Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 July	15 July >

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 delete. Overwhelming consensus that the subject fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda

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

Basically Wikia-cruft level material that as a whole does not satisfy WP:GNG. The majority of the sources are WP:PRIMARY and the secondary ones are from Top-10 lists and the like. Most of the enemies, if they even have a source, only have 1. A lot of the information is also duplicated at Universe of The Legend of Zelda._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Compare to List of recurring Mario franchise enemies. (I have no opinion on either one of these, but my thoughts in the matter is that one or the other existing provides a WP:OTHERSTUFF issue.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Mario franchise enemies seems equally as crufty in my opinion, if not moreso. There are virtually no secondary sources commenting on any of the characters, just descriptions like a WP:GAMEGUIDE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zxcvbnm: Feel free to nomination that one too if you desire. However, my concerns with either one of these being deleted is that there will be readers who attempt to look up the characters/enemies listed on these lists, get a WP:REDLINK (since all redirects towards these lists would then be eligible for WP:G8 in theory), and the articles that have been redirected to these lists due to lack of notability as standalone subjects will be recreated, WP:NOTWIKIA or not. These lists existing act as a magnet for their incoming redirects, helping ensure that these independently unnotable subjects do not get recreated again as articles. Steel1943 (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:SALT the character names so they can't be recreated without a draft? In this case that doesn't apply though, since there is still Universe of The Legend of Zelda that everything redirects to._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Mario equivalent list is equally bad when it comes to independent notability. It shouldn’t exist either. Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not remotely independently notable. Notable game series? Of course. That enemies of it separately notable? Not even close. The Mario variant suffers the same issues. Wikia level stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This information is already at Universe_of_The_Legend_of_Zelda#Creatures. Some reliable sources referenced now do mention some of the enemies, but most aren't referenced at all, so probably best to just redirect this to the other article and if anything isn't already there and worth keeping merge it over. Dream Focus 01:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that the list in Universe of The Legend of Zelda is also cruft and should be excised from the article. So ultimately there would be nowhere to merge that would make any sense since it is unfit for merging. In fact the majority of that article needs a massive cleanup and addition of secondary sources as it predominantly depends on ingame quotes, interviews and Hyrule Historia (all WP:PRIMARY)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that article was originally located at Hyrule and it may make sense to move it back to that name so it can have a more focused subject, similar to Spira (Final Fantasy). Renaming it just brought on the addition of large amounts of cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is pure cruft, with nearly all of these entries not being sourced by reliable sources, but rather fan sites, game guides, or the games themselves. The very few entries here that could be argued to have any sort of notability are already covered at other articles. Nothing here is worth merging, and its an unlikely search term making a redirect pointless. Rorshacma (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Wikia's exist for this exact thing. List of recurring Mario franchise enemies should also be officially nominated for the same reasons. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It now has been, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The section at Universe_of_The_Legend_of_Zelda#Creatures is sufficient to cover these, and even there, that needs some trim-down - we don't need to know how an enemy changed on each iteration of the game. --Masem (t) 17:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a section on Zelda enemies already exists in the Universe of The Legend of Zelda article. I am uncertain of the title's value as a redirect as I would not imagine that someone will type out the entire thing in the search bar. The Universe of The Legend of Zelda article requires a lot of attention, but that is a separate issue from this AfD. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article itself does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I love Zelda, but this article has to go. It does not meet the WP:GNG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Per nom. This in no way meets the general notability guideline, and worst of all it doesn't even have reliable sources. It's more of a guide to how to play the game rather than anything substantive. If this stays, you might as well make, List of Mario franchise cheat codes or List of people who like playing Mario franchise games as well. Michepman (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because it fail WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think we now have a consensus that this article has to go! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:31, 21 July 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. The consensus is that the subject fails notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Watergraph

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

Ineligible for PROD as it was (rather ludicrously IMO) kept at AfD in 2007. I am not able to find any sources to substantiate this definition as a notable technique. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nominated. Moreover, one of the two notable (?) exponents has a website that suggests to me that his "watergraphs" are just inkjet prints with faded edges that are made on arty paper. I could be wrong about that, but I've no reason to believe that even the minimal information present in this stub is accurate for the two examples it gives. -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Looking at the article's history, as well as searching for sources, leads me to believe that this is nothing more than a failed attempt to create a WP:NEOLOGISM for an art technique that did not end up garnering any sort of notability. Searching for in-depth, reliable sources for the term came up with pretty much nothing. Rorshacma (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it is right now is completely unsourced, and in an attempt to find at least one piece of information about this term I couldn't find anything in third-party reliable sources. I found this primary source but it doesn't even substantiate some of the claims in the article. Not to mention both of the artist mentioned as "notable" producers of this technique dont have articles here (although Summers might be notable enough for inclusion). WP:NOTNEO, WP:OR Zingarese talk · contribs 03:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Wassong

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

Non-notable, reads like a CV. Can't find any substantial sources about him that indicate notability. Mediapost is so notable that they don't even have an article, so their assessment of him as influential does not particularly lend weight to a notability claim. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found no significant coverage of him to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO of advertising businessman. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This appears to be a run of the mill marketing executive, one of tens of thousands in the United States alone. WE are not a resume service. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VANITY / WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 12:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because it is not notable and also fail WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, lacks WP:SIGCOV. Masum Reza^📞 15:44, 21 July 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. Clear consensus that the subject fails to meet our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cjdns

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

Previously deleted with rationale "Mostly primary-sourced, one RS, no other evidence of notability.", which applies to the current version as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good sourcing can be found - this hasn't improved since last version - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: again may be WP:TOOSOON but article creator needs to be doing more and if COI/SPA then being open about it. Given what people say about the previous article there's a risk of sock here but I can see enough to see. The weird reference in the novel Battle Come Down - By Charlie Flowers - 978-1291888058. [1]. I've compared the article with [2] ... and have gone hmmm. The wording of the article is not optimal either. I'm actually scratching my head and wondering if this isn't plain dodgy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for similar reasons to nom and DJM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article subject is not notable.Forest90 (talk) 14:19, 21 July 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. Unanimity that this police commissioner fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Kumar Verma

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

Notability concerns. A local police commissioner, the only reference being that organization's website. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable police comissioner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masum Reza^📞 05:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing right now indicates notability.BabbaQ (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No source of notability. Barca (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete- seems to be an attempt of self promotion using Wikipedia. --Harshil169 (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Proof of notability.Forest90 (talk) 14:20, 21 July 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. Overwhelming consensus that this page fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matalam Highway Road Accident

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

Wikipedia is not a log of run-of-the-mill traffic accidents. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a collection of news reports, not referring to any notable event itself. Ajf773 (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above two comments. Bookscale (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a repository for local police blotters of non-notable incidents. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the incidents are even remotely notable on their own and their collection doesn't fare much better. Issues with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR. Pichpich (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article is good for a local newspaper, but not wikipedia Alex-h (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any useful information can be merged back into the main article. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC) I merged at Matalam,_Cotabato#Transportation. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Forest90 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Taconic Parkway is infamous for numerous crashes, yet it doesn't have its own article as it would violate WP:NOTNEWS like this list does. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:16, 21 July 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants

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

Individual lists are largely backed by a single United Nations source. The pages themselves are also WP:NOTSTATS as they involve constant updating via new census data every year. All the following subpages are also nominated:

Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair, the only statistic on any of these pages is the title, which really isn't what WP:NOTSTATS is about. SportingFlyer T·C 07:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have lots of Lists of cities and it's not clear why we should delete this one in particular or how this would help our coverage of the topic. No doubt there is scope for improvement but this is best done by maintaining an open history of our efforts rather than by using deletion to obfuscate it. Andrew D. (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. First can anyone explain the distinction that makes a population of 100,000 notable? Second, article is using single sources from data from 2016 or before, this is likely to require continual updating as more places experience population growth and are added to the lists, making them unwieldy. Ajf773 (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 100,000 population is generally regarded by geographers as the minimum for a town to be classified as a large town, so this is not indiscriminate in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the by-name lists, which seem to be a rather strange way to present this information, but keep and regenerate the by-country lists; as said above, 100,000 inhabitants seems to be a significant threshold of notability for many purposes. -- The Anome (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The source is reliable, so that not a problem. Nor is the fact that it may need updating at time to be accurate as the population of some areas increase to be included on the list or possibly decrease for whatever reason, since many articles are potentially outdated, we don't erase them though. Perfectly valid lists articles. Dream Focus 15:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although 100,000 inhabitants is some kind of a bar, it's still quite indiscriminate. But Wikipedia is not a directory and the massive scope of these lists is unencyclopedic.--Pudeo (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale for nomination has three main points as I understand the nomination:

Only one source is given. The fact is WP:NEXIST However the information would likely be cited by mainstream press from the same censuses used by the UN. It seems like a fools errand to cite the numbers which will quote the same sources, but if more sources are needed- they exist. But we likely all agree that the United Nations is a WP:RS.
The nomination cites WP:NOTSTATS. I cannot see how that policy/guideline applies to these lists. The following is from the WP:NOTSTATS policy/guideline: Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. This policy/guideline does not apply to these lists, as they are clear and concise.
The nomination states that these lists will need to be updated, as a reason to delete the lists. Updating is needed with every BLP of every professional athlete. I am sure we would not delete professional athletes for fear that their statistics would not be updated. Lightburst (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for reasons cited by SportingFlyer, Andrew D., User:Dream Focus and Lightburst. Obviously, this particular page is a good pivot to the multiple related articles (alphabetical and geographic) that it connects to. Useful information, which has a worldwide perspective. WP:Preserve. Our readers come first, and benefit from its existence. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rationale for deletion is a perversion of the policies cited. p b p 13:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a really difficult AfD to judge since it is based on a UN list that's fairly low quality, but a quick Google search shows 100,000 people has been a normal cutoff for most of the world's cities, including the U.S. Census, meaning it probably passes WP:LISTN. It's not WP:NOTSTATS since it's not truly statistical, it's not WP:INDISCRIMINATE because it does discriminate based on population... could see it going either way, but on balance, there's more reasons to keep than to delete. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no good reason to delete this article! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cities with 100,000 people are definitely notable. newspapers from towns much smaller are recognized as reliable sources for many Wikipedia articles. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 July 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. Clear consensus that this subject lacks the necessary coverage in RS to be regarded as notable. Just Chilling (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivided interval categories

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

First, I can't seem to find anyone actually using the name "subdivided interval category". The one source listed here (Mac Lane) certainly doesn't call them by a name like this. In fact, when considering the category of these, he mostly considers them as finite ordinal numbers, making a single offhand comment that they can also be given as categories considered as ordered sets.

