problem can be located. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I really suspect the claim of Weak TNT delete as apparently this is not a copyright violation or extensive cases of advocacy or undisclosed paid sock farms. I really suspect non-scientific methodology here based on personnel assumptions on units. Some authors of the resources mentioned in the article are scientists and refuting their claims needs a more scientific approach. Approving NIST is unreliable also needs more scientific approach. I appreciate Imaginatorium's work as he/she placed a lot of effort as a Wikipedia contributor, but, his work is much more un-reliable as there is a lot of personnel opinions are still there in his work. Somehow his/her work is leading to improving the articles. Japanese units are separate issue which is not relevant to this unit. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shevonsilva: I think you should refrain from engaging in discussions like this until your English ability improves. I can pretty much figure out what you are trying to say, but almost none of it has any connection to my comment to which you are responding, which implies you didn't actually understand what I was saying. There was nothing in my comment about copyright violation or sock farms, and in cases like the above NIST remark I never talk about sources being "unreliable in general" but merely "wrong on this or that fact". there is a lot of personal opinions has nothing to do with what I wrote -- I said that he appears to be right (no opinions here; it's a question of factual accuracy) on at least some, and probably most, of the Cardarelli criticism. Japanese units are separate issue which is not relevant to this unit also makes no sense in this context; if a source is too old and makes too many errors, we can't hang an article on it, even if many of the errors are concentrated on a separate but closely related topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shevonsilva: I can't really understand what you are trying to say either, but you appear to accuse me of "unreliable work". Perhaps you could explain what this means (keep it to two sentences max.) and either justify it, or withdraw the remark and apologise. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just fancy that, no. 37 Well, User:Shevonsilva added a couple of references to the article. One is "Jerrard", which is meaningless, since it is just Springer copy-pasting. The other is a new(!) superbig(!) "Dictionary of units", this time in three volumes, a total of around 2600 pages, and roughly $US400. The author is Jan Gyllenbok, a stub created by a SPA in 2018, the year of publication of this book, but who was previously mentioned in Historical metrology, itself a page with a curious history. Anyway, I can't help looking for his version of Japanese units, and wow is it wonky?! A series of purported weights based on the Imperial system, and based on a source called "CARD" has the following sequence (in bold; items separated by slashes; the apostrophe is clearly a left-quote): its ‘ko-koo / itho / ischo / its-go / pun / rin... apart from 'rin' this is more, new, garbage. ¶ But back to "Stuck": Cardarelli writes "stuck (hock)"... Gyllenbok reads this as "stuck or hock", and adds "for spirits". Hmm. More updates to follow... Imaginatorium (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, more sketchy Ctrl-C Ctrl-V trash that repeats the blunders in Cardarelli. Not independent sources. Reyk _YO! 09:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concerns. Reverted the unreliable change made and added more references to remove the doubts. We can further expand the article now too. Shevonsilva (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the other Springer references because they are not even independent, and they show nothing, other than that the latest author Gyllenbok cannot even understand what "Stuck (hock)" means. I explained this, so you do not get to claim "no evidence". I will remove these again. Do not put them back unless you can respond to what I wrote. (You claimed along the way that you thought you are "more qualified" in English than I am; perhaps you could find another similarly "qualified" person who could explain to me what you are trying to say.) Imaginatorium (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update from nominator. I would like to withdraw the nomination; many thanks for those of the responses that are constructive. It is clear that this term exists, or rather that really the German term exists (so it isn't a "UK unit"), in various degrees of anglicisation. I have replaced the text with a stub, including a picture of a Stückfass; I'm not sure how to include some examples of use in (mostly) old books. But I think this should redirect to an article on the various German cask sizes. I very much support User:FOARP's point that WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia on topics, not a dictionary of obscure headwords. ¶ I can't immediately see how to go about "withdraw", but I hope someone else can help. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Really appreciate your generosity and constructiveness. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, I also consider it will be better to close the discussion. I have added citation needed template and you or someone else can add some references later as a constructive process. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As well as existing (at least in German), a topic has to satisfy notability and an article has to be more than a dictionary definition. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sources. No compliance with WP:Before. Article and sources is improved from what it was when nominated for AFD. The niff nawing about the reliability of the sources ignores the many books, publishers, and assorted sources that exist, including those mentioned above. the sources mentioned by Andrew D. should be added to the article. In any event, that is a topic for discussion at the article's talk page, not a reason to delete. Meets WP:GNG

The removal of sources in the middle of this AFD discussion is simply an attempt to arrive at a result by indirection that which you cannot achieve by direction. It is a Self fulfilling prophecy regarding notability and lack of sources."There are no sources, so it must be deleted." Ipse dixit doesn't cu8t it here.

