Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 March	27 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Peugniez

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

No sources I could find, save a local paper that mentions him in passing. Non-notable tour guide. No indication his books are notable either, as I could find no notable reviews. PK650 (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peugniez's books have been reviewed in the leading scholarly journals devoted to Cistercian Studies. Routier published in 1994 was reviewed in Cîteaux (Commentarii cistercienses) 46, 1995, p. 180. The Routier of 2001 was reviewed in Analecta Cisterciensia 54, 2002, p. 312–314 (described as a "valuable contribution", "indispensable for all who study French Cistercian monasteries"). The Routier of 2012 was reviewed in Analecta Cisterciensia 64, 2012, p. 420–421 ("a life's accomplishment", "a description of 2000 Cistercian abbeys", "rich in historical and architectural information", "in sum, a wonderful book"). Peugniez is remarkable. --Melchior2006 (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable tour guide writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:41, 29 March 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TCP Wave

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no coverage in independent sources. The only significant coverage I was able to find was by Abdelsalam et al who invented this concept. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough traction (yet) for an article. SpinningSpark 01:41, 27 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Hammerschmidt

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

Not reliably sourced for several years and no evidence of notability Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero claim to notability.TH1980 (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much on Google except for quite a few stories about his namesake a German ornithologist who may be notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, Google was not help. ~riley (talk) 07:43, 31 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Carro

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The subject appears to be active in many fields, but doesn't appear to be notable in any of them. Currently sourced to the subject's website, a company whose function is not clear to me but of whom he is a "client", a lot of blogs, and links to non-notable award sites. There doesn't seem to be any coverage in reliable sources – his music hasn't charted, his books haven't been reviewed by professional publications (unless I am missing something), his art hasn't had any exhibitions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria for those in creative or entertainment careers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent, reliable sources. Conrad is a "hyprid" publisher. Not quite a vanity publisher, but the authors pay to get published. There's a couple of blogs, Carro's own websites and comunicati-stampa.net, which publishes press releases. (comunicato stampa is Italian for press release). I'm not quite sure what sanremosol.it does, they have something to do with the Sanremo Music Festival, but it's not the festival itself. Vexations (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. None of his works have been discussed in reliable sources. All of the accolades he is a recipient of do not appear to be notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, just not notable.. ~riley (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill creative person. Very few of the sources are reliable. The awards he's won are tertiary, at best. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 1 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 merge to Milton Keynes urban area. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Milton Keynes

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

I do not believe this article is notable. There are no secondary sources for it, the only source here is the primary one which defines it as a subdivision of the Milton Keynes Urban area back in 2001. It is not used in more recent definitions of the Milton Keynes Urban Area. Trying to find any sources about this online lead to information on the parliamentary constituency with a similar name, Milton Keynes North, or a vague Northern part of Milton Keynes unlike this which is a very specifically defined area which is only used once in a more than decade old data set. It might be worth redirecting to the parliamentary constituency of the same name rather than a flat out deletion. Eopsid (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, the parliamentary constituency is named Milton Keynes North, which is the standard style used for constituencies. But if there is a concern about confusion, a standard template:about hatnote will fix with trivial effort. (Which I will now do).
Second, the ONS did use this name for its enumeration: this is a matter of public record that should not be deleted lightly. I created this article many moons ago because it kept popping up in uncritical data sources like Citypopulation.de. The effect was to wildly understate the population of MK, because artificial 'districts' like this were being discounted. A future researcher is just as likely to get bogged down if they don't get some clue that there is an anomaly. They wouldn't get any clues on the ground as to the identity of this 'district': nobody identified with it, it didn't map to any physical boundaries, it was overlapped and underlapped by multiple post-codes. It is almost notable for being so arbitrary. For more analysis, see previous RfD discussion.
But in the final analysis, I have no solid basis to claim that is notable and accept that this should mean its deletion. But I suggest that it costs virtually nothing to retain it and its continued existence may be useful to someone in the future. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John, I don't believe Eopsid was putting forward confusion with the parliamentary constituency as a reason for deletion. He was putting it forward as a reason finding sources is difficult. SpinningSpark 10:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The relevant notability guideline here, WP:GEOLAND, says "... census tracts are usually not considered notable", which is essentially what this area is. It is (or was) an arbitrary area used only by the ONS for statistical purposes. In the absence of any RS actually discussing this subject in depth, there is no grounds for an article. The mention in Milton Keynes urban area is enough (and if it isn't, selectively merge some material into it). The arguments put forward for keeping the page; it's useful, it's harmless, it's valuable information, are all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. SpinningSpark 01:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. I'll need a few days to work out how best to merge it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have copied the text as it stands into talk:Milton Keynes urban area in preparation for a merge task, so deletion can go ahead whenever. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Presumably there will be no objection if I recreate the article as a redirect to the new text, when written? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deletion discussions normally stay open for seven days (longer if consensus is not clear). You would be wise not to start merging until the discussion is closed – it might not end how you think it's going to. You can always ask for the article to be userfied if it gets deleted. If this closes as merge, that would imply that the page should be kept (for legal attribution reasons) and turned into a redirect anyway. In that case, the article will still be available in the history. You should read WP:MERGETEXT for information on how to carry attribution through to another article. SpinningSpark 17:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is true: I had forgotten that I don't wp:OWN the article so it is not just for me to concede the point. Nevertheless, the discussion caused me to review the way that the information about the 2001 census was scattered about in other articles in any case, and concluded that they are best gathered together in a single place. So I have rewritten Milton Keynes urban area#2001 Urban sub areas with that in mind. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Census tracts are not notable but can be covered within the main urban area article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:25, 28 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oncle Gilbert

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

Fails GNG IW. (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability at all, unreferenced blp since 2016. Koridas (Speak?) 16:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. ~riley (talk) 07:44, 31 March 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Gertoux