There's really no need to have a standalone article for this. At best, this is really just a fork of Simplex category, which treats the category of these as a whole, and is the standard name. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I could find no sourcing for the term at all, so this seems a neologism unique to Wikipedia. Without any refs, even a redirect is ill-advised. Hence, delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability, offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is not notable really.Forest90 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 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. There is not a single independent reliable source with significant coverage presented, nor here nor in the article itself. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Ofori

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:FILMMAKER and WP:RS. There's a whole lot of claim of notability but no reliable sources to back it up. Sources are from blog post and social media handles. Twitter and YouTube are not considered as reliable references.

At this point only violates WP:PROMO Lapablo (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Malik Ofori's article is not vandalism, SPAM, or an attack page, It is a page for notable Ghanaian Filmmaker. I don't think it fails WP:GNG, WP:FILMMAKER and WP:RS as most of the references are from popular entertainment source in Ghana and Africa. I vote Keep because deserves to be on Wikipedia and it doesn't go against Wikipedia policies. I think with time there will be more improvement on this article with more citation etc. Ball J 11:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balljgh (talk • contribs)

Comment: If you are indeed Ball J, then you are the head of the record label that Mr. Ofori is signed to, and consequently you have a conflict of interest. Richard3120 (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all I have not stated that I myself am Ball J. Secondly, anyone can give their opinion here on whether the article in question should be kept or not which i think should be speedy kept. You stating I have WP:COI is Wikipedia:Harassment. How can I have a WP:COI when even I wasn't the one who created the page in question. I created my talk back in 2015 when I wanted to know more about wikipedia and choose to write an article about Ball J so I created this my current page with a view description about him thinking at first that was how to create a wikipedia page for an article.Ball J

You say you're not Ball J, yet you sign your comments "Ball J"... If you are not Ball J and don't want to be mistaken for him, perhaps it would be a good idea not to use his name, no And there is no harassment at all, I said that if you were him, you would have a COI. Richard3120 (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Ball J be my name too. Hence I sign my comments Ball J not Ball J and just by placing 4 of ~ at the end, Wikipedia does the rest.Ball J 18:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You can, but it's going to make people think you are the same person, isn't it? Richard3120 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this was why I added gh to the name. Honestly at the beginning as I explained before I thought that was how a wikipedia page was created through the user page. I tried to change my user name but found out it can't be done. Forgive me if I caused any misunderstanding Ball J 23:27, 18 July 2019

Yes, it can be done – see WP:RENAME. Richard3120 (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please also note that User:Balljgh created a page for himself in 2015 here so there's a whole COI going on here. Lapablo (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page for myself. Bro get your facts right!!! Ball J 18:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly what Lapablo said... and I notice that by sheer coincidence that other major contributor to that page apart from yourself is Malikofori... Richard3120 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I am getting what you're saying right you are saying I'm now not the Ball J you people are claiming but now I'm Malikofori? Ball J 23:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Lapablo said that you created a page for yourself (assuming you were Ball J), and you also said you created a page for yourself, there's no difference in what you both said. As for Malik Ofori, it's strange that the subject of this AfD should also have edited the page you created for Ball J. But I don't believe you are the same person. Richard3120 (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you misunderstood me I never confirmed all those claims but its all good. Ball J 23:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balljgh (talk • contribs)

Keep, Very notable. He is a songwriter and a filmmaker at Nu Afrika Records, for which he has directed a lot of music videos for most celebrities in Ghana. He is also the CEO of his film company in Ghana called MO Films. Xzodoscript (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC) — Xzodoscript (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, Speedy Kept. He is a young African filmmaker with a lot of experience in music as well and music video production. Currently signed at one of Ghana‘s leading record labels Nu Afrika Records. He is also a songwriter and has written songs for Ball J, Kwaw Kese produced movies etc. I think we should all help in improving Wikipedia pages rather than submitting them for deletion. This article should be speedy kept. Thanks Westhunder (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC) — Westhunder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - I would really appreciate if you could take your time to read the entire article and check references provided. Malik Ofori's article does not violate WP:PROMO as stated above, the article wasn't intended to promote him but to state facts about him online. If you feel there are places which violates WP:PROMO, your help in correcting tis is welcomed. Malik is a well known young filmmaker, songwriter and a YouTuber in Ghana, Africa and a big influencer too even has a verified on Twitter. This is my first artcle on Wikipedia and I hope to improve as time goes on but I will really appreciate if you can help improve the article if yu should have any problem with it than wanting it deleted. There are a lot of proof even when you google his name. I think there is still room for improvement on this article as I myself intend to improve this article by adding more references to it as time goes on.

In creating the page, great care was taken to ensure that the content thereof was non-promotional WP:PROMO and written in a factual, objective manner and tied to independent, third-party news citations. Other than citing his social media accounts like his verified Twitter account to verify WP:GNG, all content was backed by numerous independent, third-party, objective news sources in Ghana. As far as possible, the page's content complied with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines for use, notability criteria and objectivity parameters.Kofipedia (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Kofipedia (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Comment: Wanted to point out that I opened an SPI for the authors of the above few Keep votes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Balljgh based on their tendency to show up together in AfDs. creffett (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I was thinking myself that there is some obvious WP:CANVAS going on, if not outright sockpuppetry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:37, 19 July 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. Clear consensus that this object fails WP:NASTRO. Just Chilling (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HD 95872

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, and specifcally WP:NASTCRIT. No papers specifically concerning this object, although the discovery paper for its planet was about a small number of objects. A small number of other publications discuss the star or planet as one of many objects in a list or database. Appearances in books or popular web coverage: zero. Appears in several exoplanet databases and the obvious stellar databases. Not naked eye, not discovered before 1850, and not listed in a catalogue of high historical importance. The article creator is indefinitely blocked, although apparently nothing to do with their work on astronomy articles. Lithopsian (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are only two sources that I found ([3] and arXiv:1512.02965), but they are insufficient to satisfy WP:NASTRO as they are trivial, database, or passing mentions only. I also could not find anything describing the planet in detail. Hence, not notable. ComplexRational (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unlikely to be useful for readers. Wug·a·po·des 19:29, 21 July 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. Very clear consensus that these rulers should be considered to be notable. Just Chilling (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isenburg-Kempenich

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

A Google search doesn't turn up any decent sources for this article, which is wholly unreferenced. (There are also no interlanguage links and I find no mention of it on the German Wikipedia, with the full disclaimer that my German is a bit rusty.) I'm also including all of the Lords of Isenburg-Kempenich in my nomination, and will bundle them shortly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT:Bundling all the rulers:

You need a search engine that speaks blackletter.
- Stammtafel der Herren von Isenburg-Kempenich at the Internet Archive
- Rosemann von Isenburg-Kempenich at the Internet Archive
I shall call for some help for you. Uncle G (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant German Wikipedia article is at de:Kempenich (Adelsgeschlecht). Uncle G's sources certainly confirm the existence of these people. Merging them all together might be better than individual articles given the state of the sourcing, though. —Kusma (t·c) 20:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My Google finds sources too. And besides de:Kempenich (Adelsgeschlecht), there's de:Isenburg (Adelsgeschlecht). How complicated this stuff gets is evidences in the German Kempenich article, and note that all the links in the German article are blue: "Die Herren von Kempenich waren mit folgenden Adelsfamilien verwandt bzw. verschwägert: Bedburg, Blankenheim, Büdingen, Bürresheim, Dehrn, Dorndorf, Eschweiler, Hattstein, Hüchelhoven, Isenburg, Merenberg, Myllendonk, Müllenark, Neuenahr, Pyrmont, Reifenberg, Reifferscheidt, Rolmann von Sinzig, Rosenau, Sayn, Schonenberg, Schöneck, Solms, Spanheim/Sponheim, Virneburg, Boos von Waldeck, Wied". Drmies (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Minor principalities in Germany were at least quasi-sovereign states. They should certainly have articles. Whether each ruler should have one will depend on whether there is enough content. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator's problem is verifiability. This does not really assist on that score. Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isenburg-Kempenich, unbundle bios (require individual consideration - some are probably notable - there are issues with the names for searching - they need individual consideration). I'm not sure this was an independent state of the Holy Roman Empire. However, the noble line does have a dewiki page (which I interlinked) - and they controlled this castle (and not insignificant territory around it) - a branch of this noble family. A google book search shows quite a few hits for "Isenburg-Kempenich".Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I wonder if the page is mis-titled. There is no Isenburg-Kempenich in the Historisches Lexikon der Deutschen Länder. Kempenich does not even have its own entry, but it is mentioned as a lordship. Srnec (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that sourcing is a problem, but the various articles in the German Wikipedia and Google show that the main topic and the various names are (well, were) real, and in principal they are notable. There definitely are sources (books), but they are in German and it needs a lot of time and experts in the field to study them and add them as inline references to the various articles. If the bio articles can't be kept, I would suggest to merge them all into the main topic with redirects to give future authors at least a starting point, however, given the complicated structure of interconnections it seems to be more desirable to preserve the "network" already existing and therefore keep them all in separate articles.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:21, 21 July 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. Haukur (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Elliot Orr