That the nominator has blinked (withdrawn) should have some weight here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of all these AfD nominations based on the premise that Cardarelli is an unreliable source. Finding a mistake in Cardarelli does not mean that suddenly the entire work has to be thrown out. No scholarly source has been put forward that criticises Cardarelli in any way, or even pointing out any of the claimed mistakes. I am especially concerned that it is now being argued that the highly regarded academic publisher Springer is also unreliable due them once being fooled into publishing hoax articles. The IEEE, also highly regarded, was also taken in by the same hoax. I note that the evidence offered above for this is an article in Nature, which merely reports that the offending articles had been withdrawn, not that the publishers were now considered intrinsically unreliable. Ironically, it was Nature, the premier science journal in the world, that published one of the most famous hoaxes of all time – Piltdown Man. Frankly, if we are to reject every book or article that comes from a publisher that has ever been taken in by a hoax, or has published an article with an error, we won't be left with much in the way of sources at all.

The idea that sources that put the unit in italics are to be rejected is just out-and-out nonsense. Sure, that might show that the source considers it to be a foreign word, but so what? It still is a unit and being a foreign unit does not detract from its notability on English Wikipedia. Finally, the Journal of the Society of Arts uses takes the German "stück" to be 1200 litres. This article is from 1873, so clearly is not copied from Cardarelli, it clearly uses the word to mean a unit of volume, not piece, and is clearly a reliable source, although doubtless they have been taken in by a hoax sometime in their history. SpinningSpark 23:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the nominators withdrawn nomination. WP:NOTPAPER WP:PRESERVE. Meets WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 01:34, 23 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Cheeran

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

Does not pass NPROF. Natureium (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This one-sentence "article" leaves much to be desired, but according to Google Scholar he is cited 2345 times.[28] --Tataral (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think his citation record is enough for a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. The reason I am giving this a weak keep rather than just a keep is that without better sources there is not much scope for expansion of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His two most cited papers are review articles - these tend to be highly cited because they are useful for introductions to papers, but are not really evidence of the author's personal impact on the field. He got his PhD nearly 20 years ago, and has an h-index of 20 to show for it. This is solid, but not in any way exceptional. He is the archetype of an "average professor". Polyharrisson (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on citation record (5 articles with 100+ citations). hroest 19:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep citation record satisfy NACADEMIC#1. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:58, 14 May 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. With the caveat that the producing company may be notable (per bd2412); if stuff from this page is needed to write a page on the company requests can be made on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moomba (boat manufacturer)

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

Well merge really, and redirect. Seems to me not really notable in its worn right. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: What makes this article less than notable? If this is altered, shouldn't we take out Ski Nautique (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_Nautique) for its lack of sources and its "advertising" tone? Regardless of that, how is this merged? Thanks. Pga48 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, I have not looked at it, so lets look, nope this should not exist either, and I hope its gets nominated for AFD. But its existence is not a valid reason to keep this, two wrongs do not make a right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Right then, thanks, mate. Pga48 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps the reviews of the models of boats the company makes are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, has not "been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - of the three references, two are to company websites and one is a product review; not enough for "multiple reliable secondary sources" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Skier's Choice Boats and keep as a subsection of that article. The product may not be independently notable, but the manufacturer has substantial coverage in the industry. bd2412 T 01:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:40, 14 May 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. No prejudice to re-nominating this after 2 or 3 months. This debate has been marred by irrelevant discussions about possible political ramifications. Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Child Auxilium School

