The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Ms. Barnes is featured in many news articles during the time she had her restaurant, and taught cooking around the country (see newspapers.com).--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep My analysis of the current sources is as follows:
"New Orleans Cuisine" - Seems like this could be a decent mention. I can only see one page on Google Books, but the mention seems to surpass triviality.
Baltimore Sun - Obituary, routine news coverage. Does not confer notability, most people have an obituary.
So far, the sources as provided convince me to give a soft keep. I couldn't find anything else on my 19 page google search, but I think the sources as provided just push the subject over the edge into notability. Ikjbagl (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2020 (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.
Contested PROD by the Article's creator. Nominating per Graeme Bartlett's PROD: "This term does not appear in any journals or any real books. It only appears to be written about by Bhatia Hazarika" GPL93 (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete This term does not appear in any journals or any real books. It only appears to be written about by Bhatia Hazarika. I did a search for this term in journals, -- nothing at all, in books, only some self published e-book. No one else is using this term. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know I should really edit it to correct it, but I'm finding it difficult to change the beautiful phrase, "neutron star smash breaks universe". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pretty clearly a neologism pushed by the creator. Wrong way round, mate; we document it once it has become known, we do not make it known. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:GPL93, and thanks for identifying the author. Wikipedia welcomes experts in their fields, but expertise is established by the publication of previously reviewed work, not by the use of Wikipedia. The grammar would need correcting if the article needed keeping otherwise. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2020 (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.
Deleted per Afd in August 2012 and recreated in January 2014. G4 declined. Only real source is an AllMusic review, which was part of the original article. Otherwise, budget compilations such as these are pretty much run of the mill and don't receive much coverage. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me23:31, 28 April 2020 (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.
Speedy delete sources cited all pertain to his Robot Orchestra idea, not him specifically. He doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Dreamanderson (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Tiger of the Week: Ajay Kapur '02, Bringing Creative Arts to Online Education". Princeton University.
"Robot orchestra jams with human players". Toronto Star. 13 May 2011.
"This robot orchestra is ready to jam". Los Angeles Times. 24 April 2011.
"Robots get their groove on in CA student orchestra". Phys.org.
Singh, Manpreet K. "Sitar trek". India Today.
"Ajay Kapur". CalArts School of Music.
"Music Students Program A Robot Orchestra". NPR.org.
"Ajay Kapur". New Zealand School of Music.
Hart, Hugh (13 May 2010). "Machine Orchestra Features Hacked Guitar, Trampoline-Triggered Music Cues". Wired.
"Ever heard of a sitar with a USB port?". Mid Day. 25 December 2010.
VALENCIA, CALIF. "ELECTRIC BOOGALOO". The Washington Times.
"Music review: KarmetiK Machine Orchestra at REDCAT". LA Times. 13 April 2012.
Kehe, Jason (17 April 2012). "Review: Samsara at REDCAT Los Angeles Magazine". Los Angeles Magazine.
"Kadenze's March Toward Online Art Education, 1 Year Later". EdSurge. 20 October 2016.
"Kadenze brings arts education to the masses". Metro New York.
"Series looks at Kadenze, an arts platform bringing students the future of STEAM education". The Santa Clarita Valley Signal. 2 November 2018.
"Multinational Singaporean company inks deal with Nirveda". The Santa Clarita Valley Signal. 1 October 2019.
Moyer, Edward. "CalArts wins grant for arts-and-technology program". CNET.
James, Mike. "Programming for Musicians and Digital Artists". I-programmer.
RedirecttoKadenze as the RS cited are about it rather than him. The sources that are about him are student news/small time. This person is not independently notable. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - he's not notable per WP:PROF, and the sourcing is less than stellar. It would do much better as a stub, if it were to be kept. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC) I removed two duplicative, unreliable sources (Washington Times and Metro New York). I won't oppose a keep, but I don't see an end in sight after all the unreliable sources are removed. Please ping me if you find better sources. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - It appears that a number of the votes to delete have not even viewed the article or reviewed the references. The issues raised in the first article have been addressed and the subject of the article meets WP:NCORP, because it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. Some of the more notable articles giving significant coverage on the law firm can be found in the Guardian Newspaper here, their work on the takeover of a Nigerian firm by Coca-Cola was also documented in another leading Newspaper, ThisDay here. This is asides the over 20 references cited in the article, which were not in the original article.Ponlegbile (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Furthermore, Aelex is one of the few Nigerian legal firms that has been ranked almost annually by the global assessor for legal firms The Legal 500, and this achievement has been reported on in independent sources herePonlegbile (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Celestina007, I understand your concern and your view completely. I am the major contributor to the article and believed that I did a good job on capturing the firm from a neutral POV. I was not paid, neither do I work at the firm. As with any creative, there is a level of affinity that you would have for something you created. I do apologize if I came across as forceful. I just believe that this is a notable firm with sufficient coverage in notable Nigerian dailies, with international recognition as well, I am Nigeria as well, so I feel like when there is a Nigerian notable person, event or organization that has not received sufficient recognition, they should be given that opportunity. I mean no disrespect at all. My name is Ponle Gbile. Thank you.Ponlegbile (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corpspam, probable WP:PAID against the WP:TOU. Also, a WP:BEFORE search indicates a dearth of persistent, in-depth coverage in high-quality reliable sources; little more than passing mentions, per WP:ROUTINE coverage of various cases. ——SN5412908:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Guardian Newspaper, Thisday Newspaper and Business Day are some of the more notable and quality reliable sources of news in Nigeria and these publications have in depth coverage of the subject, which have been cited in the article. I also listed some of the links earlier, which show WP:SIGCOVPonlegbile (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only trivial coverage. Although The Guardian etc might seem to add notability, and usually those sources would, in this case they don't because what is being covered in the articles is considered coverage by WP:NCORP. Mainly inclusions in lists or winning awards. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject has received significant coverage. The Guardian and This day Newspapers would not report on awards of no significance. Subject at least fits WP:NCORP. Philphleg (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and Salt as advertising for a non-notable firm.. The material would do nicely as a web page for the firm, but not an encyclopedia article. There seem to be no notable cases, no notable members of the firm, a, The references are some of them mere notices, such as [4] where it's a notice of a lecture by someone else merely sponsored by the firm) or their own work, such as [5] but the others are PR slightly disguised as news articles, such as [6] in Business Day, a vehicle for PR like many similarly named papers in other counties, or the announcement of an award that does no confer notability . I don't know it's PAID, but consider the other articles by the contributor, it seems likely--see [7] The Guardian articles are either an announcement of a panel they sponsor, or the announcement of one of the promotional awards. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG's assertion that the firm is non-notable with no notable lawyers, a Google search indicates that one of the partners at the firm is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria(SAN), Mrs. Funke Adekoya, that's the highest honour for a Nigerian lawyer, and SAN cannot be described as non-notable. Agreed that some of the references are notices of events, but there are also mentions of their involvements in landmark cases, like the Coca-Colacase and their involvement with Shell Nigeria. There are other references not indicated in the article referring to the firm as notable. The Legal 500 is also not a promotional award.Onyeuwaoma2000 (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Onyeuwaoma2000 you should really quit this meat puppetry whilst no one is really paying attention else you risk getting blocked. This article if I remember correctly was first created by Pastorflex in 2017 and was subsequently sent to an AFD where it was deleted. In this WP:SPI case I opened in 2017:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pastorflex/Archive against both you and the article creator he said you both worked extensively in the creation of this non notable article & Deskana warned you both about such meat puppetry behavior. Oh well now a user named Ponlegbile comes outta the blues to create this article with the same passion as Pastorflex who of course has another brand new SPI case against him opened by another editor handling Nigeria related articles @Versace1608. So in summary; we have yourself, Pastorflex & the mystery “Ponlegbile” advocating in one way or another, for the retention of the article. I mean what are the odds? Celestina007 (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@celestina007 and everyone, I have read the above back and forth. I am a legal practitioner in Nigeria. I am a Wikipedia contributor too. I have taken the liberty to start a project, to create article on Nigerian Law Firms. I believe this will help subsequent conversation. Also. On Notability, Aelex Partners is a notable Law Firm in my country, it is among the best of the best. The assertions above, about the personalities in the firm are true. And as a matter of cause, I will take the liberty of reviewing the said article. I do not work at this firm, my firm is an emerging one, but, I can categorically say, if Aelex does not qualify for Notability, then no firm is qualified for being notable in Nigeria, on Wikipedia. As I have earlier stated.I will try to review this article.
Currently, I am currently curating contents on the article on Nigerian Firms. I will need all the help I can get. Ogele (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I originally created this list article back in 2006, but it is now redundant as CLCs have largely ceased to exist. Many don't have their own article or links, those that do link to a school without mention to the CLC and external links are pretty much dead. No longer serves a purpose. Bungle(talk • contribs)16:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the fact that CLC's are no longer relevant/the links don't work doesn't mean that the article should be deleted as it seems that the article at least had some notability at the time it was created.
Delete: Violates WP:NOT. We should judge by 2020 standards and not by criteria that the community has already rejected. buidhe22:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the rationale that this is a list of currently operating CLCs and CLCs largely no longer exist according to Bungle. If it were a list of historical CLCs that were notable, then the article would in that case be notable and deserving of being kept. If someone wants to work on this to make it into a list of notable, historical CLCs, that list could potentially pass notability and stay a permanent article (perhaps Epluribusunumyall (talk·contribs) may be interested), but I'm not yet convinced. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2020 (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 subject is a non-notable infant. The only thing there is about her in reliable sources is that she exists and that she is someone's daughter. Let her grow up. And in anticipation of the community's input: WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:WHATABOUTX. Surtsicna (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Considering the subject is fourth in line to the crown of an extant royal family, I would argue she is notable. There's coverage in two RS which are currently in the article (I am not considering the royal family website or the Royal Palace as RS in this case). --Kbabej (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What the reliable sources cover is her mere existence, i.e. that someone has given birth to her. I do not think that counts as "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG. Surtsicna (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a redirect to her father's article. She will probably be notable some day, but as for now she isn't. And she hasn't received the same kind of press that some other royal infants (say, the Cambridges or Archie Mountbatten-Windsor) have. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & RedirecttoTupoutoʻa ʻUlukalala per above. There is really no actual information that needs to be merged, as it is already in the target article. But this article has a couple of additional sources that are not currently being used in the target that can be moved over. Rorshacma (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am not finding any reliable sources covering this webcomic anywhere online. I can't find any sources to write/expand this article with, and no reliable sources are cited currently. Strips of Contemplating Reiko has apparently been published in two fairly well-known magazines, but this is not nearly enough to establish notability. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current article has no reliable sources. There are some reviews and interviews but from private blogs. I was unable to find any more beyond those already in it - finding only this more recent interview done by a person on Deviant Art. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete No easily identifiable independent coverage in a simple search, even the foundation funding the programme turns up very little. Fails GNG.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2020 (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.