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY having not played in a fully professional league or a full international match. No indication of significant coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No demonstration of notability. Barca (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Forest90 (talk) 14:26, 21 July 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. Noting that the nominator has given the opinion that sourcing may be somewhat thinner in this article than desired and of poorer quality, I still see a consensus at this time to keep the article based on notability grounds raised by those in favour of retaining the article. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has never really progressed beyond a glorified press release. Has the idea itself progressed beyond a demonstration? Qwirkle (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Qwirkle (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even, if this concept is not perceived to be the answer to the United States' traffic jams, there is no need to erase this courageous project from history. Please keep, because the English language Wikipedia should also address topics outside of mainstream USA. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with anything you mention here. The project is not “courageous”, it does not matter where it was made, or where it might be used. It’s a blip, and one based on COI sources. It is worth a footnote, not an article. Qwirkle (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It sounds like the main concern here is notability. Although the majority of the sources are Chinese state-run publications, there is one instance of a prominent Western publication, Popular Mechanics, being referenced. That source's presence alone is enough, at minimum, to prevent this article from being deleted or merged with another article. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 18:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Everything in PM isn’t notable. Qwirkle (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I see that in the previous AfD discussion from two years ago linked above (the result of which was "keep"), I also participated and gave a very similar reason for keeping it as my reason in this discussion. I will bring up the additional point that, per WP:Notability, notability is not temporary. I suggest that any prior AfD discussions be researched before a new one is made, as this is pretty much a DOA rehash of the previous discussion. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 18:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any independent sourcing, not based on press releases on this, in the article or elsewhere?

Next, note that bare notability, assuming this meets that for arguments sake, does not in itself justify a separate article. Qwirkle (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added one new published reference from The Conversation authored by an Australian university professor who claims to have visited China and seen this new transportation system in person. The best case scenario for you at this point is that no consensus will be reached, in which case the article stays just as it would if the result becomes "keep". Please determine very carefully before you make your next reply whether it's going to be a valuable use of our time and your time to continue this discussion. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 02:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is, in fact, the first piece of sourcing since the article was created that might justify a stand-alone article. The idea that a regurgitated press release in PM might is ludicrous; there are can-openers that meet that standard. Qwirkle (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Jackdude101 (talk · contribs): you mention participating in a previous AfD. Were you canvassed to that by the article’s creator as well, as you were [here? Qwirkle (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being informed of a discussion with neutral language is not canvassing. Using that argument is the equivalent of throwing rocks because you have no bullets left. There are five "keeps" now in this discussion compared to your one "delete". You've lost; make peace with it. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 02:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit is now running in circles (see here) strikes you as a neutral invitation to an AfD? Heh. Qwirkle (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nom fails to tell us which policy or guideline this article meets for inclusion and . The sources in the article still take it over the minimum threshold for WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

..that would because it ~~does~~did not meet policies for inclusion, of course. Qwirkle (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the sources already identified there is plenty of coverage in doi:10.4236/jtts.2019.91003. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a source, even if an overlapping source (with other issues.) Note that both are centered not on this system, but on Newman’s concept of “trackless tram”; this is not necessarily evidence for a separate article. Notice also that it is sourced to SCIRP -Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is an academic publisher of presumably peer-reviewed open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies of questionable quality.[1][2][3] Although it has an address in southern California, in reality it is a "Chinese operation".[4], to quote its Wiki article. That article is something that stands despite its publisher, rather than because of it. At best such articles represent theft from the authors, at worst they allow stuff which would not survive peer review to get an undue imprimatur. Doesnt it strike you as odd that all the sourcing for this is bad? Qwirkle (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on basis of sources and what is mentioned by Phil Bridger. Bookscale (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, based on company press releases, and a piece from a predatory open access publisher[6] [accused]of using email spam to solicit papers for submission.[4]. Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Jackdude101 (talk) there is a prominent Western publication, being referenced. That source's presence alone is enough for notability. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don;t know if my vote is really necessary at this point, but yeah. It's notable with good sources in and out of the U.S. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cubicle 7. Consensus here at present is that reliable sources that demonstrate a level of notability required to have it's own article may exist, but perhaps not as of yet, and not to the level required at the present time. So I'm recommending content be merged, however if the situation changes, this can always be revisited in future. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriana (role-playing game)

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

Article on a commercial product has one source. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) fails to find any more WP:RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is a review in Black Gate (magazine) (as noted in this online table of contents) in addition to the cited source and will try to find more, otherwise merge to Cubicle 7. BOZ (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cubicle 7. I haven't access to the two sources so I am unable to assess them and I am unclear as whether the other commenters have access to the sources. A merge to preserve anything in the page that can be reliably sourced looks fine but I am currently unconvinced that a standalone page is merited. Just Chilling (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I cannot access the book referenced, but I believe this game needs additional sources to have its own page. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 July 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. Clear consensus that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Denski

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

Only one notable role (as a voice actress), so clear WP:NACTOR fail. As such, this isn't even worth Draftifying as subject currently has no hope of meeting NACTOR. Way WP:TOOSOON. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to justify having this article on a minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To add, article is all OR. Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Also only source is a "local girl makes good" article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:06, 16 July 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 read the consensus to delete for now though he may become notable later. The one 'keep' !voter does not explain why they think the subject is notable. Just Chilling (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Kofi Osei

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR. He most probably will be notable at least after a couple of years. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only source I can find is this. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; see WP:UPANDCOMING, WP:MILL, and WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 18 July 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 11:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tabita Rezaire