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

The school doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. No third party source found. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, due to the ongoing Smriti Irani issue. Submitter should clarify whether the current controversy has anything to do with the nomination (such as, the news articles made the editor aware of the school). Maybe submit the article for deletion again after the current controversy over her education has passed; otherwise people will say we are biased on our politics, or that the deleting was done to help or hurt someone politically. As for sources, there is one well detailed, third party source(here) in the article. Conceivably there could be more.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover, actually no. I followed the article from User:Bhanwar singh vaish. And that article seems to be an interview. Also the school seem to be famous for one event only. Does BLP1E applies? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back quickly on my question. Possibly User:Bhanwar singh vaish became aware of it due to current events.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, he last edited the article in March 2019 and has been banned the same month. I actually followed through from my CSD log and stumbled on the article. So it was pretty much random. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was pretty much random. I checked the edit history and must agree. The reference relating to the political scandal was added 19:37, 6 April 2019 by User:ToMt--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as an officially recognized secondary school, we should keep this as we do most any secondary school with reliable proof of existence. John from Idegon (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon, Well the article doesn't have third party coverage beyond WP:ITEXISTS --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the article helps the politician, removing it hurts the politician. Because the politician was caught falsely inflating her education earlier, she has highlighted her status as an alum of this school (not the same one as in the scandal) in an apparent attempt to showcase her top-notch background and maybe distract from the scandal. Keeping the article raises the status of the school, complementing her recent effort at damage control, deleting it does the opposite.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, how so? The article has no third party source so seriously fail WP:GNG--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 19:37, 6 April 2019 by User:ToMt edit on the article added a single third party reference to the school. Granted, it was about Smriti Irani. So I looked on Google News: In 2015, the school was attacked 6 times in possible sectarian violence, leading to enhanced security measures, and also a special, Bollywood-inspired team, although later on the motivation was said to be theft. They caught a perp.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover, hmm tricky. But I think those sources should make the article cross WP:GNG. Although it more points towards event happening at the school rather than the school itself. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the current political issues have no bearing whatsoever on whether this article gets kept or deleted. The only question before us here in this discussion is whether or not the subject, this school, meets community standards for an article. Everything else is a content issue and belongs on the article's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The above being said, the question is whether the subject meets community standards for an article. I say it does. We've had numerous RfCs over the years trying to delineate a written standard and indeed we do periodically change the written standard. However, it has always been and I'd suggest it will always be the community consensus as illustrated by what happens here at AfD that we keep all legitimate diploma granting secondary schools. Wikipedia operates on consensus not rules. John from Idegon (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon, even if the sources about the school are lacking? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Tyw7. The standard for a diploma granting school is now and always has been much closer to GEOFEAT than GNG. You are clearly not disputing the school's existence. That's more than adequately shown, much better than many school articles. And please remember it isn't the article we are judging, it's the subject. Numerous other sources have been proffered here. The bit about the attack should certainly be added to the article. John from Idegon (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  John from Idegon, Fajr enough. Can someone add the sources in the article --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or WP:NGO, which states, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." - the absence of such coverage = delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We normally allow articles for Secondary Schools (which this is). This was to some extent a pragmatic policy as pupils are likely to want to create articles about their own schools. As an English medium school, this is likely to have a higher profile than Hindi-medium schools as its alumni are more likely to get good jobs, as a result of that education. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, but there is no reliable coverage of the school. It must at least pass WP:GNG --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as (I know it would be really hard to prove it), but this school is one of the better known ones in the West Delhi area. Delhi has numerous schools (given its population of 22 million), but only a few schools are well known enough (or perceived by parents to provide a good standard of education). For the record, I knew the name of his school as far back in the 90s, much before Wikipedia. When I decide whether to vote keep or delete, I believe that it is important to also consider the age of the school, newspaper reports, as well as whether the school has any famous alumni. The school is close to 50 years old and it has 2 generations of alumni, which can be verified from this report in DailyMail. This is also the sister school of Don Bosco School (Alaknanda, New Delhi), another well known school (verified from [29]). I understand the lack of coverage, but back in the 90s or 2000s, I distinctly remember that the activities hosted by the school (inter-school sports events, extracurricular activities) would appear in the pages of Hindustan Times/Times of India. Unfortunately I don't have access to the archives anymore so I cannot find it. The vandalism incident as well as the Smriti Irani controversy both add to the fact that people could reasonably search Wikipedia for more information about this school, so I guess we can keep this article.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there any sources on this topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jo-Jo Eumerus, None about the school itself. https://www.google.com/search?q=Holy+Child+Auxilium+School&rlz=1CAHFRG_enGB847&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwy7_ZwbDiAhUjtnEKHdGDCEgQ_AUIECgD&biw=960&bih=913

Comment the comment dated 20:24, 8 May 2019 evaluated the sources I mentioned in the 19:05, 8 May 2019 comment as being enough to cross cross WP:GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:09, 24 May 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) 14:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Skjoldvær

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

Akin to the leader of a youth wing of a political party, this person has led a youth environmental organization. Only for a year and without considerable impact in Norwegian public life - yet. Of the 5 current references 4 are primary sources and 1 is trivial coverage (my news desk). While I don't doubt that there are several other news pieces mentioning her, she is not notable enough yet Geschichte (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte: If the main issue with this source is the lack of secondary sources, then I can try and fix this. Would you be willing to give me a few days to rewrite the article to include information from secondary sources that improve notability? After that, you could reassess for notability - if it is still not notable, then I would understand the article's deletion.