Promotional article, tagged as such since 2012, and sourcing (on the article and a search) does not pass minimum WP:Notability or subject specific (WP:NCORP) criteria. Far too much unsourced content, that indicates original research, with multiple "citation needed" tags. Primary sources are not backed up with reliable and independent sources and several are used repeatedly. 15 of the 21 sources are used in the same section giving the appearance of rebombing. There are unresolved WP:COI issues that confuses me. Unless I missed something the article is attributed to one editor and another takes the credit with "...I created the page & am not here regularly...". --- Otr500 (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate in draft space. I was the admin who handled the WP:REFUND request after the article was deleted via proposed deletion; as I stated there, "I'm wondering if it would be prudent to move this article to draft space until Stevenxlead is able to get it tuned up."[8] I'm still inclined to give the article some time for development...provided that some work actually gets done on it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I guess there are no COI issues so I am not opposed to incubation. (See below) If I wandered into the article I would trim the last sentence of the lead and the "Product history" section. This would get rid of 13 "citation needed" tags that have been hanging around since 2012. I would also look closely at the "Adoption" section and possible trimming. Since the article was created, and even since the editor mentioned as "possibly" working on it, that put in two years of editing (2010-2012), technology has advanced. I ran across a couple of sources. The company apparently has entered into a partnership with Cisco and Molex, and others such as Fulham Lighting, meaning the article would certainly need a rewrite along with far better sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) WP:DRAFTIFY seems like an option if someone wants to work on it; however, as I stated at WP:REFUND#Ambx, Stevenxlead who requested that the article be restored seems to edit infrequently and has yet to comment on whether they would be interested in working on such a draft. Stevenxlead last edited the article in April 2012; so, unless they can state that are going to be able to work on the draft much more frequently than that or someone else wants to work on it, draftifying this kind of makes no sense because it will eventually just end up being deleted per WP:G13. As long as someone is working on it, then its OK for the draft namespace regardless of whatever COI issues there are (see the REFUND discussion for specifics about the possible COI/PAID editing), but someone has to work on it at least once every six months.
If you look at the log for this title, this article was already deleted per PROD back in 2007, and then simply recreated with this edit a few days later by an account whose only edit was to recreate the article. So, it technically shouldn't have been eligible for PROD a second time. If the consensus here turns out that it should be deleted once again, it will not be eligible for REFUND and any attempts to recreate it basically as is will make it eligible for WP:G4. So, I think what needs to be part of any discussion about draftifying this is what to do if it does end up abandoned and deleted per G13. If it's just going to be restored or recreated only to end up be deleted yet again, then that's not really a good thing. So, maybe instead of letting the draft be deleted per G13, it might be better to just delete this now unless someone clearly intends to work on it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST and WP:NTEMP are good enough reasons to keep and not draftify if the consensus is that the sources you've found are sufficient to establish Wikipedia notability. There's no real need to draftify an article about a notable subject simply to work on it; it can be improved in the mainspace by you or anyone else who want to give it a go. COI/PAID editors, however, should follow WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement, and avoid directly editing the article as much as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Marchjuly and C.Fred, I had a death in the family and my time has been restricted so I haven't done any more than list the sources. I am going to try to look at them but if either of you can, to see if they advance notability, I would appreciate it. I have not gotten too involved in the paid aspect of COI but know I am "generally" against it. What I would be more against is any lackadaisical approach dealing with it. Now, paid editing is a different story to me.
WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE states If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. You may do this on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries. As you have a conflict of interest, you must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status, in all discussions on Wikipedia pages within any namespace.
We try to walk in quicksand when concerns are possibly brushed aside or not given enough attention. A person that works for a company with a high enough position, or is anyway involved in company advertisement, absolutely is getting paid if they create or edit related articles, as compared to someone that just works for a company. The difference goes from: a person should, or might, or other "suggestions", to mandates from the WMF. My problem is that I have not dug into the investigative side. If it is brought up or I see it, I make comments, and usually it either becomes a severe issue or not, because someone else seems to also look into it with more knowledge. The past is the past but becomes more relevant if we are waiting in hopes of an editor that wants the article to remain, but since 2012 has not done any editing, and there are indications of paid editing (noted on the talk page), I have to at least look closer. Since paid editing has become more of an issue (especially between 2010-2014) there may be reasons for keeping a low profile.
Concerning this article, I do know promotional articles have been deleted (as opposed to existing in clear violation of policies and guidelines), and should if nobody wants to intercede to try to at least trim it to non-promotional appearances. It is not justification to keep clear company advertising articles just because there is some notability. This is when we consider if the subject would be better served waiting (TNT tipping point) until someone wants to create an article that does not violate policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the edits to the page today, I do not see a path forward for this topic as an encyclopedia article. Product without significant coverage in independent sources. As Otr500 said above regarding WP:TNT, I would have no opposition if an independent editor subsequently created a new article based on independent reliable sources that show notability of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I am not against any recreation with sourcing per C.Fred. Please note: A discussion that led to the page deletion at User talk:Lyndsayclose (marketing Manager for amBX) "As a business we no longer operate within the video game market and do not produce suitable lighting. I would like to delete the amBX wiki page as it does not reflect our brand anymore and it is creating a confusing message for customers and prospects searching for us on Google. Can you help?". The prod and deletion was apparently and supposedly a path of least resistance but also apparently the opposing editor was not aware of the discussion. Otr500 (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2020 (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 delete view appear to be based on a reasonable interpretation of policy and an absence of suitable sourcing. The keep votes are overall more assertion and/or non policy based arguments and therefore do not overcome the strength of the delete arguments. SpartazHumbug!20:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see sources that discuss it before they turned it into a hotel, as a web search brings up local news on the hotel and a bunch of travel listings. It's not necessarily non-notable. SportingFlyerT·C18:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just providing a view of the property. As an architectural historian, I think actually seeing a building is important in determining notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Basing a keep vote for an undersourced building on Google Street View alone and then claiming that opinion is more important than any rules we have about sourcing is bad enough, I'm frankly extremely concerned an administrator would make an argument like this - and I'm someone who would like to see this article kept if at all possible. SportingFlyerT·C17:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mystified as to the editors who don't seem to think that opinion matters at AfD. If all that mattered were strict "rules" (once again, note that Wikipedia doesn't have any rules) then we wouldn't have AfD discussions at all, as I've pointed out many times. I'm not aware I claimed my opinion was "more important" than anything. I simply stated that it was my opinion. Which I am perfectly entitled to express in AfD discussions. Please try not to misrepresent arguments. I've read these bizarre insinuations that admins aren't allowed to express an opinion before. They were ludicrous then and they're still ludicrous now. What, are we only allowed to regurgitate policies? Sorry, I have always applied common sense to AfD discussions. And to me, common sense dictates that we keep buildings such as this. To others it may not, but that's their opinion too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't back up your opinion with reliable sources, then your opinion's not worth anything. I'm astounded you keep digging yourself into a further hole by saying that whether something should be deleted or kept is based on "common sense." It's based on whether the subject is notable, which requires reliable sources. You don't get to have an opinion that reliable sources may or may not exist. They either do or they do not. Maybe common sense applies in very specific circumstances (such as early Olympians from non-English speaking countries where nobody has done an archival RS search in the native language), but I've done probably four figures of AfDs now and that's never been the case. SportingFlyerT·C23:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As have I. And in my experience common sense is usually a factor. Notability is entirely subjective, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere. As I said, if this were not the case we wouldn't have AfDs at all. The article is reliably sourced. The building exists. A Google search produces many results (admittedly most of them hotel reviews). All that counts is whether it's held to be notable or not. And that's up to us here at AfD. If you don't think it's notable that's of course your prerogative, but please don't attempt to dismiss and sneer at another editor's opinion because you don't agree with it. That's completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sneering at your opinion because I don't agree with it, I'm sneering at your opinion because "looking at a building" is not and has never been a requirement for determining whether something is notable, and as someone who is an administrator, you should absolutely know better. If you think the three sources in the article are sufficient for inclusion, fine, have that opinion. It's easily argued against, though. You should know that. The second one is primary, the third one is two sentences, not significant, and potentially primary as well. No other reliable sources have been identified yet. There are a few results in a newspapers.com search, but I'm not sure how significant they are. And yes, source review can be subjective, but WP:GNG, the overriding notability guideline, is actually an objective guideline. You must have reliable sources for something to be notable. SportingFlyerT·C17:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whatever notability the politician and his family has doesn't transfer over to the location in which they've lived. Having merely one reliable source isn't enough in terms of providing the detail that we need as well. The article as it stands doesn't appear worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom) In addition to my earlier search via NewspaperARCHIVE.com, I also searched via Newspapers.com, and couldn't find anything either. --MrClog (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The photo link provided by User:Necrothesp is helpful in evaluating notability. Badgering about that is not helpful, and if the badgerers here want to badger me too, well, please, don't. Some of us, probably not including the badgerers, have some degree of informed intelligence and relevant knowledge to interpret a photo like that. It might well be good to have a self-ban of those from looking at photos or commenting about them.