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

There is some borderline notability, bust with the sourcing I could find the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rezaire is an extremely prominent contemporary artist having had many group and solo exhibitions and publications over the last few years, appearing in biennials, festivals and notable institutions around the world. she also has a wikipedia page in french, of which this is a slightly expanded translation.Smmrcr (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Smmrcr, Rezair is an emerging artist. Her work is not represented in multiple museum collections and has not been the subject of a monograph, things we'd expect to see from an artist we consider notable (per our own very idiosyncratic use of notability. I can try to make the case for keeping the article, based on our general notability guideline, but the only way to do that is to show that her work has been critically assessed in several independent, reliable sources. You can help by providing such references. Note that articles by Rezaire, and her own website are not independent, reliable sources. I do think that such sources exist: for example, https://mg.co.za/article/2017-04-21-00-rezaire-awakens-what-is-within and https://artafricamagazine.org/exotic-trade-cultural-imperialism-decolonisation-and-the-internet-tabita-rezaire/ (already used as a source), https://www.indulgexpress.com/culture/kochi-muziris-biennale-2016/2018/dec/28/tabita-rezaire-ponders-over-swallowing-smartphones-at-kochi-biennale-2018-11798.html. I find some brief mentions like https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/arts/design/new-york-art-galleries-what-to-see-right-now.html but overall I think there's a good chance that there is sufficient material to create a neutral, well-sourced article. Vexations (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the requirements of the WP:GNG can be met. On the artist's own website, I see a lot of interviews, but also sufficient in-depth coverage to sustain an article:
- http://10and5.com/2015/08/14/featured-tabita-rezaire-crystal-healer-and-cyber-warrior/ an interview, primary source, not great as a source
- http://10and5.com/2015/10/14/a-new-era-7-artists-breaking-the-internet/ a single paragraph, not substantial
- http://10and5.com/2017/04/25/video-tabita-rezaires-latest-exhibition-space-healing-history-hoteps/ short, not substantial, includes video
- http://artafricamagazine.co.za/exotic-trade-cultural-imperialism-decolonisation-and-the-internet/ this is substantial critical commentary
- http://asianculturevulture.com/portfolios/kochi-muziris-biennale-kmb-fight-the-power-tabita-rezaire-and-paul-wong/ mostly an interview
- http://autre.love/interviewsmain/2017/3/20/fighting-for-love-an-interview-of-new-media-artist-young-polemicist-and-kemetic-yogi-tabita-rezaire interview
- http://futurelabafrica.org/episodes/ntu-the-state-of-the-internet/ not independent
- http://indie-mag.com/2018/06/artist-tabita-rezaire/ independent critical assessment of the work
- http://issuu.com/stigmart10press/docs/stigmart_videofocus_-_special_issue_639bd374bf88a9/122 an artist's statement and an interview
- http://mg.co.za/article/2015-05-21-african-digital-art-in-the-age-of-globalisation discusses Rezaire amoung others
- http://performa-arts.org/magazine/entry/richard-kennedy-in-conversation-with-tabita-rezaire conversation, primary
- http://rhizome.org/editorial/2018/feb/01/artist-profile-tabita-rezaire/ interview
- http://trueafrica.co/article/tabita-rezaire-the-artist-taking-on-the-internet/ interview
- http://trueafrica.co/article/tabita-rezaire-wants-to-talk-about-angry-vaginas/
- http://www.aqnb.com/2017/05/08/body-womb-mind-and-spirit-digital-healing-with-tabita-rezaire-in-exotic-trade-at-goodman-gallery/ exhibition announcement
- http://www.aqnb.com/2017/06/20/fighting-for-the-future-with-the-digital-healing-survivalism-of-ntu-collectives-ubulawu-at-londons-auto-italia/ independent commentary
- http://www.berlinartlink.com/2018/01/13/truth-we-carry-a-lot-in-our-wombs-an-interview-with-tabita-rezaire/ interview
- http://www.bubblegumclub.co.za/ntu-ubulawu-collaborative-transcontinental-healing-practices-east-londons-auto-italia/ dead link
- http://www.bubblegumclub.co.za/tabita-rezaire-transforming-screen-gateway-healing-frequencies/ dead link
- http://www.bubblegumclub.co.za/womens-world-wide-web/ dead link
- http://www.channel24.co.za/News/Local/3-digital-artists-disrupting-the-internet-20171112 very brief
- http://www.clique.tv/qui-es-tu-tabita-rezaire-artiste-videaste-engagee/ interview
- http://www.contemporaryand.com/magazines/i-feel-more-like-a-health-practitioner/ interview
- http://www.contemporaryand.com/magazines/screen-legends/?platform=hootsuite two paragarphs about Rezaire
- http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/26976/1/these-young-artists-are-putting-africa-on-the-art-world-map small paragraph
- http://www.designindaba.com/articles/creative-work/can-you-be-whoever-you-want-cyberspace podcast interview
- http://www.huckmagazine.com/art-and-culture/decolonising-the-internet-artist-tabita-rezaire/ not quite an interview
- http://www.konbini.com/en/inspiration/tabita-rezaire-afrofuturism-healing-art/ independent commentary
- http://www.okayafrica.com/news/tabita-rezaire-cyber-warrior-e-colonialism/ dead link
- http://www.polyesterzine.com/features/%E2%9D%A4-gyrl-gaze-tabita-rezaire-%E2%9D%A4 interview
- http://www.screenshot-magazine.com/projects/january-june-2017/january/blackness-and-the-internet dead link
- http://www.studiointernational.com/index.php/tabita-rezaire-interview interview
- http://www.thefader.com/2016/02/29/artists-explain-how-digital-art-can-improve-the-real-world interview
- http://www.unlabelledmagazine.com/single-post/2017/05/03/A-Personal-Interview-Photo-Shoot-with-Artist-Tabita-Rezaire interview
- https://frieze.com/article/possibilities-non-alienated-life-report-fourth-kochi-muziris-biennale brief mention
- https://howwegettonext.com/the-healing-is-in-the-art-6c914693d458#.vcoteyfyy interview
- https://i-d.vice.com/en_gb/article/calling-for-the-end-of-online-racism-with-internet-artist-tabita-rezaire interview
- https://m.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-17-emerging-artists-to-watch-in-2017 brief career overview, finds her promising, but I read that as "this is an emerging artist"
- https://mg.co.za/article/2016-07-28-00-tech-artist-bends-the-net-to-create-decolonial-spiritual-therapy-for-the-digital-age independent commentary
- https://mg.co.za/article/2017-04-21-00-rezaire-awakens-what-is-within independent commentary
- https://news.artnet.com/market/7-rising-stars-at-the-armory-show-1239041 brief career overview
- https://news.artnet.com/people/black-artists-to-watch-2016-420296 two brief paragraphs
- https://thecreativeindependent.com/people/visual-artist-and-healer-tabita-rezaire-on-the-infinite-flow-of-creative-energy/ interview
- https://www.theartnewspaper.com/gallery/artist-profiles-the-names-you-should-know brief paragraph Vexations (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - With some of the references above, I withdraw my nomination. She is still failing WP:ARTIST, but there are quite enough sources to support WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 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. Clear consensus at the last AfD that this restaurant was notable and this time the consensu is overwhelming. Just Chilling (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moosewood Restaurant

AfDs for this article:

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

I read through this article twice, and I am still not seeing how this restaurant is notable. I read the original nomination for deletion page, and some of the users in the discussion there seem to be saying that the owners published some cookbooks, but, if these are so significant, then why are they not mentioned in the article's summary? I did a quick search and found a NY Times article from 1990, which leads me to believe that it maybe meets WP:GNG. But I'm not sure. I am still seeing people question the significance of this restaurant in the discussion page, so I thought I'd bring it up for another deletion nomination. I'm personally not seeing its significance. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NCORP with (shamelessly copied from last AfD): [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. They also (the collective) quite possibly possibly pass WP:NAUTHOR, and are credited with innovations / path breaking in vegetarian cuisine. Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per NYT source and sources by Icewhiz. --MrClog (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cookbooks are easily notable, and the restaurant is, too (e.g. [10],[11],[12],[13]]). Pburka (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think anyone's questioned the restaurant's notability on the talk page since before the previous nomination. Pburka (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable restaurant as per the newspaper sources listed above, and others. Netherzone (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this restaurant and its cookbooks are, or, at least, were, a big deal.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is self-contradictory, explaining how the topic passes the WP:GNG but "still not seeing how this restaurant is notable". Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think i have cooked from three of their cookbooks, but the first one is the best, don't you think? And the restaurant is awesome. It is a destination worth the trip. --Doncram (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Moosewood Cookbook - Look, I love Moosewood Restaurant. I took the photo which illustrates the article. But I don't see the point of having an article about the restaurant AND an article about the cookbook AND an article about Mollie Katzen. Of the three, it's the cookbook that is notable; it was a best seller, and very influential in its field. The restaurant itself is a moderately popular (if beloved) restaurant in a small city. If it weren't for the cookbooks, nobody outside Ithaca would have heard of the restaurant. There are similar restaurants around the world that do not have Wiki articles. Keep the existing Moosewood Cookbook article, add a section to that about the history and background of the restaurant, and it will be well-served. --Kzirkel (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge – how would this add value to our content? We are not rewarded for cramming as much as possible into the smallest number of pages. Our actual policy is WP:NOTPAPER which indicates that we can use as many pages as we like for such content. People now commonly access Wikipedia using smart phones or smart speakers. For such usage, it's best if the content is delivered in specific, compact pieces rather than as bloated compendia. If we have three different types of subject – a book, a restaurant and a person – then our structural elements such as categories work best if we keep them separate and use links to cross-reference them. In any case, this is quite tangential to the core issue of deletion – this is not a general forum for discussing improvements and the formatting of the page(s). Andrew D. (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The restaurant is more significant than almost any restaurant I've been to, where I can think of there being a Wikipedia article. It is world-level/international in significance; people do travel out of their way to get there, and since Ithaca and Cornell University do attract considerable visitation anyhow there are a considerable number of international, national, regional visitors who get to the restaurant each week I am sure. It is a pilgrimage destination. If I recall correctly there is a guestbook which would prove that; most restaurants would not think of having a guestbook but here it makes sense. I agree that a merger wouldn't help. There could be some editing though. As far as I can tell, the restaurant article does not currently link to the Moosewood Cookbook article, and it currently states "The Collective has produced 13 cookbooks over the years, beginning with New Recipes from Moosewood Restaurant".... as if that one is not the first one (and I just checked my copy, no the 1977 Moosewood Cookbook title page as a subtitle "Recipes from Moosewood Restaurant, Ithaca, New York" but not the word "New"; maybe that one is the first by the collective as opposed to Mollie Katzen?). Note that the restaurant article is about the restaurant and the collective/publishing company which apparently has 13 works. Probably each of the separate books is not worth an article, I am not sure. A collection of three articles for the award-winning restaurant/collective, for the award-winning Moosewood Cookbook, and for Mollie Katzen as related but quite distinct types of things, categorized correctly, seems about right to me. But maybe separate articles for more of the cookbooks would be warranted, if any of the others has significant awards and coverage and meets wp:NBOOK; at least the one obviously does. --Doncram (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep meets WP:GNG and the nominations states as much. Icewhiz and Pburka also stirred something up! ...see what I did there? Lightburst (talk) 03:13, 19 July 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.

Keep the article, it is notable.Forest90 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Glossary of video game terms#A. Clear agreement that this term does not merit an article. Redirecting best meets consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Away from keyboard