The main reason that the article is largely dependent on primary sources is due to it being largely a translation of the Norwegian article, which uses roughly the same sources. However, I'm sure more rewrites would make this article notable. Sound okay? - OliverEastwood (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi OliverEastwood, as this is a translation from the Norwegian WP, see here, it needs the appropriate attribution (see WP:TFOLWP). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and afds usually run for 7 (or more) days before being closed so you have some time to find sources, oh, and welcome to wikipedia and the (murky?:)) world of afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've added secondary sources and information to improve notability, and have slightly expanded the article. Could someone please re-review for notability? I reckon the article is now notable enough to avoid deletion. Thanks very much - OliverEastwood (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a discussion of the sources that were added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging OliverEastwood, who is newish and may not realize his attention is still needed here. Oliver, Jo-Jo Eumerus is asking for a discussion of the sources you've added. You also should formally !vote, which involves posting a comment that starts with '''Keep''' (three apostrophes, Keep, three apostrophes will produce a bolded !vote of Keep), as those are the opinions the person closing the discussion will be most closely assessing. --valereee (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Skjoldvær has had a leadership role in several prominent Norwegian environmentalist organisations, one of which (Folkeaksjonen) has taken notable action, including a lawsuit against the Norwegian government, as well as its actions leading to the creating of an area which is permanently protected against oil drilling. References have also been updated to reflect this notability - several reputable news sources have been added. In light of this, I believe that the lack of notability (which this AfD was created to address) has been sorted, and the article is of a high enough quality to keep. - OliverEastwood talk 10:55, 21 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abelhaleem Hasan Abdelraziq Ashqar