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

This article is.... special. Deleted in 2012 (twice), the fundamental problem seems unresolved. While the article is lengthy and has superficial referenciness, virtually all the sources turn out to be primary, and most of them affiliated. It doesn't help that his CV reads like a French Buckaroo Banzai but with the names of god instead of brain surgery. French Wikipedia apparently has no article on him (deleted in 2012 and 2018). There's a huge, howling suspicion that the author of this article is the subject, given his other editing focuses. The Talk page has many inventive excuses for failing to achieve any of the metrics normally associated with anyone who passes WP:NACADEMIC, including journals not allowing Google Scholar to index them, but in the end you'd expect at least some independent secondary sources about the subject, after all these years of trying to get him on Wikipedia, and I didn't find any. Guy (help!) 21:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comment the term ‘referenciness’ has made my day. Thank you. Mccapra (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really would like to request that sources be verified to see if they are independent and primary sources. With all due respect, let me express that saying that "virtually all sources turn out to be primary" is exaggerated. I would like it to be taken into account that in the diversity of minority groups of Christianity there are points of view with strong evidence, but inclusion is not allowed because they are considered irrelevant under the justification of "fringe theory", or because it is not the "mainstream view". Fringe and notable are two different things. I believe that any difference of opinion can be addressed by quoting wikipedia's policies verbatim, so that we do not expose our personal opinion. Sorry if I don't have the right words to express myself, or if I have been disrespectful. Thank you for your understanding and for your help. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or any other applicable standard is met. Passing mentions, "secondary" sources published by iUniverse, and a grievance about not getting a doctorate do not a notability case make. (Also, the "G. Gertoux has presented conferences at different universities" is a frankly absurd exercise in trying to make the subject sound impressive for doing something that every academic does.) I would actually expect the Google Scholar citation counts to be low, as is often true in the humanities, but not this low; and there's nothing on JSTOR or anywhere else to suggest that his fringe ideas are even taken seriously enough to rebut. XOR'easter (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not please do not exaggerate and generalize in secondary sources, this seems a partial point of view. It is read in the policies, in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics that "many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles". Please check the references in the article (i. e. JSTOR 43724942). Google Scholar or JSTOR are not they are not synonymous with notability.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that JSTOR item. Being listed in "Books received" is not a signifier of notability. It's just evidence that a book exists, not that it had any influence or even attracted any attention. XOR'easter (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Gertoux is followed or cited by different authorities, in example:
- He is followed by emeritus professors Charles Perrot, George Wesley Buchanan, François Bœspflug, Hermann Hunger;
- He is followed by professors Won W. Lee, Ola Wikander, Jozef Hudec,
- He is followed by faculty members of a University: Miroslav Černý, Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Daniel Faivre, Anne Pasquier,
- In the Enciclopedia of Christianity is cited by emeritus professors Geoffrey W. Bromiley and emeritus professor Jaroslav Pelikan, full professor Jan Milic Lochman, honorary professor Erwin Fahlbusch, writer John Mbiti
- He is also cited by professors: R. J. Wilkinson, Philippe Barbey, Bruno Bioul, Thomas D. Ross
- He is cited by other scholars: Giuseppe Veneziano, Jean-Pierre Dupeyron, Didier Fontaine, Father Michael Gilligan, Xaris M. Koutelakis,
- Gertoux also appears in international libraries as BIBSYS: 5018010, BNF: cb13548516z, ISNI: 0000 0001 1672 4722, LCCN: n2002090734, NLI: 000052631, ORCID: 0000-0001-5916-0445, RERO: 02-A012628396, SUDOC: 050812246, SEMANTIC SCHOLAR: 108067232, VIAF: 74015693, etc
- Gertoux also stimulated studies that contradict his arguments such as those of John Laurence Gee, Peter J. Huber and Steven Ortlepp, so it can be concluded that his study has not been ignored.
- There are other good comments of his book by E.J. Revell, H. Cazelles, D.C. Hopkins, S. Morag, E. Lipinski, M. Harl, Jean Bottéro, E.A. Livingstone, and D.N. Freedman
- Among the publishing houses of the secondary sources, we can mention Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Brill, Editions L'Harmattan, Vita e Pensiero, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Institute of Oriental Studies, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Valparaiso University: Council of Societies for the Study of Religion, Baltimore, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, De Gruyter, Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete. Works in fringe areas (nothing wrong with that) but has made near-zero impact. I suggest Salt too as this goes on and on. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria for academics. The citation count is way below impact level and he fails other measures of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another citation of Gertoux made by Bruce M. Metzger [1], Sarah Lind (editor of Newsletter of the United Bible Societies Translation) [2], New Testament Abstracts 47, pp. 553 [3], a comment by Anthony Byatt [4], by Michael John Rood [5] and by Reference and Research Book News [6]. Let me express that in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria it read that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" and I guess the condition 1, 4 and 7 is met. in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria it reads that "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria it reads that "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." In Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals it reads that 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. As I said before, I think it can defended the existence of the article. I think that to avoid interpretations to wikipedia policies, it is better to quote them verbatim. Let me also express that the claims for deletion are exaggerated, rather than presenting the evidence as it is. I suspect that the problem is not notability, rather, that the editors who request to delete do not share Gertoux's ideas, but they are against those who quote Gertoux, the publishing houses and the national and university libraries. In wikipedia policies, there is not a number of citations to establish notability. Excuse me, I'm just trying to state my arguments, not to contradict the other editors. Best regards.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, A veritable "who's that?" of literary criticism... Guy (help!) 17:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me User:JzG because English is not my native language and I don't understand some jargon. Please explain exactly what you mean with "a veritable "who's that?" of literary criticism..."--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, non-notable writers.