Right, sure it may not be "in the news"; but it is substantial and there surely exists off-line resources and perhaps on-line resources not found, under different naming say. It does suffice to establish well enough that sources do exist or must exist. To the badgerers, please spare me badgering about your take on the relevant policy/guidelines on this; I disagree with you, and I don't care to listen to your opinion; others here are not idiots.
Built in 1881, the building is a substantial work that, in the U.S. would surely be listed on the National Register of Historic Places or eligible for listing, for its architecture and substance. There's mention/assertion above that this is not a listed building, which rather puzzles me. Also, there's substantial stuff about this. I too am interested in the conscientious objectors angle.
Also, interesting to compare to nearby Holbeck Hall Hotel, which collapsed into the sea! With same owners, per
this articleinThe Independent. The waxing and waning of luxury hotels is, in fact, of interest to many, and is covered in news locally and sometimes more widely, in addition to offline historic stuff about the place before it was a hotel. This one is more historic and arguably notable than many other luxury hotel articles I've seen or contributed to. --Doncram (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't typically like to address WP:OSE arguments, but that hotel was only notable because it fell into the sea - my WP:BEFORE search on that property only brought a couple of advertisements from the 1930s. If this is more arguably notable than many other hotels you've contributed to, it should be easy for you to source it adequately, which is ultimately the major test of AfD. SportingFlyerT·C04:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: I won't continue the discussion whether looking at the article via Google Street View is a reasonable way of determining notability. However, I think that your assertion that there must be sources is insufficient. I searched extensively, including through NewspaperARCHIVE.com and Newspapers.com, which combined have large numbers of articles from local, regional and national newspapers going back a long time (often well before 1881). Do you have any sources that I missed? Also, I request you withdraw your insinuations that other editors here do not possess "some degree informed intelligence" and are "idiots" (WP:NPA). --MrClog (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant. Misread what I wrote. I directly said editors here are not idiots, how do you manage to twist that inside your head to say the opposite? It is obviously true that some editors in Wikipedia are way more informed than others, about interpretation of architecture. --Doncram (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I misintepreted the comment as meaning that those other than the "badgerers" are not idiots, as opposed to the "badgerers". Striking. The rest of the comment still stands. MrClog (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to formally vote !delete after the relists. Having reviewed the available sources and having looked for available sources, this doesn't quite pass WP:GNG. What the building looks like in a photo is irrelevant. SportingFlyerT·C00:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as the deletion nomination noted, there is significant coverage in the Ellis source, not much used in developing the article yet. And I added a bit more from The Independent article, and a little from this recent Scarborough local article (not yet recognized here, i guess searching so far has been imperfect):"Wrea Head is Ready to Face the World". Scarborough Review. March 2019. p. 33. Retrieved May 3, 2020.. --Doncram (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Ellis source is less than a page and doesn't describe the building much. Independent article is just passing coverage, it's literally less than a sentence. It's hard to tell what exacty the Scarborough article grants notability to, as it's mostly just an interview with the owners, only mentioning the building briefly. I think this is about the building, but if we're reviewing this as a hotel business, it completely fails WP:NCORP. My searches included newspapers.com and a British newspaper archive, all of the search pages brought up by Google and an alt search engine, and Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar - doesn't really feel imperfect as I did try to save this thing. SportingFlyerT·C08:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There have been some misunderstandings within this AFD, and some unusual deletion/editing of others' comments, I guess all in good faith though, involving perhaps some English-not-being-first-language issue and some unfamiliarity with AFD practices. Although I would prefer that no one should comment after every other persons' statements, I am okay with this stuff being discussed elsewhere, and I think it has not too seriously undermined things here. About the AFD subject:
This place is the subject, or a main locale, of a series of children'sadult mystery/romance books by Lynda Stacey, including "House of Secrets" which appears to meanis about this hall. To see, try Google books search linked above.
Tourist guide books can be quite great, reliable sources. I don't have access to the inside contents, but Alfred Wainwright, apparently reputable author of Westmorland Heritage (2004) and Wainwright Memorial Walk and several other books in the Google books search link which discuss and/or picture Wrea Head Hall.
I don't have access myself to full regular tourist guide books which may provide substantial reviews. Brief mentions in TripAdvisor, Kayak, etc. don't really provide substantial material, but do, IMHO, still speak to notability.
The only editing of "others' comments" that happened was this. {{page creator}} isn't supposed to be signed, meaning the "unsigned comment" notice was very likely added by mistake, possibly due to unfamiliarity with the template being used, which is why I removed it. --MrClog (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nom) I don't think the new sources provide the SIGCOV required for GNG, so I still believe it should be deleted. MrClog (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2020 (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 consensus not to keep these. The "merge" or "redirect" proposals cannot at this time be implemented because the proposed target article(s) do not exist yet. Once they do, any desired redirects can be created. I cannot imagine that there will be any great desire to merge these texts, which are all of the form of "X is a proposed station at Y street serving Z destinations", into any summary articles. Sandstein 21:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per @Truflip99 and Superastig: (redirect target article/s is/are up for more experienced editors here). Delete and redirect all articles of nonexistent and proposed stations for proposed and under-construction lines with less than 10% completed progress, except for stations under construction. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a single article about the proposals. There is useful encyclopaedic information (assuming it is reliably sourced, I haven't checked), but not enough to sustain individual articles. As always in this situation, the best thing to do is to merge that information into a broader article. Deletion would not harm the project by unnecessarily removing that encyclopaedic information. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect each station to the article about the (proposed) line it's on, for example: Tirona, Imus, Daang Hari, Salitran, Congressional Avenue, Governor's Drive to Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 6.19:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The correct name is Thanasis Pantos. The full name is Athanasios Pantos. You can also check player's pages in social media, which all have the correct name. GRanemos1 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The page was created by a editor (User:Jaystrand) who works for the Strand Book Store, and has a paid editor notice on their user page, and on Strand Book Store, but not on this page (I've added one). The subject of the article is only notable as the owner of the Strand Book Store, and as such does not need a separate article (her status as the wife of a US Senator does not confer notability). Much -- if not all -- of the information here is already in the bookstore article, and anything not there should be moved there and this article converted to a re-direct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Podcast episode from "The Webcomic Beacon" from 2008 - interview with the creators. I haven't listened to this through; the podcast itself may not be a reliable source.
ArticleinThe Stranger from 2009 – Article is entirely about Night Zero, describing a party for its first book release and giving a review of the comic.
ArticleinThe Stranger from 2010 – Article is about another launch party for the book. Does not discuss the comic itself in any detail.
Blog post on Pixelated Geek from 2009 – Presents a photoshoot by the Night Zero team doing Left 4 Dead fanart. Also says it has an interview with them, but I couldn't get it to load. Pixelated Geek is a for-profit blog - I don't know enough about it to comment on its reliability.
ArticleinSeattle Post-Intelligencer from 2009 – Brief article that sets out the core facts about the comic. Seattle PI is a reliable source (and I think that blogs it hosts are reliable too due to some editorial oversight).
Video from Wayne Wolfe of Triplebeard.com from 2011 – I haven't watched this; doubt it is a reliable source.
ArticleonFlavorwire from 2012 – gives a brief summary of Night Zero in an article on photocomics.
While not the strongest, I think that there is multiple independent, reliable sources (namely 1, 3, 4, and 6 from The Daily, The Stranger, and Seattle PI), which together provide the basic facts about the subject.
Of course, the article needs substantial rewriting. Lots of the material isn't sourced, reads like an ad, or is overly detailed. But if we keep it, I'll work on it to clean that up. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington University paper article looks good, the The Stranger articles look good, and the Flavorwire listicle looks good. I think the Seattle Post-Intelligencer post is a blog post. The video, podcast, and other blog post are definitely not reliable sources. I still think it's weak, but I suppose I would !vote more along the lines of "neutral" now. I don't think this is enough sources to really work with. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since multiple sources are listed above to satisfy GNG and show that at least two WP:NEXIST, regardless of article sourcing. WP:PRIMARY sources are acceptable to WP:VERIFY content as long as there's no interpretation happening. If any content is not verifiable, it can be removed to improve the article without deleting it. -2pou (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The article needs general cleanup and some formatting but I saw 3 major newspaper references among the total of 16 references there right now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep as has a staff written bio at AllMusic here, as well as two staff album reviews here, and here, also a newspaper article here]. I haven't completed a full search yet, but google news is showing a lot of dedicated coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2020 (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.
No clear evidence of significant notability, article has become source of significant BLP violating edit warring over alleged animal abuse. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In favour of his fake narcissist Wikipedia he made using his Pr to be deleted, nothing is factual no proof of studying banking the only proof is a video of him punching a lion he hold captive. He has been trying to become famous for over 3 years, he made a way and that was by paying for self made publicity so that he could use lions wildlife that he holds in his garden captive for fans likes and donations — BettyLioness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. It should not be used for self-promotion. This is one reason why we need extra scrutiny of articles on living people. Considering yesterday I saw a nomination for an article that had existed 16 years I believe with no sources at all, I have grave doubts we have anywhere near enough oversight on articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Den Schneider has a popular instagram and YouTube channel. Zhto makes him an iconic person in the modern world, including in the field of promoting the protection of wild animals. He used his own money to hire 6 armed guards to guard the reserve with wild animals. Before his arrival, animals in South Africa were killed EN masse for the sake of paws and fangs, this brutal attitude was interrupted thanks to Dan Schneider.
And out of hundreds of videos and millions of people subscribed to it, there was some one taken out of context, posted on some unpopular small site. No, that doesn't prove that anyone is cruel! About 7,000,000 people watch Dan Schneider online. And if he had done evil, he would have been sued long ago. That's all I wanted to say. The article is significant by all criteria. Den Schneider is John Irving of the 21st century and it is great that he is on our Land. Leave the article, haters are not allowed to make false news.