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. In the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources, I can't see how this could ever be expanded to the point where it would be anything other than a dictionary definition. Moving to Wiktionary is unlikely to be an option as the phrase doesn't meet Wiktionary's requirement for idiomaticity. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this could become more than a WP:DICTDEF. I seem to have created this (before its first deletion) while cleaning up the dab page AFK.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It has never been deleted, note. I thought about the history merger that you suggested, but I actually disagree with this being the primary topic at AFK and think that the disambiguation would be better back in place there, no history fiddling necessary. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems like there would be a central glossary or other kind of list that this could point to, but the best I see is glossary of Internet-related terms. It's not unrelated to that, but it doesn't seem to be used much for informal acronyms. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the list I was searching for now lives at wiktionary:Appendix:English internet slang. Eh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's worth looking at all of the prior AFD discussion around that, including the several discussions of List of Internet slang (AfD discussion) List of Internet slang phrases (AfD discussion), List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication (AfD discussion), and things like P33n (AfD discussion), Roflcopter (AfD discussion), ROFL Attack (AfD discussion), and LOL (Internet slang) (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's Glossary of video game terms and the term is already there. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to previous AfD consensus. Govvy (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus at the previous AfD (in 2006) was to redirect to List of Internet slang phrases. That was later moved to Wiktionary and, as Rhododendrites says, is now wikt:Appendix:English internet slang, whereas the title now redirects to Internet slang. As the former mentions this phrase and the latter doesn't, should we presume you're suggesting a soft redirect to the Wiktionary page? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN 9780691168340 chapter 4 might be useful for talking about this as a concept, relating it to immersion and presence in virtual worlds. Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's merely a WP:DICDEF and AFK (disambiguation) should be moved to AFK._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect don't delete. This is something people search for. 2,738 pageviews in the past 90 days. Just aim it like they did back in October 2006‎ when it first went to AFD. Dream Focus 01:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There would be no target to redirect to since List of Internet slang phrases was already transwikied._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - wikt:AFK Dream Focus 03:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you should clarify it's a soft redirect. Personally I'm not really feeling it since the Wiktionary entry phrases it as "away from the keyboard" and it's pretty easy for a redirect to be reversed later and for the entire debate to happen all over again._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - As indeed happened in 2008. Uncle G (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to glossary of Internet-related terms or glossary of video game terms. Peter James (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to glossary of video game terms#A. It's in there, it belongs there, it gets the amount of space it deserves (i.e., a couple of sentences) - all good. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably something to eke out of Boellstorff (aforecited), ISBN 9781848824775 chapter 5, ISBN 9780198704515 chapter 2 (which cites Boellstorff itself), and some others; but I have not been able to work out what it is in the time that I have had and thus what this could be renamed and refactored into. There is a concept here. It's not the specific state of being away from the keyboard; but that is one facet of the overall concept, including the fact that it does not necessarily literally mean what it says but can imply using one's computer for something else. It is not solely presence in virtual worlds, either, as it covers presence in other areas too, such as chats. Of course, the article at hand gives zero indication of this or what the route for writing is. Uncle G (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no clear consensus. It has been over a week since the last comment so I can't justify 3rd relist. This close is without prejudice to a fresh nomination after a reasonable time. Just Chilling (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClimateHouse

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

Delete 12-year-old declined prod; tagged with no sources for a decade. WP:BEFORE reveals nothing that would cause this to pass the WP:N guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I think the main problem is the English title. There is a lot of potential sources if you search under CasaClima or KlimaHaus, and indeed the de.wiki and it.wiki articles are properly sourced. I’d suggest we rename this article to KlimaHaus (CasaClima) as the English term really doesn’t seem to have taken off so much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 07:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Striking this earlier !vote as I've accidentally voted twice and made exactly the points just a week apart. There must be some kind of message here...... Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps there are non-English WP articles that have good sources, but assuming they establish notability isn't enough; that's essentially WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The Italian and German articles (just translations of one or the other; not two articles) have a list of books but only one footnote to a useless government document. If an editor has actually read and understood the books at KlimaHaus#Literatur and wants to come here affirm those books meet WP:SIGCOV, fine, accept that AGF. But otherwise we don't really know if these are self-published, have only passing mention, or what. The content iteslf is machine translated copy-paste of a boilerplate mission statement, and so there's nothing worth saving. Bad title, bad content. What is the point? Anyone is free to create KlimaHaus (CasaClima) and start fresh if they have the sources in their hands. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No proof of notability. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The English term is not much used, but the Italian CasaClima and German KlimaHaus are much more common. It might make sense to rename the article CasaClima (KlimaHaus) to reflect this, though users may search under the English term I imagine. Among the sources I found (there’s plenty more) for CasaClima and KlimaHaus are:

Erwin Mlecnik (2013). Innovation Development for Highly Energy-efficient Housing: Opportunities and Challenges Related to the Adoption of Passive Houses. IOS Press. pp. 271–. ISBN 978-1-61499-235-6

Davide Reina; Silvia Vianello (2011-09-13T00:00:00+02:00). Greenwebeconomics. EGEA spa. ISBN 978-88-238-7300-1

Ian Cooper; Martin Symes (22 August 2008). Sustainable Urban Development Volume 4: Changing Professional Practice. Routledge. pp. 259–. ISBN 978-1-134-07172-2

Giulio Cainelli; Maria Chiara Cattaneo (2010) Innovare con le imprese. Valtellina. Profili di sviluppo: FrancoAngeli. pp. 144–. ISBN 978-88-568-2620-3

Mccapra (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should say that I’ve only indicated sources that establish clearly that the ClimateHouse standard is a notable topic. These particular sources don’t describe the technical detail of the standard, but there are others that substantiate the specifics of the article content. Mccapra (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename. The Italian term "CasaClima" and the German "KlimaHaus" are well established and can be found also in official documents, probably because of the origin in the Bozen–Südtirol region, which is bi-lingual IIRC. The English term appears to be an attempt of a translation in order to widen the scope for an international audience. I have seen both "ClimateHouse" (rarely) as well as "KlimaHouse" (more often - yes, this spelling). So, if it cannot be established that one or both of them are the official terms, we might rename the topic into "CasaClima" and have redirects from the other 3 terms.

The English article leaves a lot to be desired (but not relevant in AfD per WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST), but could be brought into something much more acceptable by translating more contents from either the Italian or the German article.

Also, per Mccapra above, I see WP:GNG fulfilled.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article, it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mixed feelings about this one but I would go with Mccapra. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Commuter Cars Tango. Agreement that the content should be retained in some form with a 'merge' best meeting consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter Cars

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

Only reference is to the company's own website Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Commuter Cars Tango. If you combine coverage of the car with coverage of the company, it nets just enough notability to justify one article. Most of our sources are interested in what makes the car unique, rather than the company, so we probably prefer to keep the car article and merge a summary of the details about the company into a section of that article, rather than the other way around. Yet another WP:TOOSOON electric vehicle permastub. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CNN Money, Bloomberg, The subject was notable in 2005 and once a subject is notable it remains notable. WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The CNN Money article is based entirely on an interview and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The Bloomberg reference is a basic generic listing provided by the company with no independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and/or fact checking and is not significant coverage, fails both SIGCOV and ORGIND. "Coverage" does not equate to references that may be used to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dennis Bratland. The coverage is slim on both the car and the company, but if merged, it may just barely squeak by the WP:GNG. Case in point, of the three sources provided by Lightburst above, the Bloomberg link is just a catalog entry for the company with no actual coverage, and the other two are brief and more about the actual product than the company itself. I don't have any strong opinions on whether this article should be merged into the Commuter Cars Tango article, as suggested by Dennis Bratland, or that article should be merged here, but I do believe that one of those should be done, as we do not need both as separate articles. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. One article or two, and decide whether the merged article should be here or there. When the article was nominated there were no references, but Lightburst found and added some and improved the article. Such a common name, you have to add in the word "tango" to get valid results in Google news search. Dream Focus 16:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with to Commuter Cars Tango. I have improved the reference formatting on the latter article, but it would be improved by moving some of the "References" to in line citations. I also improved the formatting of the reference in this article Commuter Cars. In any event, between the two articles, there is plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. WP:NEXIST. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dennis Bratland, but in the other direction (keep the company article, merge its products in; more or less a set index article). Both seem notable enough but not independently. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It looks like enough to support an article after merge. Springee (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dennis Bratland. Normally I'd go with the company name for the article, but Commuter Car is more or less a generic phrase for any car used for commuting. This company only made the one car which has been covered in several specialist magazines unreferenced on either page currently and Commuter Cars Tango is much more likely to be a recognisable and searched for title. Mighty Antar (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty AntarI kind of agree with Ivanvector's logic. Perhaps rename this article Commuter Cars Company and merge to it. Lightburst (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter cars is a WP formatted generic name. Commuter Cars isn't.

Keep as an established company, albeit small, and notable worldwide for their WTF pricing model. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lolol Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I think the article would get more attention and coverage if it is merged in Commuter Cars Tango Alex-h (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of material that isn't directly about the Tango here. I see no harm whatsoever in keeping this article. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with Dennis Bratland above. The vehicle is notable, and all of the coverage that goes to establishing notability is about the unique aspects of the car. None of the references for the company meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 18 July 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. Consensus is that this car fails to meet notability standards. The source produced by the keep !voter is a directory mention and does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Just Chilling (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hornet (car)

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

Unreferenced and promotional Rathfelder (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything on Google either. Clearly not notable. William2001^(talk) 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not pronominal the car has not been in production for a number of years now. In the UK there is a large following for Kit Cars and historic information on older kits needs to be maintained for future reference. If it is deleted from Wikipedia where will this information be obtainable from? Surely the main point of Wikipedia is it is an encyclopedia of information and I feel it should include information that otherwise isn't available. I recently carried out some research on Kit Cars from the 60s and it was quite difficult to obtain reference material and photographs of the cars. I agree that the Hornet Kit Car Wikipedia entry is short but at least it is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbojo (talk • contribs) 11:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the subject is not notable itself and also fails GNG.Forest90 (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like this is mentioned in at least one reiable source: https://archive.org/stream/katalog2005.compressed/katalog2005.compressed_djvu.txt Bjornredtail (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That one source referred above may have accurate information, but it is essentially a product catalogue and we are an encyclopedia. I may change vote if there is some news-pieces on this car. To suggest that some fans may need this information is not wrong, but is essentially suggesting fan-cruft to be included, I see no reason why we should treat this any differently than a non-notable manga character etc.Viztor (talk) 22:35, 16 July 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. Following the presentation of additional sources a consensus to 'keep' has emerged. Just Chilling (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GKD Sports Cars