What you need is reliable independent secondary sources about Gertoux. Not namechecks. Guy (help!) 23:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, it reads that "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But we need evidence that an individual is notably influential in the world of ideas. A person can be notable even if their biography is not the subject of secondary sources, as long as their ideas are. That is not the case here. Passing mentions are not sufficient. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--if he is notable enough to be cited in the Encyclopedia of Christianity, it won't hurt Wikipedia's reputation to have an article on him. The article needs some work though to make it flow better, but that is not a reason to delete. Also, as Jairon notes, he is recognized for his ideas, which fits him under the Creative_professionals clause.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Encyclopedia of Christianity mentions his book. Literally all it does is include his book in a bibliography, without even saying where to look in it for any particular information, let alone evaluating it in depth. To establish that an author is notable, we need multiple reviews of multiple books each, not scattered mentions that a book happens to exist. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--G. Gertoux is a retired teacher of physics, with more than one valid academic degrees at MSc level. His recent research has been mentioned also here: ^[1] an presented in international conferences organised by well known Universities, like for example this one: ^[2] .--User:S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh 10:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:9472:B396:5D0C:6661 (talk) — 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:9472:B396:5D0C:6661 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

- The first link is to a blog post that merely quotes an abstract. That is not substantial coverage or detailed analysis. And merely having presented his work at a conference counts for nothing — all academics do that. Everyone presents, everyone publishes. In order to be notable, those publications have to be influential, and we have seen no evidence of that here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there may be a competence issue here. The article's creator cites Metzger above and in the article itself added "Influential professor Bruce M. Metzger call the Gertoux's web page as a "further scholarly information on the origins of sacred names." We'd never hype someone to make him look convincing, but the problem is Metzger never said that. That's a link added at the bottom of a statement by Metzger by the pastor who posted the statement to his church's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
Keep Indeed the article in its current form is lengthy and gets into unnecessary details. But Gertoux has surely influenced the research horizons and is highly involved in the contemporary discussions on the sacred Tetragrammaton in its historical and theological dimensions. I think that a neat article about his scientific contributions would be more than welcome. -- pvasiliadis 13:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His work has only a handful of citations, indicating limited impact. He very much fails the average professor test for WP:NPROF. I didn't find reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, and I don't see other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me state that I see some little troubles. As it reads in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions: "the debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments" and also it read that "when making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". I guess that the recommendation take a break before voting is not being taken into account for a critical analysis in references. In example it was argumented exaggeration "virtually all the sources turn out to be primary, and most of them affiliated", "at least some independent secondary sources about the subject", "passing mentions, "secondary" sources published by iUniverse" when there are just one by a professor and maybe or not with a lot of discution acceptable (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources: "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."). In this talk references are being criticized superficially and it is not specified which ones, or how they are not reliable. It is important to state how Gertoux "fails other measures of notability". About lectures, I did not find any policy to address whether the existence of conferences is or is not an indicator of notability: "is a frankly absurd exercise in trying to make the subject sound impressive for doing something that every academic does". In Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics i could not find any measurable intruction for quantifiable instruction to establish "near-zero impact" or "limited impact". Perhaps not in all the references there is a specific review in which it is agreed, a work cited is influential, and it is already an indicator of notability. In Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources it is read that reviews are not necessary to to give reliability to a primary source.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

?I am not sure what you are getting at. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience, I just want you to specify without deviating from the topic, citing verbating the wikipedia policies and refuting the arguments of the first comment "keep" (Gertoux is followed or cited by different authorities) what i made, for you hold the affirmation "how has made near-zero impact" for further discussion or to show something that I have not noticed, perhaps why those authorities, publishing houses, or libraries are unreliable.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe someone else. If there are unacceptable sources in the article, which are acceptable and which are not, and decide how much of the article is not necessary. So we convert a qualifying data into a quantifiable data, and maybe that will help. Thanks in advance for your valuable time.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon. His top-cited publication appears to have 7 citations. That's not impactful, by any standard. We rarely keep academics that don't have multiple pubs with over 100 citations. (There's no specific threshold, since it varies widely by field.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to contradict you, but there are 7 citations at your discretion, so a broader answer is needed. Google Scholar only shows 7 citations, but this was talked before. It is not about impressing me with your answer, but rather taking a critical test attached to wikipedia policies that everyone can read. You are truly correct in saying that the number of citations is not required in wikipedia's policies to establish notability.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert of Wikipedia policies, although I use and appreciate the tool very much, in many different languages. My impression is that we risk to transform it in a sort of "social network" where only "followers" with a lot of "likes" survive. Concerning international conference papers, I find the comment "... trying to make the subject sound impressive for doing something that every academic does" quite polemic. I personally know many associate professors who never published international papers. I also know many university researchers who published some papers and attended conferences only at national level. So, in my opinion and experience, the statement "every academic does" is not accurate. There is an established process (mostly "double blind") to review submitted research papers before being accepted: only a few survive the step and even less authors will be invited to present their findings in international conferences. The author did it and UniZH is a well reputed international University. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 09:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:E966:316B:B7CF:AEE5 (talk)

Keep Besides the list of scholars previously mentioned, Gertoux is positively quoted for his work on the tetragrammaton (which is far from being a "fringe area", since the scholarly community has a renewed interested in it as we can see from the recent works of McDonough, Shaw, Lepesqueux, Surls, Meyer, Coutts, Wilkinson, Arduini or Vasileiadis) by A. Chouraqui (famous scholar and Bible translator), in Moïse (Flammarion, Paris, 1997, p.47), Arduini & Pizzorni, La Bibbia prima del dogma (Aracne ed. 2018, p.83, 146) ; another mention can be found in Descouleurs, La laïcité a-t-elle perdu la raison? (Parole et silence, 2001, p.153) ; a DVD documentary has been made by F. Poppenberg (Der Name Gottes, 2014 ; translated in several languages), where the main arguments are drawn from his work ; his historical investigations are quoted by the translator of J. Tabor, La véritable histoire de Jésus (Robert Laffont, Paris, 2006, p.340) ; even when they disagree scholars do know is work and quote it (e.g. Gabolde, Toutankhamon, Pygmalion, Paris, 2015, p.261). That is the indication that 1) WP:PROF standard is met (Gertoux is known and quoted by a large variety of scholars, in diverse languages, from English or French, to German or Italian), 2) WP:AUTHOR standard is met (Gertoux participates in cutting-edge professional conferences on chronological/historical issues, with peer-reviewed proceedings ; his work on the divine name so proves to be unavoidable (as the last monographies on the subject testify) and has been referenced in important bibliographical lists such as Elenchus of Biblica (2004, vol. 20, p.159). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areopage (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — Areopage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User Areopage just demonstrated how it is recommended not to be guided only by Google Scholar as it reads in Wikipedia:Notability (Academics)#Citation metrics.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hold that G. Gertoux is a well known researcher in the field of the divine names in Biblical studies but also in issues of Bible chronology. The references to his publications show a notable impact in this specific research domain. KCharitakis (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — KCharitakis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment I request that the closing admin be someone closely familiar with WP:NPROF. I'll also comment that Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco indicates concern with Google Scholar results. So I ran a Scopus search, but it was no better. Keep !votes so far seem to list citing publications (which so far as I've seen fall way short of WP:NPROF C1), or else are WP:ILIKEIT. It's possible that someone may be able to build a case for WP:NAUTHOR, if his books have been reviewed in reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just publishing stuff creates no notability. It is having the stuff noted by others that does. In this case there is almost no evidence of noting by others despite the protestations of the red links and spas. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