I will add that the site and the information on it, which was referred to by critics of den Schneider, removed this page as unreliable and in fact fake. That is, the data source was already unreliable, and now even a non-popular site has got rid of this article. This indicates that the news against den Schneider is clearly fake. In General, information from a site that is barely subscribed to by several dozen people is not a source for Wikipedia, in my opinion it is obvious. So you can create any page on Facebook, recruit a couple of dozen friends and post fakes, and then insert it into Wikipedia as an authoritative source.--Бутывский Дмитрий (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lioness Nayla is not only alive, but also constantly participates in the video of Dean Schneider, squeezes with him, caresses, plays, lives fully and fun. So attempts to create fake news that Dean Schneider is beating someone-have no grounds. The fact that the Lions sometimes need to give pokes in response is a fact, a given, they are inside the pride, too, poke each other with their paws, scratch and it is important to stop them in time. But this has nothing to do with the beating at all, Dean never beat the lions, they would have eaten him for the beating.--Бутывский Дмитрий (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article has been been subject to recent WP:BLP violations, I don't think deletion is the right approach. Articles that are frequently vandalized or edited with improperly sourced information are generally protected, not deleted, on these grounds. The subject of this article meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in the following independentreliable sources:
Keep per WP:GNG as explained by Newslinger above. I started the article in July 2019 and have no connection with the subject. I suggest using WP:PP or selectively blocking connected contributors from editing this article. TJMSmith (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole Wikipedia article seems like a PR ploy. I searched on Google but couldn't find any reputed news sources on him. There's one by Daily Mail and others are non-English sources. If the article is kept then it should be reviewed once again as there are lots of claims that are not supported, and the article should be protected considering the recent WP:BLP violations by relatively fresh accounts. - TheodoreIndiana (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[9] states that he『Estudió finanzas』(studied finance) and that he had a financial planning company. Yes, it is vague but it is sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What do we have in the end? The one who tried to submit an article for deletion, disregarded the norms of Wikipedia. Dean Schneider has long been an iconic person, a person in instagram, YouTube and Facebook. He is a well-known animal rights activist and activist for the protection of all living things. Millions of people have subscribed to it, it is well-known and clearly meets the criteria of significance for an article in Wikipedia. He's not a low-level Internet celebrity.
The lioness Nayla is alive, healthy, hugs and kisses with Dean Schneider, so no real harm to her he did not cause, since Nayla is still a wild animal, without any collar. And Dean Schneider are all the same and there was not in the hands of sticks and other things.
Conclusion-article to leave, news that when the Dean Schneider knuckle hit Nayla on the paw, for what Nayla his grabbing claws for a neck-to leave, the link to the magazine Time this is authoritative. To add to this information, the fact that Nayla is alive and well and making out with Dean is proof of this hundreds of videos on Dean Schneider's instagram.--Бутывский Дмитрий (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2020 (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.
Almost entirely unsourced BLP; I have gone through the article history to see if there has been any useful content and/or sources, and I have done a WP:BEFORE search for sources as well. I cannot find any sources that indicate that he meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. He won one part of a bodybuilding contest in 2016, and that's pretty much all I can find, apart from some interviews where he plugs a company selling some kind of high-protein food. It is clear that there has been some promotional efforts going on – the article was created by an account that has since been blocked for UPE, and another account has been adding advert type language more recently. bonadeacontributionstalk18:42, 28 April 2020 (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.
Nominator is now blocked for running a little sock farm. I can't remember if we close AFDs started by socks or sockmasters? This one is quite pointless based on the good sourcing available.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete this list is not not encyclopedic and its notability is unproven by the sources, many of which are commercial stamp selling sites or online catalogues. Online searches do not provide any results for such a listing at all. If 51 lists of birds on stamps by country were deleted for similar reasons (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of birds on stamps of Bophuthatswana), there is no need or justifiable reason to keep this very narrow listing of one specific bird on postage stamps. If we keep an list of on particular bird on stamps where do we ever stop. A discussion took place seversl years ago about the notability of topical stamps in general and the only one that was considered acceptable was list if people on stamps. We are not a catalogue of stamps and for that reason we also have the wikibooks World Stamp Catalogue that has a topical section though there is yet little content. ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic and just a list of links. Wikipedia is not a stamp collector fansite. If we go by the reasoning of the AfD mentioned above, this topic is far less notable and more worthy of deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With regards to sources --- Scott Standard Postage Stamp catalogue is a common reference work used in the field of philately, and not a commercial catalog. --Jmbranum (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On further thought, I agree that this probably isn't an encyclopedic entry and have instead taken the content and posted it on Wikibooks' worldwide stamp catalogue at [11]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep AfD is not clean up. A little bit of BEFORE, please. Look at the history of the article – almost five years old. I suspect because this is caste-related this has led to a rather unstable history. Nevertheless, secondary source discussion here [12]; passes GNG. I suspect related to, if not the same as, Jatav, but need a discussion for merge first, not delete. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn your source is unreliable per long-standing consensus. There have been discussions about that series of publications at numerous venues, including WP:RSN. It is also not a synonym for Jatav but I think I have seen it as an alternate spelling for Yadav. Sitush (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: I certainly admit to being unaware of earlier discussion regarding this particular source, although nothing on the page cited indicates notably dubious claims; precursory searches show between the Yadav, Jadav and Jatav a great deal of overlap - accounting for migration, it would not be surprising that these converge in a common source and differences in spelling can be accounted for by differences in language (ie transliteration via two or three different languages). FWIW - more sourcing: described as a rising caste,[1] Phaneeshwar Nath refers to the Jadav in context of describing conflicts amongst the castes of Patna[2], Irfan Habib refers to a subordinated caste Hindu farmer named Jadav in late 16th Century Gujarat.[3]
I reiterate - I don't have an answer to what is correct, ethnography of caste is far from a specialty area for me, but should this be cleaned up? Yes. Redirected? Quite possibly. Deleted? No. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just clearing things up... <cough> It is suggested that the Mahratta clan of Jadavs are descended from the Yadavas. but beyond similarity of name there is nothing to support this theory. There was a class of shepherds called the Yadavas, and there is as much, if not greater, probability in the Jadavs being descended from them. It is also worthy of note that no surname corresponding to Jadav has been pointed out among the ancient Rajput families. lb is stated in the Satara Gazetteer that "as far as is known the Devagiri Yadavas passed from the south northwards, and it is possible they were not northerners but southerners, Kurubars or other shepherds, who, under Brahman influence, adopted the great northern shepherd name of Yadav."Madras High Court Maharaja Of Kolhapur vs S. Sundaram Ayyar And Ors. on 21 January 1924.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush as a general point, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Second, specific to this, I should clearly have made my <cough> comment more explicit, mea culpa. I was only trying to emphasise the difficulty in clarifying the exact nature of the group we are talking about and who they are; the scientific racism of the structures of British imperialism does not discount from the point that the term is being used at various points to describe a caste of people. Should one be cautious with this and the Anthropological Survey of India as sources? Absolutely! (I don't disagree with any of the points made hereorhere where the consensus of the discussion suggests "judicious" use of ASoI materials). But does it provide some information potentially helpful to the discussion *at hand* of what we should do with this article? Possibly. At this point in time, after what I have seen so far, my suggestion would be for a redirect to the Kunbi#Jadhav...do you have a view on that? Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn:: yes, my view is don't do it because it is plain wrong to speculate when there are at least two claims to this name and likely three or more, for none of which do we really have solid support - caste is what I mostly do here & we'll just add to the horrendous problems, including death threats, already common in the topic area. We could convert to a dab page but even that will attract the idiotic & in past AfDs has been rejected because notability isn't there.
The discussion is verging away from the issue at hand. There are sources, of varying degrees of reliability, although the majority I have cited would be considered reliable, which point to Jadav existing as a caste name. At the same time, I think it's reasonable to indicate that the weight of reliable sourcing is not sufficiently conclusive. Despite Sitush's reluctance, I would support converting this to a disambiguation page pointing to Yadav, Jatav and Kunbi#Jadhav. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, which are the RS for a link to Jatav? I am on mobile and struggling to read stuff but if there is nothing for that then things get awkward because we do not do dab pages when there are only two possibilities - IAR may need to be invoked but the dab specialists get very uptight about this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A further thought, sorry. The article could be a dab for people bearing the name as well as for the communities it could represent. It is quite a common name, as I think is mentioned above. The set-index route gets round any potential issue with guidance for dab pages, although I'm still reluctant about including the castes because it really does open the floodgates to the most tenuous of connections, the name is seemingly not notable in respect of those castes, & we have enough maintenance problems with existing caste dabs & redirects (please don't say that will be fixed over time because it won't & the suggestion just demonstrates lack of clue about the topic area and the long-term pattern of editor involvement - it has been open warfare for a couple of centuries, so WP is just going to reflect that, not change it). - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources are available and I will expand it (just started). We can have a dabhat for any synonyms, some potentials being noted above). - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Although most agree that it should be kept, redirection vs. disambiguation haven't been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My understanding here is, it has been established that this is a group different from all the others mentioned. Kunbi Jadavs, according to the article, hail from three districts in Maharastra. The Yadav article is basically a DAB which needs to clarify all the different groups that use the word "Yadav" and create separate articles for each, if, after and when the scholars get around to the task. Jatavs are apparently subgroups of Chamars, and hail from Uttar Pradesh. The article under discussion, however, is about a group from Gujarat+Rajasthan. That being the case, it merits a standalone article without being required to meet WP:GNG at the outset. DABs might be helpful, which can be created at Jadav (disambiguation) for the topics, and at Jadav (name) for a list of peoples sharing the name assuming they are not at or can't be added to Jadhav. Use hatnotes as necessary. Those problems are not for AFD. Usedtobecool☎️11:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
spammy nonsense created by a user to promote to "researchers" Pooja Jain and Pranjal Jain, sourced entirely to their own work and providers of HR (aka spam.) Praxidicae (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first glance this looks like it has lots of cites: but the journal articles proposing this theory from Jain and Jain have only been published this month. All the independent citations have earlier dates and so cannot be about this theory and do not lend notability. Maybe in time, but right now this does not meet WP:GNG and is a case of WP:TOOSOON. - MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All primary references have been removed and they have been replaced with secondary, notable and verifiable references. I appreciate your efforts and I thank you for mentioning your concern. I am a new editor and I understand that I have a lot to learn in order to contribute at this prestigious platform. The subject matter of this thread has been in consideration since 2016. The external sources citing the provisions of The Theory of HR Quantification may be found by using some other keywords such as HR Analytics, Quantify Human Resources etc. This is how I came to know about the existence of this Theory. There is a lot of content to add in it. I have been enthusiastically working but being a beginner, it is taking me a lot of time to place things at the right order. I value your opinion and seek suggestions for further improvement.Ronnystarboy (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an encyclopedic topic. Quantitative methods have always been used in business, including HR, the article is an attempt to take perfectly routine operations and give them a special name. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The article was nominated for deletion on the basis of two concerns. However, both of them have been adequately addressed. Since the first concern mentioned about non availability of sufficient external sources, the article has been thoroughly revised pursuant to which all the primary sources have been removed (even from external links as well) and they have been replaced with secondary, notable and verifiable sources. The second concern flagged non availability of encyclopedic material. I would like to bring into your notice that the other contents which were briefly mentioned earlier, have now been sufficiently detailed. The "quantitative methods" are just a component of the article and not the entire article in itself. Therefore not giving due consideration to other aspects may not do justice to the article. The image uploaded is about the computation methodology of Organizational Feedback Index. It has been explained in the column Organizational Feedback Index that it denotes a step by step process following which an OFI score value is determined. This score value explains the level of employee empowerment present in an organization. Similarly other innovative concepts of The Theory have been detailed out. I express my apologies for being unable to reach the desired contribution quality. I thank you all for your valuable opinion following which I have made the necessary improvements. Since all the concerns have been addressed, I request the page should be kept and it should not be deleted.Ronnystarboy (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article in its present form has 19 cites, out of which [1], [2], [3] and [4] are based upon the article in their entirety. Hence it clearly meets WP:NOR. Further, complete article meets WP:NPOV, hence there is no question of "promoting" anyone. Other references have writers from different continents such as [5], [6] and [7] etc. This shows it is a topic of relevance, it has global interest and is undoubtedly meeting WP:GNG. Seems that all flags for deletion have been settled.