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

Unreferenced and promotional Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty open and shut. No sources and written poorly. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it should be deleted, although poorly written articles can be saved with some clean up. William2001^(talk) 21:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable per both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. William2001^(talk) 21:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Keep with the source provided. Didn't see that. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 00:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the German Wikipedia article has two sources that can be used, and demonstrate that at least GNG is met. Needing improvment is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources on Google News and Google Books, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided allow the article to pass the WP:GNG. Also, deletion is not cleanup. AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Zach of the cosmos (talk) 22:53, 14 July 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. Reliable sources have been produced resulting in a clear consensus to keep. Just Chilling (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surautomatism

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

Unsourced. The one quote included in this stub article does not use the word "surautomatism". Seems to be a neologism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources MaskedSinger (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any significant (or even less significant), reliable, and independent sources on this. Fails WP:GNG. William2001^(talk) 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Keep Looks like I made a mistake here. Thanks for letting me know. William2001^(talk) 17:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On reading this it sounded like pseudo-intellectual bullshit to me, but it is sourceable pseudo-intellectual bullshit and those saying they couldn't find anything didn't look very hard. Book sources include The Language of Surrealism and Historical Dictionary of Surrealism. Both sources confirm that Luca and Trost are responsible for this (the latter has entries for both of them [14][15]) so the fact that the Luca and Trost quotation does not contain the word is not very significant. Having said all that, I wouldn't oppose a merge into surrealism if someone wants to take that on. I don't think there is ever going to be a great deal to say about this subject. SpinningSpark 11:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do the two sources you cite use the word? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source I provided actually uses the term surautomatism.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the language is, well, "strange", but that "madness" is part of what "surrealism" was about, I think...

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Why are you asking that question? Can you not follow the links I provided? And yes, they do use that word. The Historical Dictionary has it as a headword in an entry of a hundred words or so, and it is also used in the entries for "Trost, Dolfi" and "Entoptic Graphomania". The Language of Surrealism source says "They [Trost and Luca] termed their manic method surautomatism (Lucal and Trost 1945) or superautomatism (Trost 1945), and included examples of indecipherable writing, text produced so fast and with spasmodic muscle movements that the products could not be made out into conventional words." There is also some coverage in Sacred Surrealism, Dissidence and International Avant-Garde Prose, and it is listed as a surrealist technique in Architectural Draughtsmanship: From Analog to Digital Narratives. SpinningSpark 19:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest now that you have found those sources, you edit the article to make it clearer that the word is legitimate. Perhaps then other editors, myself included, might agree that the article should not be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and maybe you should have said in the first place that your problem was you wanted to see the sources in the article rather than get me to waste my time replying to you here. If you want to petulantly persist with delete knowing that sources exist, that is entirely up to you. You have no business demanding that I do something with the article. It is not my responsibility to fix the article any more than it is yours or any other editor. It does not become my responsibility just because I found some sources. If I choose to do anything at all, it won't be until this AFD is closed. I'm not going to work on something only to have it deleted. SpinningSpark 22:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a neologism, but an established though little-known term in arts. I've heard the German equivalent of it ("Surautomatismus") in arts courses in school many decades ago. The earliest source I could find is from 1945 already, and this might even be the source originally defining it (or at least being close to it). I have therefore added a reference to the text "Dialectique de la dialectique" by Gherasim Luca and Dolfi Trost stating (boldface by me):

"Poussant l'automatisme jusqu'à ses limites les plus concrètes et absurdes (le surautomatisme, le talisman-simulacre), objectivisant d'une manière ininterrompue le hasard et l'obligeant à renoncer à son caractère de rareté provenant de la découverte de l'objet trouvé (l'objet objectivement offert, la graphomanie entropique), nous écartons l'idée insupportable de ne pouvoir le capter toujours."

I think the article should be expanded, but if it cannot be kept the term should be redirected to "Dialectique de la dialectique".

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the added refs I meanwhile clearly see WP:GNG fulfilled to establish notability. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Spinningspark and Matthiaspaul: Thanks for the info. However, I do not think that keep is the solution here per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Thoughts? Thanks. William2001^(talk) 19:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Citing NOTDICTIONARY without any explanation of why this is a dictionary entry, well, you may as well cite WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Which of the four major criteria on NOTDICTIONARY do you believe this page fails? It is four sentences plus a lengthy quotation, which is more than a typical dictionary entry and certainly goes beyond a definition. Further, the article is clearly capable of expansion from the sources. SpinningSpark 19:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this for the back story of articles created by the same now-banned editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that user wasn't blocked for creating articles about rare arts topics, or was he? I mean, nobody get's it right all the time, and the variant "soufflage" is in fact used by some (even some academics), so he might have known the technique under this name rather than "sifflage". We still have to further narrow down its first usage in order to sort out if Wikipedia introduced the spelling variant or not. If so, that would be sad, but for as long as it was not deliberately created (as a joke or hoax or whatever) we can't put the blame on a former user, but should put it more on our ignorant or lazy community not recognizing it in all those years. Actually, we than should thank that former user for creating an entry for it in the first place at all. I haven't checked for why that user was blocked and don't defend him, I just think that it isn't a drama. Let's fix it and be happy.

What is more annoying is the fact that so many arts terms were nominated for deletion recently that is is next to impossible to properly research them all in the given time frame, so it is very likely that some of them will slip through and be deleted even though they are notable - and articles about rare/obscure topics once deleted are seldomly recreated because experts about these topics are rare as well. At least I don't want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia for mainstream topics only.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources SpinningSpark provided are fairly cut-and-dry. The argument that it needs to be fixed immediately to avoid deletion seems like textbook WP:IMPATIENT to me. I also found this journal article which discusses surautomatism on pp. 4–7. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good one. I have added (as raw refs for now) to the article what we found so far. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I personally would very much prefer to see the outcome of this discussion be that this article is kept. Although the article is undoubtedly beset with problems, my inclination is to have the sense that these certainly can be fixed. StewBrewer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a neologism. Reliable sources exist. Vexations (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs a lede rewrite to make the etymology clearer.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:09, 16 July 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. Consensus that this software fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenQuote

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

No external references. Its website seems to be dead. Rathfelder (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for reference: Looks like OpenQuote has turned into a software suite called OpenUnderwriter which includes multiple elements, including OpenQuote. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find significant coverage in third-party sources (for either OpenQuote or OpenUnderwriter). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails the GNG, and SIGCOV. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:49, 17 July 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. Author-requested G7 has already been carried out, so procedural close. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

X as a Right

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

The article seems to be OR, and it fails WP:GNG. Its subject is a phrase, or an acronym for the phrase, but none of the sources presented appear to use the phrase. I've searched for examples of usage, and found one or two examples that could potentially be illustrations of usage, but nothing that discusses the phrase itself. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We would, I think, need to show that this phrase is used in scholarly discussions to keep this article.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment The author has requested that it be deleted on their talk page - could speedy delete as a G7? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion G7. XOR'easter (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per criterion G7. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7 per others. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 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 because request withdrawn by nominater (non-admin closure) CptViraj (📧) 12:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niranjan Pujari

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

Niranjan Pujari was created by Bijnorlion (Sockpuppet of Immirzakhan) on 11 May 2019. And the sockmaster Immirzakhan was banned in April. G5?
Reason for AfD : User talk:CptViraj#Speedy deletion contested: Niranjan Pujari.
-- CptViraj (📧) 09:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 09:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 09:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, CptViraj, G5 only applies when there are no substantial edits to the page by users that are not blocked/banned. The blocked user only created this, and since then there have been enough edits to say that G5 does not apply. Masum Reza seems to misunderstand G5 as well, because this page creation was in violation of the block (WP:BE). The subject is notable. --MrClog (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! I withdraw deletion request. -- CptViraj (📧) 12:51, 14 July 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. Failure to meet notabilty standards with additional WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO concerns. Just Chilling (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Divilly

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

essentially advertising, and presumably coi and very possibly paid. If actually notable, should be started over by an uninvolved editor DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. COI and PROMO concerns notwithstanding, and while I'm not perhaps ready to advocate a "keep" or "delete" either way, I am not personally sure GNG is met. I say this because, while there is clearly some coverage of the subject (including of the 2014 "young entrepreneurs" win), much of it wouldn't seem to meet the SIGCOV guidelines. Specifically, much of the coverage seems to be in non-national outlets like the Connacht Tribune and Galway Advertiser (the latter a regional freesheet). The coverage that is in national outlets seems either to be only indirectly related to the subject, or is not entirely independent of the subject. On the former ("subject not primary topic of coverage") for example, the piece in the Independent Health and Wellbeing supplement is more about paleo diets than the subject, and in the Irish Times piece the subject is mentioned among several other potential personal trainers. On the latter ("coverage not independent of subject"), pieces like the Business & Finance interview would seem to be Q&A/PR pieces published to coincide with the subject's press activity/book launches/etc. It may be that the article can be improved (to address the COI and PROMO issues). But, once we've removed all the uncited NOTCV stuff (about primary school and early interest in fitness), and tempered the uncited PROMO stuff (about having the best selling fitness book in Ireland), I'm not sure what is left. (Other than the shout-out from Facebook for being good at Facebook. And the award from the Galway business community for being good at business. And the two books. All of which are great. And laudable. But which are perhaps not particularly strong notability claims relative to this project's goals). The subject's listing on his PR/entertaintment agency's website is quite likely accurate. And he likely can be described as an "author and corporate speaker from Galway who features regularly in print media, radio and TV". Whether that meets this project's criteria I'm not sure either way.... Guliolopez (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. While still somewhat "on the fence", it is somewhat interesting to note that the article, in its current form, was substantively recreated from a previous incarnation. Which had been deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Guliolopez (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI, WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:AUTHOR fails WP:SIGCOV. Page created by an SPA: [16] in 2015. Divilly is a Paleolithic diet guru (a large tribe inclined towards self-promotion.) His books do get mentioned by local press in feature articles on Paleo diets, but they were not reviewed, and the 2nd book was the subject of a feature story. Nice, for a small businessman, but I do not see that it makes him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per and per E.M.Gregory. Spleodrach (talk) 05:59, 21 July 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. Very clear consensus that the subject meets WP:NPROF. Just Chilling (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phillippa Jane Poole