So it would be great if the responses from both sides, keep and delete are expanded and address the reasons forcefully.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe, let me express that in Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources not only demand "review" so that a secondary source weighs a primary. I understand your concern about the number of votes, since what prevails is the foundation.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With much respect let me say that there is no need to go and search in Google Scholar or Scopus when the sources are in the article.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single-digit citation counts and no published independent book reviews that I could find means that he fails to pass both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Note in particular the text of WP:PROF: Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient. As for the claim that coverage in The Encyclopedia of Christianity is enough: that seems to suggest an argument via WP:GNG, which requires that the sources used be plural and in-depth, neither of which appears to be the case here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please David Eppstein, I beg you to expand your answer. In the article does not appear all the Gertoux's publications, rather the influential.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that they are influential, and without evidence of influence no number of additional publications could help. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know if it is of any use, but I brought the previous version of the page that was deleted.[7].--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Too bad is that it has been presumed so quickly and without analysis that KCharitakis is a single-purpose accounts or canvassed users [8] [9]. I invite research into global contributions.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent reliable sources. There is also some sort of meat-puppet sock-puppetry pattern on this article with the single purpose accounts with few other edits voting keep. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are comment of haters typical of the Wikipedia style? If this is the case, I need to change my mind and review the use I do of it. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 08:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:E901:FCCE:3CC7:51B3 (talk)
Delete. Gertoux has written many books, but to publish them he turns to Lulu.com. In 1999 he did get one book published by the reputable firm L'Harmattan, but it was almost completely ignored: Gertoux complains that the only mention of it was in the Revue juive de Genève. He then had it published in English by University Press of America, which some have thought might be an "academic vanity press". Disappointed at the paucity of reaction to this work also, he decided, he himself says, to acquire official recognition of his competence in archaeology and history by getting a Ph.D. Two high-class institutes of learning refused to accept the work he presented, because of its fundamentalist content. He maintains, for instance the historicity of Noah's Flood and dates to about 4000 B.C. the appearance of the first humans. Should Wikipedia, unlike those institutes, recognize this as anything but a fringe theory? The article proposed for deletion also presents as a reliable source the reproduction on the website http://dictionnaire.sensagent.leparisien.fr/ of the first version of the English Wikipedia article on him and considers it a claim to fame that Gertoux is "a member of the International Association for Assyriology (IAA)" (i.e., he has sent in his subscription?) and that he is the founder of Association Biblique de Recherche d'Anciens Manuscrits, of which the Internet only informs (here and here) that in 2000 it was registered as having its seat at 137 rue Bugeaud, Lyon, France (Gertoux's home?); and here that it was earlier (1991) registered at 3, rue J.-.P.-Rameau, 14100 Lisieux, France. No indication of membership. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite strenuous efforts at demonstrating otherwise, all of the claimed qualifications and cited sources are not indicative of an article subject that passes WP:NACADEMICS. None of the eight criteria are satisfied by either the article or the discussion above. Many of the claimed accomplishments are either meaningless (e.g., his books have been indexed in libraries) or very dubious (e.g., publishing a book through a publisher accused of "dealing in bulk"). A large portion of the article attempts to "borrow" notability through mentioning other academics but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the mentions by others are extremely disputable in legitimacy. The only route towards notability, therefore, is through the WP:GNG. The only independent, reliable sourcing that makes significant mention of Gertoux is in relation to a subject that the current article avoids entirely: his lack of qualification for a PhD and claims of religious discrimination. Even that, however, founders on WP:ONEEVENT. There is nothing worth salvaging through WP:ATD so the only option left is Delete. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ In addition to the already cited paper of international conference, I found a second paper accepted for publication by UniZH in 2018, "Dating the Reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, in: Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 40" (2018, pp. 179-206). Here the publisher: http://www.peeters-leuven.be/home.html which accepted the research paper for the archeological section. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 23:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:34DE:DDBC:7CF1:5BF8 (talk) ; Apparently duplicate !vote struck
Comment: I find quite surprising that contributors with critical attitude find the time to scan through "lulu" publications but at the same time openly ignore research papers of international conferences published with peer review in the field of archeology. It's indeed stunning that some people can cite student gossip, considering it someway authoritative, but ignore a Wikipedia entry on UPA which states: "is an academic publisher based in the United States". Here the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Press_of_America . By the way, I cannot find any journalist article with the supposed accusation of "dealing in bulk", since it dates to the previous century and the link to the original document (whatever its validity) is broken. Finally, accusations of fundamentalism should be out of scope here, since nothing about this is mentioned in the debated wikipedia entry, it sounds like ad personam criticism. I just would like to remark that, altough I am not especially favorable to fundamentalism, Wikipedia has indeed accepted publish many other pages on openly fundamentalist persons. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 23:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:34DE:DDBC:7CF1:5BF8 (talk)