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

This subject fails the WP:BLP1E test. All sources indicate he was a minor figure in this event. ~~Technically, he passes WP:NPROF, but~~ it is impossible to write a NPOV article on this subject because there is nothing else that can be reliable sourced about him. ~~NPROF is a guideline and not a rule. It has exceptions and I believe this is one of them.~~ --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that page includes an improperly formatted list of "Sources" (Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,... ) this may well be the worst WP:BEFORE fail that I have ever seen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not WP:FILIBUSTER. I did BEFORE but, unlike you, I was trying to write a WP:BLPBALANCED article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP1E. I am puzzled why the nom thinks the subject passes WP:Prof. Can he explain in which category? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- I was under the false impression that all full professors met WP:NACADEMIC. I stand corrected. Thank you! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP1E. nableezy - 06:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the page has a list of plausible links, most of which no longer work. Tracking one down I found: (Palestinian Puzzle; A Business Professor in Springfield Goes on Trial Today On U.S. Charges of Supporting Hamas. He Strongly Denies It.: [FINAL Edition] Mary Beth Sheridan - Washington Post Staff Writer. The Washington Post; Washington, D.C. [Washington, D.C]19 Oct 2006: B.1.], behingd a paywall. An open access copy available here: [30]. I suggest that editors invest a little time examining sources. Page asserts that he was convicted and sentenced to prison. But at this point, I am not even certain what name to search under, the article I did find does not use all four names. Let's make a good faith effort to untangle this puzzle.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A rather easy one, actually, once you get the right keywords for searching (which would be Ashqar+Virginia+Hamas, Ashqar+Virginia+President - loads and loads of news items, book hits and journal articles). The subject is clearly not a BLP1E, as he is a public figure who ran to replace Yasser Arafat as Palestinian Authority president (see - 2005 Palestinian presidential election) - and he got 2.76% of the vote (Hamas did not run officially - an outside US figure made this run possible). In depth Al-Jazeera profile from 2003. The electoral run was covered in Washington Post as well as elsewhere. The subsequent criminal case, which ended in a conviction and jail time, clearly meets WP:NCRIME with rather significant and sustained national and international level coverage: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. Coverage in this book. The criminal case itself definitely passes NCRIME (so even if this were a BLP1E - this would be a rename at best), however given that the subject here has been profiled and covered also in contexts other than the criminal case a standalone bio here makes sense. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN KEEP. I have done a modest expand, source, using only a few of the available sources, which include a long profile in the Washington Post. And Note that subject was in the national news form 2004 - 2007, and that he was convicted and imprisoned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you duplicated entire paragraphs multiple times? Ok ... nableezy - 16:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you only proved that it impossible to write a NPOV article about a living person based on the coverage available about him. The case is regarded as demonstrating the difficulty of convicting individuals who assist militants... and Although Ashqar was recorded discussing violent attacks... are each repeated three times. He was convicted for refusing to testify for crying out loud. Everything else he did was technically legal. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected duplication. thank you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited the page which had several instances where the sources were misattributed to some other organization. I will assume good faith chalk that up to several mistakes. However, the article still relies almost entirely on this source. We have no idea if this article was retracted but it does not appear anywhere on The Washington Post website. This article still fails WP:BLP1E. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for your assertion that you corrected "the L.A. Times masked as the Chicago Tribune). What you did was miss the fact that this was a Chicago Tribune story that the Los Angeles Times also printed. And erase it. The Chicago Tribune should appear in the cite as the "Agency". My apologies if I misformatted it. I do at least try to credit the correct newspaper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WaPo article is easily accessed via proquest, where I read it. It is a detailed biographical profile of Ashqar: (Palestinian Puzzle; A Business Professor in Springfield Goes on Trial Today On U.S. Charges of Supporting Hamas. He Strongly Denies It.: [FINAL Edition],Mary Beth Sheridan - Washington Post Staff Writer. The Washington Post; Washington, D.C. [Washington, D.C]19 Oct 2006: B.1. ). Mary Beth Sheridan is still at WaPo, and she's on twitter, if you truly think I made this up go ahead and ask her if she wrote this 2006 profile.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive coverage of his presidential bid (in Arabic as well) - we are at 2E at least, not 1E. If we were at 1E, the correct move would be to rename for the notable criminal case, but we aren't there.Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite them. That is exactly what is needed to prove notability, which I don't see at this time. People run for office all the time and that does not mean their candidacy is notable. Otherwise, this should be deleted. The person's notability is right now entirely inherited from the court case involving three people not just Ashqar. This page as been in violation of BLP for years.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post: Va. Man Certified as Candidate to Replace Arafat.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still inherited notability from concurrent criminal proceedings. If you read the article, it has little to do with the candidacy. His candidacy is a coatrack for The Washington Post to repurpose their previous coverage. Also note that Howard University is in Washington, D.C. Of course, the local paper latched on to this. See for example these sources which shows that his notability was inherited from the fact that he was accused of a crime when he ran for office. Separating his candidacy into a stub section shows desperation to keep this page no matter what. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashqar placed 8th, with 2.68% of the vote. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. It shows that the candidacy was covered in newspapers in Israel, Australia, Britain and the United States. The British, Israeli, and Aussie papers that I cited/read do not even mention the arrest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Covered" or mentioned in passing? Without seeing the sources I cannot judge that he was not just listed among the 8 or more candidates. Can you quote from the sources you cited please? Assuming good faith, I am sure the subject was mentioned. But I have serious doubts that his candidacy was "covered" without also covering his concurrent criminal case. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also link to ProQuest so people with access can assess the sources not available elsewhere. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We enter BLP 3E with his prison hunger strikes. The first was in 1998, when he refused to testify against Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook in a New York Court.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your desperation to keep the page, you have introduce so much unsourced material. I have also lost any ability to assume good faith in you since you don't link to the sources AND you add things not in sources when I locate them. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do this kind of sourcing for several articles a month that come to AfD poorly sourced, but that appear to me to be notable topics. Sometimes I do several a week. I do not feel "desperate" about this one. More like intrigued. What is unusual is to meet an editor so determined to challenge solid sourcing. Please remove the failed verification tags from the Reuters article about the 1998 prison fast that ran in the Washington Post and that is plainly visible in a Proquest Newspaper search. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have previously used original research to filibuster deletions does not mean it was a good thing. I have pointed out many instances now of where you, I assume through lack skill, have introduced content that is not in the sources you cite. I give up, you have succeeded by WP:REFBOMB. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Place 4th is the presidential elections. We have multiple in-depthmsources for this subject spanning 2 decades.Icewhiz (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. - This Springer book - pages 279-280 - covering one of his hunger strikes.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that we are at least at 3E - the case from 1998 - in which his hunger strike is widely covered, the case from 2003+ (with a second long hunger strike), and the presidential campaign. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEYMANN thanks to E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz. The subject certainly meets WP:GNG, with significant, sustained coverage in independent reliable sources, including the New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, the BBC and a solid two paras in the book The grand jury: A tool to repress and jail activists. And that's only in English, apart from one source in Arabic - I expect that there would be a lot more. I hope that those who agreed with the WP:BLP1E nomination rationale, based on the state of the article at the time of nomination, will reconsider now it has been shown that coverage of the subject is about far more than a single event. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:00, 20 May 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empirical Musicology Review}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maharajapuram}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SportsLogos.net}}