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

does not seem to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians [17] may be enough to qualify under WP:PROF#C3 and being head of the University of Auckland's School of Medicine may be enough under WP:PROF#C6, but neither seems very clear as far as notability is concerned (e.g. is the FRACP a highly exclusive fellowship? You do need training to get it [18]). IntoThinAir (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of the above considerations (which might separately be enough for notability) her 16 publications with over 100 citations each in Google Scholar gives her a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? Passes WP:Prof#C1 if this [19] link is correct. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
(1)Fellow RCAP is similar to the UK equivalents, it essentially corresponds to being boardcertified in the US, and is not a particular honour. The training you need to get in is the same sort of training that gives a specialty certification in the US and nothing more. It's not even analogous to the US medical Fellowship, which is a subspecialty training after the board certification and that too isn't notable--in the usual inflationary pattern, every physician in NYC has a board certification--even the ones in the walk-in clinics. I think in the the UK etc. this may not be the case, and people practice as a generalist without a specialty qualification, but that would still mean that every specialist in the UK and similar countries would get an article--every neurologist, cardiologist, etc.

(2)Head of a department has never been accepted as notability. Normally all the senior people take it in turn. Dean of a medical scool is another matter , and we have generally considered that this qualifies

"(3)The very high references in GoogleScholar arefrom being a Cochrane reviewer. (or joint author of a similar review published elsewhere). The only research papers have citations of 60 or 70 at best. We do need to decide whether to include an article for every one of the reviewer-authors for /Cochrane. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Could you expand on the issue with Cochrane, which is new to me?

Keep. She's head of the School of Medicine, not just a Department, and past president of the Internal Medicine Society of Australia and New Zealand WP:Prof#C6. I've also found some general coverage of her in reliable sources and added that. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a full professor at New Zealand's top-ranked university, such rank being (according to Academic ranks (Australia and New Zealand)#Teaching and research positions) equivalent to distinguished/endowed professor in most North American universities, thus passes WP:PROF#C5. Having been president of the Internal Medicine Society of Australia and New Zealand may also put her past WP:PROF#C6, depending on whether it is considered a major academic society. Being Head of School of Medicine would probably not be enough on its own, but adds to the other factors. FRACP is not significant. Nurg (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; as creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep abundant evidence of passing NPROF whether their leadership, society inclusion, or being full professor at a major national university. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's a decent case for WP:PROF#C6 and a good one for WP:PROF#C5. In addition, I see no reason not to count Cochrane reviews towards her citation record. Writing an influential review, like being the author of a standard textbook, is a way of shaping one's field. (Secondarily, there is the factor that one might only get invited to write such a review if one is already fairly well-established, but I don't think we need to start splitting those hairs here.) XOR'easter (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet WP:NPROF as per Nurg and others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet WP:NPROF Bookscale (talk) 12:51, 21 July 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. Low traffic AfD. I am not seeing a clear consensus. The last comment was a week ago so I can't justify a 3rd relist. Just Chilling (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odia film Policy

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

WP:MILL government policy. Only coverage is routine. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in national reliable sources already in the article, a government programme is normally notable Atlantic306 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 07:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is an essay with no standing and so there is no case to answer. The topic seems reasonably notable as sources can be found in seconds. Andrew D. (talk) 08:44, 14 July 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 read a consensus that the subject fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Badaluta

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

The article was speedy deleted a year ago, recreated now, but I still do not see any notability. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No works that I can see treating him with significance. Also happy to see a merge+redirect of the single sentence with an RS to the RE2 article. --Izno (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is mentioned in two reputable news sources and his page is relatively popular. Being recognized for being a face model for a video game is a form of significance.

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. Consensus that the topic fails WP:GNG. Being interesting, sadly,is not a valid ground for keeping. At a minimum, where an article is badly sourced, we need some evidence that sources are likely to be out there. Just Chilling (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Domino (car)

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

Only references are to defunct Facebook pages. Not obviously notable and rather a lot of futurology. Rathfelder (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources or notability MaskedSinger (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, nothing comes up in Google, and it's quite clear that this fails WP:GNG. William2001^(talk) 21:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Facebook references? I think Facebook is not a good reference even if the page is not defunct. William2001^(talk) 21:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a petrolhead I find this article interesting, I have never heard about these guys. Lack of links is not a reason for removal, lots of old/rare stuff is never mentioned on the Web. Mikus (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the age of the company and per Mikus' concerns, this very well could be a notable topic with plentiful offline references, e.g. book on minis. Would be helpful for a petrolhead with a petrollibrary to participate? Pegnawl (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to be convinced that its notable. But all articles need references - and they needn't be online. Rathfelder (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability. Failure to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:01, 18 July 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. Haukur (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Alós-Ferrer

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

Apart from being a professor, I can't anything that can be really significant about him and his work. Fails WP:GNG also. Meeanaya (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF(1) - h-index of 26 per google scholar. Possibly also NPROF(8) for being editor in chief Journal of Economic Psychology (though it might not constitute as major - not sure). Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet NPROF 1 and 8 for being highly cited and chief editor. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not prominent enough to appear on the RePEc listings of top Swiss or Spanish economists, but I think the citation record is good enough for #C1, and the editorship (#C8) seals the deal. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 14 July 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. Unanimity that this student blog is not notable. Just Chilling (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo's Notebook

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

This article is about a local liberal blog that was published for three years by a student. Its claim to notability is that it was ‘consistently ranked in the top ten blogs of influence’ in the state by blognetnews.com and political net news.com, both now also defunct.

The rest of the content covers pretty trivial stuff, some of it with an apparent insider’s knowledge suggesting a close relationship between author and subject. Anyway overall this is about a student blog that once had a spat with another blog. Does not pass WP:WEBCRIT. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nomination. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:33, 20 July 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. Haukur (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Fortaleza

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

Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. This is probably the only WP:RS used, but the rest are WP:SELFPUBLISHed. Not enough sources to meet GNG or MUSICBIO. Also, why does an article created 14 June 2019 have a maintenance tag for October 2018? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That maintenance tag was placed when the article was created (see here), possibly using a cut'n'paste of a pre-existing infobox, including its templates – there's also a dmy 'plate dated for January 2015. Note article creator (and major contributor) has same name as Fortaleza's Instagram and LinkedIn accounts. The user has been editing since May 2006.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 00:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficient reliable sources to substantiate a claim to notability. Possibly a vanity piece/autobiography as article creator's name is same as subject's Instagram and LinkedIn accounts.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book store shoplifting

AfDs for this article:

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

Concern expressed at earlier AfD four years ago applies as much today if not more: reeks of original research and synthesis, draws very heavily on a handful of non-encyclopedic articles, and generally has no place here. No sign of potential for improvement. E Eng 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shoplifting the little bit that is useful here to indicate they're commonly stolen and a mention of what the stores are doing to prevent it, leaving a redirect as well as an alternative to deletion. I agree, this really has a lot of problems, with the sources pretty much being local news events or opinion columns (WP:NOTNEWS). The compilation of information doesn't really articulate a theme here, either, appearing more like an indiscriminate collection of lists of events on the topic. I don't think it has enough weight to warrant a full article, but a mention in the shoplifting article of the reliable content, I think, is warranted. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. E Eng 05:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm changing my !vote because I'm convinced that XOR'easter's suggestion below has some merit to it. I don't disagree this is a poorly-worded article with a lot of issues; it was why I suggested a merge to begin with. That being said, renaming the article and refactoring it (noting I would go further than just the lead as suggested) is actually a solid idea. I could support an article on book theft with this as the base to that. But, for all that to happen, we'll have to have that discussion after this AFD is settled first. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing has changed that would make me change my stance from 2015. Still keep per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination just repeats the previous nomination and so is vexatious per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." It is easy to find more substantial sources on the topic including Beatrix Potter-pinching and Žižekian swipes: the strange world of book thefts and Stealing Books in Eighteenth-Century London. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as WP:NOTTEMPORARY, stand by what I said in previous afd, a tad disappointed that article has not developed more of a world view ("well coola, what's stopping you?":)) but this is no reason to delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG per its WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither a keep nor a merge would be terrible outcomes, I think. Shoplifting seems too narrow a term; it would be easier to argue for the wiki-notability of book theft more generally. For example, not all the conduct described in The Man Who Loved Books Too Much [20] would necessarily be called "shoplifting", strictly speaking. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new article called Book theft (see Library theft, the Canadian Medical Association Journal article "People who steal books", etc.) and a little bit into Shoplifting. IMO, the topic is a bit too narrow for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could support this proposed merger as well, though this would take some time to assemble correctly. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think even just changing the title to Book theft and refactoring the lead a bit would help a lot. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oddball topic, but the sourcing on the page establishes that it is a coherent topic, and it passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's weird, but from my experience as a bookseller at Barnes and Noble, it's a unique and serious problem. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 18 July 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 kept and merged with Old Railway Station Museum. This is a content determination, not a title determination. If that result is disputed, it should be through Wikipedia:Requested moves. bd2412 T 17:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Estacion Theme Park