Delete per DGG above. The idea that applying quantative methods to HR issues is somehow a new idea is just bizarre (otherwise, why have I spent a tediously large part of the three decades since this fad began either completing or assessing employee feedback and assessment forms and completing pointless engagement surveys?). If this particular paper had received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources then the paper could be notable in Wikipedia terms as a noteworthy publication even though the actual claims are non-noteworthy, but it's far too new to be talking in those terms. ‑ Iridescent21:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, new editors should be encouraged WP:ENCOURAGE, Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Be nice to the newbies, and not discouraged by citing their contribution as “spammy nonsense”WP:Bite, WP:Goodfaith. While senior editors have placed their opinion, nobody considered the fact that despite of being approved through WP:AFC, the article was nominated for deletion in just 13 hours of its creation. How any editor in the global community could have contributed to this article development in just 13 hours so that it would not have fallen here at the first place.
Wikipedia policies and guidelines are perspicaciously transparent that deletion of a new page created by a new editor should be avoided. Was this page extremely irrelevant that it was nominated for deletion in just 13 hours? Mentioning some policies for ready reference:
“13. Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out.”WP:BITE
“If an article is accepted, new page reviewers may choose to apply maintenance tags for significant problems”[1]
“A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as a "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticize.”WP:BITE
Despite of being categorized as “Start”, the Article has improved a lot. If quantitative techniques does not offer something of interest, a particular section can be easily erased. Does it mean that entire page has nothing left to offer? Does the concepts of Feedback Index, Organizational Feedback Index and Employee Feedback Index have no reference? If "Start" Class Articles have no place on Wikipedia, then why is there even a categorization for such? Were all the "FA" Class Articles introduced as such or they were too introduced as "Start" or "Stub" Enoughisenough123 (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Yet another sock of the article subject struck. ‑ Iridescent18:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I suspect you know perfectly well, new account whose first edit was to selectively quote chunks of Wikipedia essays in an obscure AfD debate, WP:BITE and all its related essays relate to work by genuine good-faith new editors, not to a serial abuser of Wikipedia policies posting a piece of obvious spam (and an undeclared autobiography to boot, unless you're seriously going to try to claim that Poojajainhr is somehow unconnected to Pooja Jain). ‑ Iridescent11:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete — we need in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject & if all the aforementioned boxes are not Y then subject of article doesn’t satisfy our general notability guidelines. It’s as simple as that.Celestina007 (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not an expert on hindu music or the art scene in India. However some of the articles that come up on the Google search appear to be reputable. Philphleg (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider myself to be an expert on hindu music, but I do consider myself somewhat of an expert at least as far as WP goes with black hat SEO sources trying to pass themselves off as legitimate media outlets. My search reveals 0 sources that fall into the "independent, reliable" category. Praxidicae (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, a promotional article, clearly created by either the subject themselves or someone with a close connection to them. The sources in this article are a combination of passing mentions, WP:CIRCULAR links, and one interview. None of this helps him pass WP:GNGorWP:NPROF. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. Could someone help me improve this article? I am new user and previous person’s post does not mean anything. I appreciate some plain constructive help here. --Mjhekmat (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Wikipedia has a set of guidelines for when topics can have articles written about them, which generally boil down to saying that the world must have taken notice in a documented way. To quote the main guideline, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." There is a specialized set of criteria for evaluating the notability of scientists, scholars and researchers. As it stands, the article is lacking the kind of sources that would help it pass these criteria, and looking for additional sources has not turned any up. (This is of course not a judgment of personal worth, just about suitability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Most of the volunteers here aren't notable by these standards, either!) In addition, Wikipedia strongly frowns upon making edits where one has a Conflict of Interest. While the jargon can be intimidating — "COI", "NPROF", etc. — and the policies and guidelines can take a while to read, they represent years of learning the hard way how to handle a project, and generally make sense given a little time and study. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2020 (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.
Should any other reviewer feel the need to review this, be warned, I wasted a lot of time digging for sources to verify anything in this and they simply don't exist. I checked all the FOOTY sites, even the unreliable ones and I can't find a single source to verify he has ever been on any of the teams name. Praxidicae (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: as I indicated to the creator via IRC, there are no supporting sources and half of these leaves the impression that it's fabricated to puff up his career. Searching name variants gives no sources to support any meaningful claims in this draft. Praxidicae (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - This parody song actually got a little reliable media coverage due to the controversy that it caused, including an article in the Los Angeles Times ([13]) and in two books on horror stories in media ethics ([14]), ([15]). However, these were about the controversy and not the song itself, and that is the problem with this Wikipedia article. The controversy came and went with only some bad memories to be analyzed by authors later, so there is not enough coverage for the controversy per WP:GNG, nor for the song per WP:NSONG. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)14:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoWQHT#2004 Indonesia tsunami parody. This controversy on a New York radio station was notable enough to receive media coverage from as far away as Australia. However, as a topical, racist, parody song, recorded by an ad hoc group of radio station personnel for broadcast on that station, and never commercially released for sale to the public, the song is pretty much foreclosed from ever being considered notable under WP:NSONG. There are actually more sources cited in the article about the radio station than in this article. --Metropolitan90(talk)03:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete this article is sourced entirely to primary sources, meaning it fails GNG, and the article is compromised solely of in-universe information, meaning it also fails WP:PLOT. There is nothing in this article to merge anywhere, and there is also no suitable redirect target as they are not mentioned at the Daredevil pages. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I have amended the hatnote at Rencong. Note that the third entry added at one point to dab page was the film alternative title Rencong Aceh but that seems to be a partial match, the equivalent of something like "Knife of Yorkshire", which wouldn't be listed on the "Knife" dab page. PamD11:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has existed for years, yet the subject thereof appears to be too non-notable. Something like this could be redirected to Worms (series) or simply deleted. I have seen a related article called Hedgewars that suffered a similar fate by being deleted several times before eventually being salted. See also this discussion. FreeMediaKid!08:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article lists Linux Format magazine (link to archive.org is broken) and there should be a short review of the Amiga version in the Amiga Future magazine (issue 61; database entry only, may check later). This is too thin coverage for a stand-alone article, but may be sufficient for a redirect (assuming there is a plausible redirect-target). Pavlor (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: It is Amiga Future, No 61, July/August 2006, p. 37 (full page review: [16]). Another RS I found [17] (short article on idnes.cz). There may be more of this kind in Linux related media (eg. like this one on root.cz [18]). Pavlor (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it can be merged into Worms (series), saying that there exist Worms-clones. I have heard that Hedgewars was lucky enough to be covered by two reputable sources, the magazine Komputer Świat and the mainstream newspaper Die Welt. Lucky for an FOSS, but not terribly so for a game. FreeMediaKid!19:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been created WAY too early. Election is still three years away, and no individuals have yet to declare their candidacies. SecretName101 (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's so far off in the future that there is very little to say about this election besides its existence. Note that the page has been deleted once already. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There were valid concerns made that the subject has not been the subject of sufficient specific, in-depth coverage in reliable sources that leads to unambiguous passing of the standards set by WP:N. However, there's also reasonable counter-arguments regarding the amount of work she's had published in notable publications, the amount of overall coverage that she has received, and the critical attention she's received that's mentioned as a criterion in WP:NAUTHOR. Good-faith disagreement over the amount of notability conferred by some of the interviews included is certainly valid, but the significant expansion and improvement in sourcing by Montanabw and others does appear to remove much of the concerns about this being technically an unsourced BLP. Consensus of most editors here - though arguments to keep are variable - seem to be that she passes one or more of the required thresholds for being notable enough for an article, and the sourcing has improved vastly. ~ mazcatalk13:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a writer, with no strong or reliably sourced claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The only notability claim in evidence here is that her work exists, and seven of the eight footnotes here are not valid support for notability at all: three are her "our contributors" bios on the self-published websites of book or magazine publishing companies she's directly affiliated with, three are Q&A interviews in which she's speaking about herself in the first person on non-notable blogs, and one is a piece of her own writing. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it's technically possible to metareference her work to itself as evidence that it exists -- the notability test for a writer is being the subject of enough third party coverage and analysis, in sources independent of herself and her publishers, to demonstrate the significance of her work. But the only independent media source in evidence here is not even about her or her writing, but just briefly namechecks her existence as a bystanding giver of soundbite in an article about somebody else filing a disability-related complaint against an airline -- which means it's not doing anything more to demonstrate her notability as a writer than any of the other sources, because it isn't "covering" her in a substantively noteworthy context. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be much, much better referenced than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a brand-new article and a little bit of WP:HEY should tune it up in no time. A publisher's affiliated blog is different from an amateur or promotional blog. I'll pop over there and see if we can tune up the source material. Montanabw(talk)21:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Publisher's affiliated blogs" are not notability-bolstering sources if either (a) she has a direct affiliation with said publisher, or (b) the content is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person rather than being written about by other people in the third person. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article which refers to the airline incident is there to give her estimated birthday and identify what it is specifically that causes her to use a wheelchair. Not as a reference to her work. ☕ Antiqueightchatter21:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said it was a question of whether any of her works were self-published or not, as it is rare, but possible, for self-published works to make a writer notable (see e.g. Terry Fallis, a writer who won a major Canadian literary award for his self-published debut novel) — but what cannot be self-published, when it comes to establishing whether a writer would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, is the sources being used in the article as support for her notability claims. To get over GNG, she has to have real media coverage in sources that are fully independent of any form of direct affiliation with her or her own publishers: newspapers and magazines she's not directly affiliated with, books by other writers, literary journals. Regardless of whether the works themselves were self-published or not, the sources you use to demonstrate the works' significance have to represent independent third party attention being paid to her work in real media. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not if your source for her appearance at WorldCon is WorldCon's own self-published list of its own participants, it's not — it doesn't become a valid notability claim until real media write journalistic content about her participation at WorldCon. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is genre fiction and this individual is notable in her field. Just appearing at all at WorldCon is clearly a major indicia of notability. By "real media?" The Sci Fi press covered this individual, her interviews in mainstream Sci Fi publications is also a clear indicia of notability, so all of this does in fact count. Please stop moving the goalposts. Montanabw(talk)21:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A person doesn't get over our notability criteria for writers by being the creator of media content about other things, she gets over our notability criteria for writers by being the subject of media content written and created by other people. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither her gender nor her status as a "writer and reviewer" have anything to do with the issue. The notability test for people, regardless of their occupation and gender, always requires independent external recognition of the significance of their work in reliable sources that do not have a vested interest in promoting it — which is precisely why a person's sources have to represent her being spoken about by other people in the third person in real media, and cannot represent her or her publishers doing the speaking themselves in Q&A interviews or WP:SPIP. Bearcat (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times has a "vested interest" in getting people to click on their articles. Please cite to a specific guideline that says that interviews by a major publication within the field is insufficient. Montanabw(talk)21:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's repeatedly stated all the way throughout our notability and sourcing policies that articles have to be supported by secondary sources — that is, sources written in the third person which present independent unaffiliated analysis — and not primary sources, or sources in which they're talking about themselves. Just to be clear, nobody has said that interviews are completely disallowable as sources — you're absolutely allowed to sparingly use interviews as supplementary sources for stray facts in an article about a person who's already gotten over GNG on third-party third-person journalism — but what you can't do is claim that a person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article if the Q&A interviews are the best sources she's got and third-party third-person journalism is non-existent. Bearcat (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Twopower332.1938 and Montanabw that her commercial success as a writer and being an invited guest at Worldcon confer notability for her as a writer in her genre. Smirkybec (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there is some significant coverage. I found these two 12 reviews of collections which contain her work. Nothing on her in Gale Literature, but as she is largely self-published, it isn't surprising. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm puzzled by the high reference given to her as self published. She is published as a short story writer by Apex Magazine, Clarkesworld, Fireside Magazine, Lightspeed, Nightmare, Strange Horizons" as well as Uncanny. These are some the biggest names in the science fiction and fantasy genre for magazines. They vary in size and age but they are seriously well regarded in the industry. These are the media of this industry to a large extent. They are only her publishers in so far as they are publishers of fiction, reviews and commentary and they have published her work in their magazines. Tor.com has used her reviews and articles which get referenced in other magazines and journals. These are not self publishing sources. These are independent and respected magazines who publish her and talk about her. Her collection Through Immortal Shadows Singing (poems) is published by Papaveria Press which is not self publishing. ☕ Antiqueightchatter12:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nobody said that her work was self-published. The problem is that the sources being used to support the article are self-published ones: people are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they have websites, or "contributor" profiles on the websites of their own employers, or Q&A interviews in which they're talking about themselves in the first person. And where her work has been published is not relevant to our notability criteria, either: people do not get over our notability criteria by being the bylined author of content about other things, they get over our notability criteria by being the subject of content created by other people. Bearcat (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As explained above, being the creator of content does not make you notable; having secondary coverage ABOUT YOU makes you notable. Appearing at a self-promotional event does not make you notable. Nor does being a writer of articles (she needs articles ABOUT her, not BY her). Interviews don't confer notability, nor do listicles, nor do passing mentions of articles or commentary she has written, nor do short bios prepared likely by her and displayed on her publishers' pages. I'm confused as to what people think are the secondary sources supporting her; I see none. Can anyone point to a single secondary source that is reliable, independent, and has significant coverage of the subject?Ikjbagl (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This appears to be an unsourced BLP and while numerous the keep votes skate over that. can we please have some policy based discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug!08:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge: Can anyone point to secondary sources that are reliable, independent, and have significant coverage of the subject? Ikjbagl (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: 1) The relisting comment is specious and inaccurate—The article has multiple sources. WP:V is clearly met and there are no BLP violations. 2) The comments above about interviews being “self-published sources affiliated with the author” are also incorrect, as the author has no ownership or control of these sources—if an author published by Random House is interviewed on the Random House blog, it would be perfectly acceptable. Within this area of genre fiction, just being published and interviewed by the sources cited in the article is clear indicia of work that is notable within the genre. 3) The sources that do not go to notability are used simply to verify biographical details. So, in a nutshell, the debate here is only if this author is notable, based upon where she has been published, the places she has been asked to speak and so on. The question of whether “interview-style” articles are adequate for third-party neutral coverage is the primary debate here, and given that most coverage does
require interviews of the subject, I have to say that such coverage does “count.” Montanabw(talk)15:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: I will direct you to this page WP:INTERVIEW. I don't think self-aggrandizing interviews by her own publishing company count as independent coverage that is secondary. I looked through all of the references on her page and didn't find any that were useful. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over; can you actually list references that are not self-aggrandizing interviews that are independent and provide significant coverage in a secondary source? That is what you need for notability, because where she has written and where she has been asked to speak are meaningless- they are NOT independent or secondary. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikjbagl:These are independent publishers, not self-publishing companies. If a person is published by an independent publisher, that is very different. NAUTHOR is a set of guidelines that assists in assessing notability, but these are just that, guidelines. An author can be notable by their publications alone if those publications result, as here, in notice by significant organizations, on this case, WorldCon. By your standard, I wonder if even Emily Dickenson would pass notability because she was a recluse, her works were first published by friends, and it took another 50 years for literary critics to understand her. Montanabw(talk)20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: This is my clearest indicator that you do not understand notability. If Emily Dickinson's works hadn't been widely discussed by critics and in the secondary sources, she wouldn't be notable either. You could write literally the best piece of literature that has ever existed, but if nobody recognizes you for it, YOU ARE NOT NOTABLE. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: Further I see no evidence she was "recognized" by WorldCon. I see on her page one reference that says she attended a conference. Do you have a reference that shows her as being recognized? Or speaking? Or anything more significant than a list of hundreds of attendees that happens to include her? Ikjbagl (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough per Montana directly above, and Antiqueight. Add:Notability is a guideline not a definitive position on what we can write articles on. This BLP is about a woman who has created a body of work that is significant in size, is not self-published, and has enough attention to an invitation to a world event. We really have to be able to distinguish within notability, levels of notability. Notability is not one bar fits all but a flexible guide towards inclusion. Ness is notable enough and more notable than lots. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Littleolive oil: Someone else asking you to speak is an act that happens independent of you, but I think you still need independent, secondary sources that cover your speech for it to count towards notability. Where is it she spoke? Is there significant coverage of her speech in a secondary source? Ikjbagl (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikjbagl: When I say, asked to speak I'm talking about interviews. Sorry I wasn't very clear on that. The fact that an author is interviewed is an indication of the significance of the author's work. There's nothing in the guideline that indicates that interview must then again be reviewed. I don't see that happening in most cases with interviews. The interview itself is a stand alone indication of value dependent of course on who is doing the interview. The danger is that with notability we try to apply the absolute highest level of whatever the guideline means, and I think there are big holes in the guideline, to everything that comes our way. That's not how Wikipedia works seems to me. We have more or less quality sources and we have more or less notable topics within the boundaries of Notability. Perhaps that's why this is a guideline and not a policy. The boundaries are flexible enough to accommodate different kinds of articles. Add: Value in literature/ writing /poetry is often tied to commercialism rather than intrinsic value of the work itself. We have to be able to judge where value begins and ends; I think the boundaries are blurred. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikjbagl:, WorldCon all on its own is indicia that a writer in the field of SF/F has “arrived.” You are not invited to be a panelist or speaker there without a significant body of recognized work. Montanabw(talk)20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
discussion going into the weeds
@Montanabw:, @Littleolive oil: Yes, I know, you have repeatedly mentioned her interviews and "speaking engagements" (she has none) which I and others have repeatedly explained are not independent secondary coverage. So I guess what you're saying is "no, there is not independent secondary coverage of the subject, but we think the subject is notable anyway." And I still don't see where you're alleging that she spoke at WorldCon. Where is the source for that? There is a source that has her name in a list of attendees (with literally HUNDREDS of other people, no significant coverage), but no source that says she spoke. Where is the coverage of her speech? Where is an article that says she was invited to speak? Ikjbagl (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting frustrated by my repeated requests for actual sources and your refusal to provide links. If you aren't going to provide a source that gives independent, significant, secondary coverage, then repeating the same arguments does nothing for your case. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are demanding your version of secondary sources, your version of notability, and are supporting a rigid understanding of Wikipedia guidelines while ignoring the several editors here who support the article and the sources it has. Perhaps frustration is a two way street. Ness was interviewed, has a substantial body of work published in reputable publications, she has been cited in a collection of critical essays, cited in the International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences (IJASOS), "a high-quality open access peer-reviewed international online journal", in The Children's Literature Association Quaterly. As in scientific research when an author is cited that is significant. No one has to provide links on demand especially when they don't buy the argument you are pushing. I have tried to explain to you that a guideline is just that, it guides but does not force or compel. Notability is not a single editor's view but has a multitude of possibilities of levels of notability and I believe this article is notable enough given the sources we have. The best thing you can do is let the closer determine whether this article is a keep or not. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such a citation indicates notability. It most certainly is notable in terms of scientific research and much the same applies with non-scientific work. The fact that a published author cites another author indicates the value of the cited author. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikjbagl:, you can simply note the sources in the actual article. We now have... 27 citations. And I believe "having your work cited in another work" is called... (wait for it...) independent, third party coverage. At this point, Ikjbagl, you are becoming WP:TENDENTIOUS in your debate. Your opposition to keeping this article is noted. It's one !vote. Montanabw(talk)23:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: Thank you for your concern. WP:TENDENTIOUS editing refers to pushing a point of view. Asking for a source that meets notability guidelines is not pushing a point of view. I looked at your new sources, and they still don't have significant coverage of the subject. A passing mention that somebody didn't like a panel she was on is not significant. Regardless, I will stop commenting here now because it's getting annoying. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I still don't see where you're alleging that she spoke at WorldCon. Where is the source for that? There is a source that has her name in a list of attendees (with literally HUNDREDS of other people, no significant coverage), but no source that says she spoke. Where is the coverage of her speech? Where is an article that says she was invited to speak?