2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:34DE:DDBC:7CF1:5BF8, I am not taking part in this AfD but want to refer you to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) which designates how to determine when an academic is considered notable, for Wikipedia purposes. Most of the editors, pro or con, are referring to the criteria set out in this Wikipedia guideline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that signore Frattini's comment about the publisher was directed to me. Our article about UPA that you linked to makes it clear that the "deals in bulk" assessment was hardly "student gossip". It is literally the title of the only reference in that article. Stating it is "an academic publisher based in the United States," on the other hand, cuts no mustard whatsoever. I could found an "academic publisher based in the United States" in my den. This type of argument from nothing is what I referred to when I mentioned strenuous efforts. All of Gertoux's claimed attainments similarly fall apart at the least inspection. Attempts to present these as actual academic accomplishments damages the credibility of any supposed notability instead of furthering the argument for keeping. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eggishorn, thanks for your salutation, I can just suggest you to be more accurate, in case you want to see your work published. For example, you may start by writing it correctly, i.e. without final "e". You referred to the title of an article with a broken reference in Wikipedia, an article of a newspaper dated 1995, this way I can only assume that you haven't read it at all. I'm happy for you if you can find an academic publisher "in your den", but this your respectable opinion: nothig like this is stated on the wikipedia page, you can maybe enhance it to the benefit of the rest of us. Actually I'm slowly changing my mind on the advantage for Gertoux to have a Wiki page with his name on it: haters of your sort may fake it overnight, without any kind of control or validation bythis platform. For somebody with more than 3'000 followers on Academia alone, I really doubt it would be of any practical advantage. (S. Frattini MSc, MAS, BTh) 21:13, 02 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C7B:1470:342F:2F79:1584:C0FC (talk)

Just for the record, I have no need to aspire to publication. I have been published. Multiple times. By unquestionably legitimate academic and commercial publishers. I would, however, never consider myself notable under Wikipedia guidelines for this. And apropos of nothing in particular, you may want to read Muphry's law. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:48, 31 March 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. Additional focused discussion of sources indicates consensus for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margaux Le Mouël

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

fails WP:NFOOTY Mightytotems (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 13:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time we put a stop to the proliferation of articles on non-notable footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How about we start with the men who played one game for a vaguely-notable professional club somewhere in 1971 and not the top-tier women in major soccer countries, hey? The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. She plays in the top-tier league in France. (She has quite a bit of coverage on that basis, too.) That NFOOTY argues for keeping tens of thousands of articles on one-game male players who could not pass GNG in a million years but tries to suggest that top-tier women players aren't notable isn't a problem with the articles or the topics, it's a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that needs correcting urgently. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are a few refs to get started on if Kokoeist or MightyTotems (or any other editor) would like to expand the article + references to meet WP:GNG per WP:ATD:

Hmlarson (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She plays in a top tier league (Division 1 Féminine). Meets WP:NFOOTY. End of story. And before anyone comes at me with a claim that most female leagues aren't included, that's because of a major failing of every Wikiproject Football member on every level, whose biases on not documenting women's football is atrocious. Silverseren^C 05:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Division 1 Féminine is included at the list of leagues, but is in the list of top-tier leagues that are not fully-professional, so she does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 13:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about semi-pro footballer who has played in France's D1 and for France's youth international sides. Le Mouël is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (I added a pair of references from Ouest-France and Le Télégramme to the article), and should satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further time needed to discuss the references produced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here is a table showing sources that go towards meeting the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.letelegramme.fr/soir/football-le-reve-bleu-de-margaux-le-mouel-17-06-2019-12313471.php	Le Télégramme is an independent newspaper	Regional newspaper in Brittany	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.ouest-france.fr/sport/football/ea-guingamp/margaux-le-mouel-la-bretonne-championne-d-europe-avec-les-bleuettes-6463057	Ouest-France is an independent newspaper	National newspaper of France, with the widest circulation of any French-language newspaper	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.letelegramme.fr/football/euro-u19-feminin-la-fulgurante-ascension-de-margaux-le-mouel-30-07-2019-12350870.php	Le Télégramme is an independent newspaper	Regional newspaper in Brittany	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Strong keep She plays in the top-tier league in France. (She has tons of coverage on that basis, too.) That NFOOTY argues for keeping tens of thousands of articles on one-game male players who could not pass GNG in a million years but tries to suggest that top-tier women players aren't notable isn't a problem with the articles or the topics, it's a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that needs correcting urgently. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep because the subject of the article passes GNG per Jogurney. I second others' concerns about NFOOTY's overinclusiveness for men and underinclusiveness for women, and intend to discuss this in the proper forum. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the evidence that has been provided and seeing that the articles do pass GNG per Jogurney, I would say that this article is defintely a solid keep. HawkAussie (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:14, 3 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 no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and a reasonable argument that sources meet WP:GNG. BD2412 T 03:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Baltimore

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

fails WP:NFOOTY Mightytotems (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 13:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Google.fr is a start (not google.com or google.co.uk) for additional references and article expansion. Baltimore plays in top-division french league at age 18, played in UEFA Women's Champions League also at 18 years of age, and WP:GNG met. Improve, don't delete per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about semi-pro footballer which appears to meet the GNG. Baltimore is a youth international who appears regularly for one of the top French D1 clubs, and gets significant coverage in Le Parisien and other French-language sites. I've added a few easily-searchable online sources to the article, but there are others behind paywalls. Jogurney (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. She plays in the top-tier league in France. (She has quite a bit of coverage on that basis, too.) That NFOOTY argues for keeping tens of thousands of articles on one-game male players who could not pass GNG in a million years but tries to suggest that top-tier women players aren't notable isn't a problem with the articles or the topics, it's a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that needs correcting urgently. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She plays in a top tier league (Division 1 Féminine). Meets WP:NFOOTY. End of story. And before anyone comes at me with a claim that most female leagues aren't included, that's because of a major failing of every Wikiproject Football member on every level, whose biases on not documenting women's football is atrocious. Silverseren^C 05:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Frauen-Bundesliga is included at the list of leagues, but is in the list of top-tier leagues that are not fully-professional, so she does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 13:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG is met here (Per Jogurney, although I'm pretty sure Paris SG players would be full time professionals) While N:FOOTY is nonsense, to put it mildly. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The wording in the keep votes is weak. Editors are reminded that AfD is for discussion of specific sources in an article. For future discussion, please stick to the sources in the article and any others you find. There looks to me to be at least two sources I the article that indicate GNG but wider discussion is necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here is my summary of the online coverage I've found:
- Le Parisien provides in-depth coverage such as [10] which describes her rise into the PSG first team and [11] which covers her exploits at the 2018 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup. It also provides less substantive coverage like [12] which gives a brief profile.
- L'Équipe provides similar less substantive coverage such as [13].
- La Voix du Nord (daily) doesn't provide in-depth coverage, just stuff like [14] which mentions she is likely to get a look from national team manager Diacre.
- Coeursdefoot.fr doesn't provide in-depth coverage, just stuff like [15] and [16].Jogurney (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG per table below. Note that the article does not need to pass NFOOTY, because it already passes GNG. --MrClog (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.leparisien.fr/sports/ile-de-france/d-1-feminine-sandy-baltimore-la-nouvelle-pepite-du-psg-23-04-2018-7679217.php	Owned by LVMH, no apparent COI.	Baltimore is the subject of the article.	✔ Yes
http://www.leparisien.fr/sports/football/psg/coupe-du-monde-u20-la-bleuette-sandy-baltimore-parisienne-tout-terrain-20-08-2018-7858080.php	Per above.	Baltimore is the subject of the article.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY, a bit controversial with its WP:GNG standards. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 23:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She fails WP:NFOOTY and also fails WP:GNG because the Le Parisien articles are local coverage for a PSG player. Dougal18 (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le Parisien is a regional, not a local, newspaper. And while GNG doesn't tell us whether local and/or regional sources are significant, the SNG for organisations does say regional sources are significant, so I'm not sure why it would be different here. (In fact, it's the second largest regional newspaper of France.) --MrClog (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She plays in the top-tier league in France. (She has tons of coverage on that basis, too.) That NFOOTY argues for keeping tens of thousands of articles on one-game male players who could not pass GNG in a million years but tries to suggest that top-tier women players aren't notable isn't a problem with the articles or the topics, it's a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that needs correcting urgently. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't buy the argument that Baltimore isn't a professional footballer. According to Bloomberg, PSG Féminine pays its players 10,000 Euros per month on average. With a nine-month season, that amounts to an annual salary of 90,000 Euros. That sounds like a decent amount of money to me. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MrClog. I second KingSkyLord's broader observations. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:33, 2 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 redirect to Mafia III. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 15:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Clay