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

I found no significant coverage. A claim to notability is that it is historic, but I can find no proof of that. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the article as written, that it is a public attraction which includes a railway museum and more. And I tend to believe it is historic too, probably a railway museum would be located in a historic train station. See the very excellent essay wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION and wp:ITSAMUSEUM. This appears to be notable and we keep these. --Doncram (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But sure, it could/should be tagged about inline sources being needed. But neither the nominator nor I have done a proper search using Spanish language and other local languages, using proper names for the place. The nominator is just not happy with the state of current sourcing; they essentially wp:IDONTLIKEIT without really questioning its existence and its notability. Or they want to force cleanup right now, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So you admitted you found no notability either for this article that has been sitting unsourced since 2005. Get over yourself and assuming stuff. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuck essays too. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I did not say I searched and found nothing; I did not even try to do a proper search. But sure there are lots of hits immediately on La Estacion Aguascalientes, including about a restaurant and a whole barrio. I don't read Spanish easily and I am not trying to sort out about the historic train station for which everything is named, and about the museum which may no longer exist. But once notable always notable.
    About your suggestion to "fuck essays", well I think wp:CIVILITY is more fundamental, and with language like that you are offending me and probably others. Anyhow wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION essay in particular is written as a shorthand way to respond to idiotic, uninformed AFDs. Not saying this AFD is one, or that you personally are idiotic and uninformed, so don't go attacking me about wp:PERSONALATTACKS either. Essays are helpful in communicating within AFDs and elsewhere, even ones I don't personally agree with, because they can communicate much more what someone's position is. Instead of writing out the same stuff again and again in ~~response to idiotic, ill-informed AFDs~~ AFDs which are cumulatively repetitive. --Doncram (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 00:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh please. You were certainly not being civil even without using such words and offended me. So how about I break it down for you - "The nominator is just not happy with the state of current sourcing" - There is no sourcing. "they essentially wp:IDONTLIKEIT without really questioning its existence and its notability." - I actually did question its notability. So, fuck essays, especially ones that you claim are "very excellent" and that you started. SL93 (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)4[reply]
      - "There is no sourcing"??? I simply don't believe you. Sure, there is no sourcing currently included in the article, but that is not at all a valid reason to delete an article. Given that you and I both probably believe that there was a historic train station in "La Estacion" neighborhood, and that there is or was a theme park including a railway museum, I am 100% certain that sourcing about it exists, maybe off-line, maybe in Spanish, but it has certainly been written about. So there is good reasoning to believe that sourcing exists, so this should be closed "Keep" as it is, or even "Speedy keep" because there is no valid deletion argument.
        Yep, I am proud to have mostly created that essay, and another one or two, that have survived MFD attempts to delete them. You double-down with your language, which really does actually offend me. --Doncram (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Why should I when you came in with false accusations blazing? SL93 (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I would have been perfectly fine with your Keep vote if you didn't try to turn it into me having a vendetta. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "So there is good reasoning to believe that sourcing exists, so this should be closed "Keep" as it is, or even "Speedy keep" because there is no valid deletion argument." - I have been in many AfDs in the past 10 years. That is so not how AfD works. SL93 (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        AFDs are about determining if topics are notable, i.e. whether sourcing exists somewhere, not about the current state of an article.
        Why should you not use profanity? Well, because you are offending me by that profanity. Why should you not use profanity repeatedly, when you have been informed that it is offending someone? Well to avoid appearing to be a jerk. And you should care about CIVILITY and community and all that. This AFD process is a community process, and in a small way you are abusing that process and offending editors (or at least me) and contributing to the decline of Wikipedia. So, no offense, I am tending towards concluding "what a jerk" and walking away, though I will try to be open-minded that you might possibly have a point about something or another. However currently I do believe that there is no validity to this AFD nomination, so it is tending to drag down my impression of you. This is getting too personal, in both directions, so I will probably respond less or not at all from now on. Enjoy your vitriole. --Doncram (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        That is funny because that is what I concluded when you turned it into me having a vendetta against the article (which is also uncivil, also with no apology). If it helps, I doubt that the article is even 100% truthful or truthful at all with no sources since 2005. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If the notability guideline isn't enough to explain my position, is the policy WP:V enough? SL93 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also struggling to find sources that show notability. The Old Railway Station Museum already has a Wikipedia article. There is also this article in The Architect's Newspaper which certainly would be the basis of an interesting and notable article. However, I can't be sure if the Museo Espacio is actually the subject of the La Estacion Theme Park article, or if they are separate developments in Aguascalientes. Railfan23 (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Some further research finds a lot of reliable sources for the existence and notability of Museo Espacio in Aguascalientes. My guess (for whatever it's worth) is that the La Estacion Theme Park may have been the first attempt at creating what is now called the Museo Espacio. So my recommendation is that we delete the La Estacion Theme Park article and create a new Museo Espacio article from sources. Railfan23 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. that is a ridiculous suggestion. The facts you suggest are motivation for a rename/move/update, not for deletion. And please consider wp:ATD, that we are obligated to look for alternatives to deletion. Not to violate Wikipedia policy about contributions and delete stuff, only to recreate it later without credit to original contributors. --Doncram (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, what have I done to deserve that sort of hostility? I made an honest suggestion. Whoever decides to close this "Article for discussion" (emphasis added) can decide whether the suggestion is a good one or not. The article as it stands is unverifiable and in its current state is not notable. Given that, I believe it should be deleted and not renamed/moved, unless reliable sources can be found to show that Museo Espacio is indeed the same thing as La Estacion Theme Park. I was quite deliberate in not suggesting that we redirect or move the article because the connection between the two is my original research so is not a valid basis for making a decision. I just thought it was interesting that there might be a connection. Railfan23 (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, yes, Railfan23, I am sorry I was bitey towards you; for some reason I was in a pretty crabby mood. Separate from this AFD, I have been cumulatively irritated by other AFDs that advocated for deletion of a thing invoking wp:TNT, only for the thing to be recreated because it is obviously notable, and in the process violating Wikipedia's Gnu Public License or whatever is our current license with contributors (more about this in essay wp:TNTTNT which I started). Here, you didn't argue "TNT" specifically but it seemed superficially similar. Please accept my apology for putting your reasonable comment in the same box as some previous TNT-arguers and for my blasting out in your direction, inappropriately. Thank you for contributing here, instead (and thank you likewise to Uncle G also). Your point that you were not sure of the relationship between the two things is quite reasonable, too. And in fact it looks to me now like Museo Espacio is a different thing, and that La Estacion Theme Park ought to be moved/renamed to Complejo Tres Centurias instead. --Doncram (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I maybe didn't make myself clear in my nomination somehow, my issues are WP:N and WP:V, a guideline and a policy. SL93 (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps with the search for sources, this is the es:Museo Ferrocarrilero de Aguascalientes and the es:Complejo Tres Centurias in the es:Barrio de la Estación (Aguascalientes). Railfan23, you are the one person doing the right thing here. Keep at it. ☺ Although if an article can be renamed and rewritten, that is something that any editor with an account can do, no administrator tools required. It is even possible, I have heard, to do it whilst an AFD discussion is going on. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge per WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Here's an English-language source which seems relevant: Recognition of industrial heritage in Aguascalientes, Mexico. I can only see the first page but it may help us forward. Andrew D. (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging or keeping would be fine if we could verify the article. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Old Railway Station Museum article has a title sounding like it must be in Cleveland or some other place in the U.S. It was created in ancient times, 12 October 2005, by i.p. editor 12.144.179.218 at a name which is apparently a translation, but that was a poor decision and/or should be revisited. Like we have Museo del Prado not "Prado Museum". IMO it should be moved/renamed to some name reflecting better its actual name and/or usage in guidebooks and other sources, perhaps "Museo Ferrocarrilero de Aguascalientes" or some name reflecting "Estacion", depending. It is not even wikilinked from its mention in List_of_museums_in_Mexico#Aguascalientes because no one would expect that the Wikipedia article name would be so different. It was only just now wikilinked from La Estacion Theme Park article by Railfan.

The "La Estacion Theme Park" article was created also on 12 October 2005‎ also by editor 12.144.179.218, who judged it was a different thing than the museum. It seems to me to correspond to the Spanish wikipedia article es:Complejo Tres Centurias, which is about a complex, "un parque temático ubicado en el Barrio de la Estación de la Ciudad de Aguascalientes", and it includes the plaza, "La Plaza de las Tres Centurias". Maybe in fact there was in 2005 promotion of an official "La Estacion Theme Park" name for the complex including the plaza, or maybe that was the i.p. editor's attempt to compose an English translation of what they thought the name should be, while locally it was then and/or now more known as "Complejo Tres Centurias". IMO the plaza itself could possibly merit an article, but would be better covered in a larger article about the complex. It would probably be good now for the "La Estacion Theme Park" article to be moved/renamed to "Complejo Tres Centurias" or "Tres Centurias Complex" or the like. The proper AFD outcome for that would be "Keep", with recommendation that it also be moved/renamed or with recommendation that a wp:RM be opened to consider that move. ("Move/rename" alone is not a proper AFD outcome; it is not an option tracked in wp:AFDSTATS; "Keep" properly describes the action of keeping the content, and moving/renaming is an editing decision like other editing to be decided at Talk page of the article.) --Doncram (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Old Railway Station Museum; no need for two permastubs and this way we can get one respectable page. Just Chilling (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Article with a main Article as Old Railway Station Museum.Forest90 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 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.