So I included an eyewitness account of her being there and speaking, and you dismiss it as "A passing mention that somebody didn't like a panel she was on is not significant." Which is it? You wanted proof (more than a schedule from the event organizer) and I gave it to you. More moving goalposts. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Twopower332.1938: It's not about proof; the problem here is not about verifiability, it is about notability. And I think it's ridiculous to accuse me of moving goalposts when I've highlighted the same three words over and over: secondary, independent, and significant coverage. An "eyewitness account of her speaking" is not significant coverage (the same word I've used over and over, not moving goalposts) of her as a subject, which is what you need to have actual encyclopedic content. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The premise is that being an invited panelist at WorldCon is one indicia of notability. We have proved that a) she was an invited panelist, b) on the official schedule, and c) actually showed up. That proves she was at WorldCon not as an attendee, but as an actual presenter on a panel. They don’t invite non-notable people. When we combine this with the plethora of other material, the weight of the evidence tips the scale towards notability. Montanabw(talk)23:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: I will also politely ask you to review policy on accusing others of tendentious editing (WP:AOTE). Many users find accusations of tendentious editing quite jarring, and before you accuse a user of tendentious editing, you should have clear evidence (see the page about casting WP:ASPERSIONS). I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it. Best, Ikjbagl (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikjbagl:, oh, I meant it. Every word. You are ignoring everything everyone else is telling you, repeating the same arguments after you have been answered, and demanding evidence that already has been presented, either here or in the article. You are not contributing to a constructive debate. But this is not the place to discuss your increasingly disruptive behavior, which is now down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I suggest that you’ve made that point loud and clear, so now back away from the WP:CARCASS and let the process work. Montanabw(talk)23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Littleolive oil: No, the existence of interviews is not in and of itself a notability-maker — they represent the subject speaking about herself in the first person, where our notability requirements require evidence that the person and their work have been spoken about and analyzed by other people in the third person. That said, we don't have a rule that first-person interview sources are entirely forbidden for use — if you've already gotten a person over GNG on stronger sources, then you can sparingly use Q&A interviews as extra referencing for stray facts that still need a source — but the interviews don't actually count as data points toward the initial question of whether the person has cleared GNG in the first place. So if you have to rely primarily or exclusively on first person Q&A interviews, because the type of third party third person journalism that GNG demands is virtually non-existent, then the topic has not cleared the notability bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not the only source. Interviews published independent of the the person interviewed in a reliable source is no different than any content published in a RS. Oversight is present in such sources. An author writes with an opinion as does a person interviewed. We judge verifiability and reliability based on oversight not on the content. We can and do use content in Wikipedia that is clearly non-neutral, for example, when we can rely on the oversight of the source. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this edit : One guy saw her panel at Worldcon, didn't like it. Some independent person at Locus liked her short story, reviewed it. That's 30 minutes of Googling. Are the goalposts going to be moved again? Twopower332.1938 (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not terribly clear-cut, but nevertheless a keep. We lack a single big article that discusses her work and career, but rather we find a series of smaller reviews of the person and her writing. That is always a difficult call per WP:BASIC. However, we also have WP:NAUTHOR, which offers supplementary criteria that help balance the fact that authors often receive less coverage in proportion to that given to their work than do pop stars, for example, who generally receive more personal attention than their songs themselves do. NAUTHOR offers criterion 4: "The person's work ... has: ... won significant critical attention ..." and that doesn't seem to be in doubt judged by the sheer volume of independent reviews cited as sources in her article. Ness has also received attention as evidenced by being invited to speak at WorldCon. I reject the assertion that a convention of that importance in the field is merely a vehicle for self-promotion: it is clearly a major event attracting large audiences, and an invitation to speak indicates the prestige of the speaker. Taken together, that's more than enough to convince me that the article meets our notability requirements. --RexxS (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Albeit there doesn't seem to be a very high notability for her (to have an independent article easily), but I think she might be located at least at a minimum level of notability, to keep an/the independent article. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2020 (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.
None of the sources present in the article provides a significant coverage of Saif Ben Ammar as a person. Excluding YouTube (primary), a blog (tanitweb.com) and a wiki (celebrity.tn), all sources just mention him while focusing on other topics.
As a side note, this article goes against WP:AB as the creator's user name, Horcujet, corresponds to the name of Saif Ben Ammar's personal podcast (see External links) so I highly suspect this is actually Saif Ben Ammar himself. Jonzopero, who moved this article out of the draft mode, is his friend as he indicated himself here.
It is to be noted that Saif Ben Ammar himself attempted to create articles about him on multiple WP versions and all drafts were deleted. He also contacted the WMTN user group to get support, thus the reason why I know he or his friends are attempting to create those articles. Moumou82 (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for trying to make sure to delete this article , i highly suspect that there is a personal issue here first of all and for the side note you make and even it's true , it's not a reason for deletion and these are the wiki rules .
also this guy added the deletion command 2 times and other wiki admins remove it because they checked the sources provided there is a claim that the main topic is not related to the subject but a lot of them are talking about his movie wich is the creation and the direction of the owner of this article the only problem here is that the majority of the sources are writing in french so if there is someone who can understand french can check himself and he will see also in order to make sure you can search on google by typing these 3 key words "Saif Ben Ammar" actual name "Hor Cujet " nickname『سيف بن عمار』arabic name and you will see the results yourself
i kindly ask everyone to verify ,search and check the articles before doing anything and thank you and i want to kindly ask this guy to stop making the deletion proposition because this is the third time without any good reason
Delete I have checked local sources to a large extent as well, so if anyone was going to go there don't bother. Cannot pass GNG from any RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2020 (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.