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

A biography of the fictional protagonist of the video game Mafia III. It is unsourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing better than fansites. I cannot see independent notability; fails WP:GNG; return to its former version as a redirect to Mafia III. Narky Blert (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, probably could have tried to boldly redirect before bringing it to AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Not sure why this needed to be brought to AFD. — Hunter Kahn 11:21, 27 March 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Bassi

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

non-notable creative professional, no coverage and the sole sources in the article are not reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not meeting the notability criteria. No significant coverage and the sources mentioned are not reliable. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Media Coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litbeby (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources added. - Rohit Sharma
Delete - Even with the added sources, still no.. non-notable. ~riley (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:NOTINHERITED. An ordinary actress/crew member does not inherit notability from who directed her. She's a crew member and assistant director, which we never, ever keep. David Yekell has a longer resume and doesn't rate an article. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 1 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 redirect to Aryan Brotherhood#Investigations and prosecutions. MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Bingham

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

A non-notable criminal who fails WP:GNG. TM 16:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. TM 16:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. TM 16:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TM 16:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aryan Brotherhood until we can see the subject pass WP:N. Azuredivay (talk) 18:01, 29 March 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. MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pink cat

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

No obvious reason this article should even exist. PepperBeast (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Pure synthesis. Combining an adjective and a noun and then finding unrelated examples of such is not a coherent and notable encyclopedia topic. Reywas92^Talk 17:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCASE. It gives the explicit example of Blue trucks not being an encyclopedic article as it would be original research so therefore this article should also apply. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does not appear to be any general coverage of pink cats, cf. black cats. Without coverage of pink cats as a topic, I don't think this meets our notability guidelines. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summary: some cat owners died their cats pink. It is not cause for an encyclopedia entry. Rubbish. Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sourced, well-written, meets WP:GNG (or at least did last time I looked at it). I have reverted back to the version that was nominated for WP:DYK and featured on the main page, with numerous citations to news sources such as BBC News and the Daily Telegraph. Nice to know people think my work is "rubbish" and want to speedy delete my content creation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a cat that turned green! This cat's owners dyed it green. The Cheshire Cat is variously purple and blue. Eek! The Cat is purple; Doraemon is blue, as is Happy (manga character) and Oggy. This cat was found painted blue. Are you making Purple cat and Blue cat next? Without sources discussing the topic of cats being pink in particular as a whole, I have no idea why this would be an article, unless we need thousands more articles listing unrelated examples of creatures or objects that happen to share a particular trait. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all talk about cases of pink cats. It was an article because a now-deceased Wikipedian thought it was a good idea. Respect those who are sadly no longer with us, please. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The test for notability is whether the topic has been written about in reliable sources. This has been covered in the news on a number of occasions, so in my opinion it passes. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, none of the sources have written about pink cats as a topic, only the individual cat in question in each instance. SpinningSpark 00:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My stance is largely the same as Lord Bolingbroke's. While there may be some sources on individual cats that were pink, there does not appear to be coverage on the concept of "pink cats" as a whole. As such, taking the various individual cases, and combining them into a single topical article, is largely WP:SYNTH. Rorshacma (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH of unrelated incidents and fictional characters. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. SpinningSpark 00:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NOTNEWS policy is supposed to cover minor events that have one mention in local newspapers once, not sustained coverage over decades. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTCASE given that sources are isolated news stories that don't mention pink cats as a wider phenomenon. But it might be worth having a broader article about animal colourings which don't exist in nature and are applied artificially (like painted fish), or which only exist in fiction or legend. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please. While the article is interesting and well-written, it is not exactly notable.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:JNN. Of course it's notable, see Template:Did you know nominations/Pink cat. I've written about 140 GAs and about 150 articles; I know exactly what I'm doing. Don't you even want a redirect? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with deletion per WP:NOTCASE. ~riley (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish. Please read WP:VAGUEWAVE. Don't you even want to redirect? You know stupid opinions like this scare new users off, don't you? Go and write and article and see if somebody else can trash it, then you'll understand. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Taking it as read that this is fundamentally different from topics like black panther because it pulls together unrelated instances - we should admit that sometimes this approach works. See old favourite Exploding whale. But that's about something extraordinary with large amounts of coverage of the individual cases. Pink cat really feels like opening the door to a flood of undesirable compilation articles about trivia. Reywas' multicolored examples above make the point well IMO. I could set this kind of thing up for polka-dotted pants, collecting plenty of unrelated individual instances, and would absolutely expect it to be shot down. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to say that article becoming WP:DYK does not mean it cannot be deleted. In fact it states that "articles featured on DYK are not expected to be of the best quality." In addition, the DYK review did not seem that thorough. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:11, 1 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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3D Night (Film)