Weak Delete: I agree with the nominator that the subject likely fails WP:ENT, with only one role (inKiller Nun) that might potentially meet the first criterion. I haven't found any sources that would meet WP:GNG, either, but perhaps someone who can access Italian newspaper articles from the late 1970s and early 1980s might be able to find something. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A biography created in 2005, sourced only to a personal website and (added by me) to IMDb; neither of which is WP:RS. I recently deleted a link to a dead YouTube video; a more recent attempt by an IP to add two spammy-looking YouTube videos was reverted by User:XLinkBot. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the most crazy long lasting of a virtually unsourced article I have seen. 15 years without even IMDb is an outrage. This person is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely zero reliable sources. Not only does a Google News search not not yield any articles on the individual, but the individual isn't even mentioned whatsoever. I haven't seen a less notable BLP in my life. Hillelfrei• talk •16:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On a similar note, I couldn't find any notable sources. Clearly fails any sensible notability gauge. PK650 (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: There are dozens of books analyzing the monsters from Toho monster movies. Here are a few:
A Critical History and Filmography of Toho's Godzilla Series by David Kalat, McFarland & Co (2017)
The Kaiju Film: A Critical Study of Cinema's Biggest Monsters by Jason Barr, McFarland & Co (2016)
Monsters are Attacking Tokyo! The Incredible World of Japanese Fantasy Films by Stuart Galbraith, Feral House (1998)
Eiji Tsuburaya, Master of Monsters: Defending the Earth with Ultraman, Godzilla in the Golden Age of Japanese Science Fiction Film by August Ragone, Chronicle Books (2007)
The Official Godzilla Compendium: A 40 Year Retrospective by J.D. Lees and Mark Cerasini, Random House (1998)
Godzilla on My Mind: Fifty Years of the King of Monsters by William M. Tsutsi, Macmillan (2017)
They are not Google hits or blog posts. These are comprehensive non-fiction works of film criticism, specifically about the monsters and aliens in Toho's films, published by reliable, independent publishers. I suspect that you have not looked closely at any of these books, and that you are assuming that they are unreliable based on IDONTLIKEIT. I would suggest that you learn more about the subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to show us that those books discuss the topic. All I see now is that you found some books with appear to be slightly relevant to the topic (Godzilla is an alien from Toho movies, and those books are about Godzilla). However, as this AfD is not about Godzilla, those sources don't appear to be very relevant. PS. Also, as noted by Rorshacma, we are not talking about a list of kaiju Godzilla monsters, but about a much more fringe topic of alien civilizations which occasionally, but not always, created some of them. Further, this article doesn't even focus on the aliens from the MonsterVerse (wrong company, btw) or Godzilla (franchise), it combines info on all aliens invented by this particular studio, some of which, as noted by Erik, does not even share the same universe. I think you really have little ground to stand on here - and the fact that you presented a list of books again sadly confirms that all you did was a quick book search and hit, without not only reading them, but without even reading the article we are dealing with here. Please try to read the articles (and sources) before citing them. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as having no context or reason why these alien races must be grouped in a list. We don't have "List of 20th Century Fox alien races". Unnecessary, since the alien races can be explained on their respective kaiju movie pages.ZXCVBNM (TALK)11:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I am not seeing sources group alien races from all Toho films, which seems a bit arbitrary because Toho has non-Godzilla films. I could understand lists grouping certain elements across Godzilla films (like his enemies or even aliens if more sources exist), but here we have films like The Mysterians and Battle in Outer Space that are unrelated to Godzilla. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)12:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell none of these have their own articles. Some of the individual monsters that these alien races created/used and the movies they appeared in certainly do, but I'm not finding a single one of these listed alien races that have an individual article. The characters listed here are not the monsters themselves, so it would make no sense to conflate them with those monsters. Rorshacma (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a list of the actual monsters from Toho films, who have quite a bit more notability, but of the alien races that, quite often, only appeared in a single movie. The article is completely comprised entirely of unsourced, in-universe plot summaries of the movies they appeared in. Several of the entries here are not even alien races. While I haven't personally seen all of the sources that are presented above, I have actually read several of them over the years, and the coverage of the alien races is limited to, again, nothing but plot summaries for the individual movies they appeared in. And, taking a quick look via google books on the ones I'm not familiar with, I'm finding nothing but more of the same. There is no coverage discussing the concept of aliens in the films as an overall topic. Rorshacma (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seems to be some confusion I'm noticing with some of the votes above. This list is not about the actual Kaiju from the Toho films. Its not even about the handful of Kaiju that happen to come from outer space. It is about the alien civilizations that tend to serve as one-shot antagonists in some of the individual films. Sources or other Wikipedia articles that show notability on the topic of the Kaiju themselves are not actually relevant to the subject of this particular list. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated above, this is not a list of Toho monsters, this is a list specifically of species from Toho movies that just so happened to come from outer space. That is not a topic which passes LISTN, as the article is completely unsourced. The article also fails WP:PLOT as it is written from an entirely in-universe perspective. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete the patience we showed with not at all reliably sourced articles on actors is truly amazing. There is no reason to have an article with 0 reliable sourced for 13 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I am downgrading my vote because none of the sources found below satisfy WP:GNG, in my opinion. If someone can find some, I'll happily change my vote back. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2020 (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. Bearcat is harshly admonished for colluding in secret plots without inviting the rest of us. ♠PMC♠ (talk)02:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passage of WP:CREATIVE. The strongest notability claim here is that one of his films was screened at two minor film festivals and won an award at one of them, which is not an instant notability clincher all by itself in the absence of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG. As always, our notability criteria are not automatically passed by just any film award that happens to exist -- they look for top-level national film awards like the Oscars, the BAFTAs or the Canadian Screen Awards, and internationally prominent megafestivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin or TIFF, but every award presented by every small film festival on the planet is not in and of itself an instant exemption from having to have solid sources. But other than the glancing namechecks of his existence in the news article about the Beverly Hills Film Festival awards and a non-notable blog's entry about the Canadian Filmmakers Festival's overall lineup, neither of which are about him strongly enough to clinch passage of GNG if they're the best sources that can be found, this is otherwise referenced entirely to directly affiliated primary sources (his own website, IMDB, the self-published website of the CFF, the Canadian Film and Television Producers Association and GoodReads) which are not support for notability at all. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Also conflict of interest, as the article was created by an editor whose username matched the name of the subject's own production shingle. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: despite having not otherwise edited Wikipedia since 2008, the subject/creator of the article sent me a private e-mail within an hour of my initiating this discussion, both trying to contradict my assessment of this article and alleging that I and Wikipedia are colluding with the Canadian film industry in a plot to slander him. Yeah, no, not what's happening here. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He simply doesn't appear to be notable. As stated above, we don't have the coverage by reliable sources that we need for a proper page. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MILL, and WP:SIGCOV. We ted to delete producers' articles, who are after all run of the mill. There's no reliable sources except for the Hollywood Reporter piece, which devotes a single sentence to him. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough third-party RS coverage to justify a BLP. Fails WP:GNG. (Also, why was this relisted prior to the 7-day mark and with a seemingly apparent consensus?) --Kinut/c08:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I think it does meet WP:BIO. He is producer or executive producer of films which feature bonafied stars. It is not just one notable film he played a major role in producing and writing, there are multiple - A number of which have wikipedia articles of their own. Where there's a problem is in the amount of indepth coverage about him specifically. But don't producers of B movies generally receive less coverage after the films debut ? He started off strong but hasn't done much in a while. That doesn't take away from his earlier successes.Grmike (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[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.
RedirecttoSkrulls#Known Skrulls, which already gives him a perfectly fine amount of coverage considering his relevance as a character. The article fails WP:GNG, as it is sourced only to primary sources, and WP:PLOT as it is written from essentially an entirely in-universe perspective. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2020 (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.
Most credible independent/reliable source is [24] but this is a specialist magazine anyway and in my opinion doesn't demonstrate broader notability. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment[25] is the only suitable source available currently. I have moved this article to draft space. I'll expand it in the course of time as more sources keep on appearing. Harsh Rathod Poke me!07:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Neither source lends to notability and the article itself is unintelligible to the point that it barely gets over the WP:A1 criteria of speedy deletion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except The British Army is a National organization and military units as a whole follow a different set of notability requirements per WP:MILUNIT. Either way I can barely find any primary sources on the Assam Education Service, let alone reliable sources so it's a pretty clear WP:NORG fail. GPL93 (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I hate to nominate this article for deletion, but it is two elections out of date, and has the Library of Parliament doesn't provide DOBs for many MPs anymore, it would be essentially impossible to reconstruct or update in a meaningful way. SamuellLift me uporput me down02:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and also for the nominators reasons that it is outdated and difficult to update due to the lack of accurate, reliable sources, that once existed. Ajf773 (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wek delete - if the template used did the calculations itself then it would be more useful and easier to update. right now it's accurate but that will change and when it does who will be there to update it, much less do the calculations themselves.Grmike (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Delete. Out of date (my MP is not still Bob Rae, and hasn't been Bob Rae for seven years now!), but we lack viable sources to get it back up to date with. Sources may sometimes exist for the ages of some MPs, but there's no source that consistently gives the ages or birthdates of all MPs — as noted, even Parliament's own self-published website doesn't do that anymore. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is exactly the kind of make-work article that we really should be coming down harder on. At best, if the data were available, it should be in the main list of members— and if there isn't one, then this article shouldn't exist either. As it is, the sourcing issues apparently make an accurate and complete article impossible. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I already put a citations at the top of the page, citations and references on each sections that i haved copied from their original page. This page is only a collective reference of beauty pageants in the Philippines, please consider it. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ph awesome (talk • contribs) 01:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sources were found and added later in the discussion and no later participants seem to have objected to them granting at least borderline notability. These appear to have resolved the egregious notability problems noted earlier in the discussion. ~ mazcatalk13:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I could not find multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage to indicate notability. Even the book titled The Complete Avengers: The Full Story of Britain's Smash Crime-Fighting Team! only mentions her once in a cast table. It looks like Quite Quite Fantastic! The Avengers for Modern Viewers has a paragraph in which Croxton's performance is commended, but this to me isn't sufficient to support a biographical article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)23:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not that oscure, she did have a significant role in one important TV series, and a starring role in one albeit short lived series, It's Awfully Bad Fior Your Eyes Darling. PatGallacher (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'm conflicted over this one. Ordinarily, I would have said that the subject falls a little shy of WP:NACTOR—but her guest appearance in The Avengers (TV series) seems to have been a notable one. Taken in conjunction with her other work, maybe there is just enough to meet NACTOR. And as for sources, I couldn't find any significant coverage anywhere except for "google books", where there do seem to be a few hits, including the following:
→a book about ghosts – oddly enough, there's at least a page's worth of writing about the subject's alleged ghost encounter
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.
Short and non-notable tour of one country, with only primary sources. NTOUR is quite clear, and this one does not make the cut--no matter how many Ns we spell it with. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NTOUR. I've redirected numerous tour articles created by this editor, all of which are sourced to blogs and Setlist.fm. In those cases I could redirect them to an associated album article or to the band, but in this case we have three notable bands so per WP:XY there isn't an obvious redirect target. I suspect that given how world famous all three bands were, it's highly likely that there is coverage from the time in print versions of hard rock magazines like Kerrang! and Metal Hammer... but until that coverage can be located, there is nothing here beyond dates and supposed set lists. Richard3120 (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2020 (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 decision here may be to simply redirect to the band's page, but I'm bringing it to AfD just in case. Can find no reviews or other significant coverage for this particular album in order to satisfy the requirements at WP:NALBUM. Only the typical social media promotions and streaming/retail listings can be found. Note that AllMusic has a bio of the band (already cited) but no specific review for this album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)20:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the one independent source certainly does not describe this album as "essential" for the following record, just that it "set the stage" for the group to make their next album.Richard3120 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I’ve looked in Russian, Azeri and English and all I see are passing mentions in concert programmes and a couple of interviews. Mccapra (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The accomplishments described in the article are minor and fairly routine for a moderately high-achieving professional pianist. BD2412T04:24, 6 May 2020 (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.
Y then subject of article doesn’t satisfy our general notability guidelines. It’s as simple as that.Celestina007 (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