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

Non notable short film. The article has a whopping 11 references which sounds impressive until you realize that all 11 are the exact same bit of promotional text posted on 11 different news sharing websites. Pichpich (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much at all on Google, the existing refs are duplicates and it would be unusual for an 8 minute film to be notable unless it was exceptionally good or controversial, imv Atlantic306 (talk)
Keep The 11 websites you have spoken to are from an Independent National Media Sources. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 30 March 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 redirect to Samuel Chan Sze Ming. MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britannia Studylink

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

The sources currently in the article don't establish notability - one is a primary source about the company's founder winning an award, the other (according to Google translate) is about the UKiset, and only gives the subject of the article a passing mention. I searched for better sources, but found nothing that would satisfy WP:NCORP standards, just directory listings, press releases and social media stuff. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Samuel Chan Sze Ming, the company's founder, in lieu of deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage about Britannia Studylink, which can be mentioned in the article of its founder.
Cunard (talk) 07:01, 30 March 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 speedy keep. Clear arguments below -- clearly will be the center of discussion of economic impacts of the pandemic in many contexts. Sadads (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the restaurant industry

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

For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the 2020 Summer Olympics. This is just a collection of news tidbits that don't add up to an encyclopedic article. jamacfarlane (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jamacfarlane (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or ~~user~~draftify, as another editor has expressed interest in working on it; I created this article so obviously I thought the subject was clearly notable, and I don't think it's at all analogous to the effect on the summer olympics, which as was pointed out at that deletion discussion is now a rescheduling which can be covered other places. The pandemic is literally changing the restaurant industry in industrialized nations as we speak. The coverage is ongoing, unlike that for the olympics now that it's been settled. Nothing about the effects on the restaurant industry has been settled yet; we are seeing just the beginning of the fallout. It's put millions out of work just in the US and is threatening hundreds of thousands of businesses. However, as it is certainly a developing story, if the consensus is that this isn't ready for article space, I'd work on it in ~~user~~draftspace while the situation continues to develop. --valereee (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the whole, per User:Valereee. Might end up as a list? Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Alternatively, salt.) Too soon. Clearly an ongoing news story with no obvious resolution in sight. Wait and see - it could be they're all reopened in a few months (or 3 weeks in Trump's version of the world!) and the overall effect is approaching zero. Or, ..... Emeraude (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emeraude, salt seems a little drastic lol --valereee (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is being discussed widely in reliable sources, as the article demonstrates. There will be a major impact in this industry worldwide, no matter what happens in the next weeks/months. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The subject will be notable enough soon and drafting will give the creator time to work on it until it is. Which it seems like they want to do. So stright deletion is pointless. At this point the article is more a prose/personal essay with speculation about future events then it is an encyclopedic article, but can change when things develop more and there's an actual impact, but it shouldnt be in the main article space until then. Adamant1 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify at most. The pandemic has had a drastic impact on the restaurant industry, probably something we'll see a lot more in the future. Getting rid of it entirely doesn't seem purdent. Breawycker (talk to me!) 16:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made this nomination but am happy to keep if improvements are in train. I also see the distinction between this and the Olympics article, as the restaurant industry will likely see long-lasting effects of the pandemic. jamacfarlane (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valereee created Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the restaurant industry in the United States and has the experience, though this and related articles need cleaning up.ch (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the single-most important event to occur to my industry likely since the creation of restaurants... This event is shuttering so many businesses and for so long that untold numbers will become bankrupt, along with potentially millions of employees. $ɱ$ (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important issue, many careers are at stake. Gzuufy (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if we have articles as specific as Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the restaurant industry in the United States, then this can stay. WP:IMPROVEDONTREMOVE, thank you. >>BEANS X2^t 10:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Just a fad having no encyclopedic value. Kaweendra (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but a fad is "an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities". A horrific, once-in-a-lifetime catastrophe is something like one of the world's largest industries, barely hanging on the balance of slim profit margins already, shuttering worldwide, causing permanent closures to untold numbers of businesses and unemployment to record numbers of workers in the industry. Try being a little more sensitive.

ɱ

(talk) 13:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear lasting significance, well sourced, and the impacts will be felt even more going forward. b uidhe 15:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a fad like Coronavirus party and Rent Strike 2020. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely discussed topic, plenty of available sources, and clear scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are news articles each day about how social distancing-related closures are impacting the restaurant industry.TH1980 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Idea How about creating an article about (impact of the.....on industries), where it can cover from the steel industry, to food, automotive, retail and restaurant industries. Raphael.Concorde (talk) 21:44, 29 March 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kinston baseball people

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

Only list article for American league baseball players. Categories are sufficient. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a deletion argument presented, the first statement is...just a statement that I'm having trouble understanding. The second is contrary to WP:NOTDUP. The nom also does not explain which "categories are sufficient" so I don't know what he is even comparing this to. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire for failing WP:LISTPEOPLE. Nobody, but nobody, has ever (until now) compiled a list of minor leaguers (at least at the time) associated (however tenuously: one game is enough) with that baseball Mecca, that center of the baseball universe known as Kinston. If that type of list were so encyclopedic, why don't we have a List of New York City baseball people or List of Durham, North Carolina, baseball people? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Many names fail WP:LISTN. Kaweendra (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clarityfiend. This is not a list-worthy topic. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clarityfiend - nom is lacking a deletion argument, but there is still an argument to be made. ~riley (talk) 07:51, 31 March 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. MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mydiamo

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly intended to be promotional. Search for sources yields press releases and passing mentions. Nothing that equates to in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Glendoremus (talk) 19:05, 31 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely Right

AfDs for this article:

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

Not at a high enough level and doesn't have the coverage needed. 2008 AfD was no consensus when standards were much lower. Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There are some sources that appear to be about the organization, but none of those are available online and (based on titles) do not make clear that they are in-depth coverage about the organization, though the article in The Star-Ledger might be the strongest, depending on content. Most of the article (and corresponding sources) is for competeion results and does not demonstrate notability. A Google / Google News search did not turn up any additional sourcing. Alansohn (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant independent sources other than local coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 26 March 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 speedy keep as withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic (band)

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

~~The sources appear exaggerated within the article. They don't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources online that show this band meets the inclusion criteria set out at WP:BAND, for example [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 13:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: pass WP:BAND as shown by the sources provided by Sparklism above... anecdotally, this group did pick up a fair amount of interest in music magazines and airplay on alternative music radio shows in the UK at the time, and I'd be confident of finding print media coverage of them as well. Richard3120 (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent comments above. Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 26 March 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. MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolabtree

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems to have created for promotional purposes. Couldn't get much information from Google. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article read like it's an advertisement and cites primary sources. Analog Horror, (Speak) 21:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I did a Google News search and found a few more sources such as nature.com and Forbes. I have added the nature.com source. I do not agree with prior editor that it reads like an advertisement. It is very precisely written as to what they do and also it would seem to justify notability not only with news sources, but also because it is a unique service. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The source you added from Nature.com is an interview with the founder - fails WP:ORGIND HighKing⁺⁺ 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I beg to differ here, this is not self promotional and neither does it read like an advertisement. This article is informative and factual. I've added some additional sources like Machine Design...etc, the article is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements.2402:3A80:671:2DBE:42C0:DB8A:42CE:ED9B (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: 2402:3A80:671:2DBE:42C0:DB8A:42CE:ED9B (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)

Response The reference you added from manufacturingchemist is based on a company announcement therefore is not Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND. The reference you added from machinedesign is based on an infographic released by the company supported by quotations from their CEO. It has no in-depth information on the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND. The reference you added from entrepreneur.com is a listing and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - ~~Easily passes WP:GNG.~~ Several reliable, independent sources with significant coverage in article (entrepreneur.com, nature.com., manufacturingchemist.com) More sources are available to expand article. CBS527^Talk 06:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC) *Normally I use the more comprehensive requirements of [WP:NCORP]] when evaluating the notability of a company but occasionally there are exceptions where an article may not meet a subject-specific guideline. In some of those cases WP:GNG may apply. Initially, IMO, this company met GNG based on other available online sources such as Forbes and Online Recruiting. After re-reading some of these sources, certain phrase such as "online platform for freelance scientists" and "freelancers, many with PhDs" appears in number of them indicating the source may have come from a press release. I find the sourcing is not as strong as I originally thought thus I'm changing my !vote. CBS527^Talk 04:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The criteria is not merely "reliable, independent sources with significant coverage" and the examples you have pointed to are good examples of why that is so. The references must also contain "Independent Content" - that is, not rely on announcements/interviews/PR from the company whereas the examples you point to fail this. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The test is not merely for "independent sources" or "reliable sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail NCORP, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems notable to me. The topic being discussed in multiple secondary reliable sources and hence passes WP:GNG. Tushar.ghone (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Tushar.ghone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)

Response It is not enough that the topic is "discussed" in multiple "secondary reliable sources". The content of those references must also meet the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Can you point to any reference you believe meets the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be unfair to discuss each individual article here. The topic as a whole, looks notable and passes the notability test. the article needs improvement, not deletion.Tushar.ghone (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? That's the whole point of AfD! We don't look at the "topic as a whole", we look to see if it meets out policies/guidelines. You say it "passes the notability test" but you can't point to even one reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability??? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per HighKing. The sourcing is flat-out not good. As cited in the article at present:

Manufacturing Chemist - no byline (press release?), specific-audience online trade publication
Machine Design - specific-audience online trade publication, article mostly about the industry in general and not Kolabtree
Onrec 1 and Onrec 2 - byline is for a "publisher at Onrec" which suggests to me this is a press release being republished. In any case, another specific-audience online trade publication.
AIM Group - another specific-audience online trade publication.
Nature - Nature is generally a good source but this fails WP:ORGIND as it's simply the founder describing the company with no original content.
AIthority - another specific-audience online trade publication.
Manufacturing Tomorrow - this is not about Kolabtree, it's by a Kolabtree freelancer, which means squat for the notability of the company.
Personnel Today - another specific-audience online trade publication.
Yale Postdoctoral Association - this is a classified ad, even if it is wearing a nice suit because it graduated from Yale.
Entrepreneur - crap listicle with zero in-depth coverage
Superb Crew - interview with marketing director of Kolabtree, zero independent content.

It's total crap. There's no sourcing in anything approaching a wide-audience publication. Complete failure of WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is obviously being canvassed off-wiki - it beggars belief that this new/infrequent editors just so happened to arrive and all argue for keep. I hope the closer weighs these arguments accordingly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article fails to meet WP:NCORP due to a lack of independent, in-depth coverage surrounding it. As seen with Highking and Chaos' analysis of the article's sources, many - on close inspection - do not posses the needed depth or intellectually independence to meet NCORP; as always, it is the quality of coverage, not the number of sources, that determine's a topic's encyclopedic notability on Wikipedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree, the sourcing is not that great but it's content is verifiable through third party sources...the article does not contain any promotional material and thoroughly cited. Kolabtree is one of very companies in the UK that I know of that offers freelance scientists scientists from the likes of NASA, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and Cambridge. I agree with the previous editor, it's a unique service that being offered by a very few providers in the UK and worth being on Wikipedia.There are sources available to verify article's content. If a topic does not meet certain criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful. I would not delet it but rather leave it with notifications, the topic may get coverage in future and can be improved with a slight effort. Faizal batliwala (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Note — Faizal batliwala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like it's getting close to a consensus or already, to be careful I relist to allow for more time and more people joining
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Pretty well-known company and one of the biggest platforms for freelance scientists and researchers in UK. There are a number of sources available online that discuss the company in-depth including manufacturingchemist, nature.com. I think the topic has sufficiently gained significant coverage and deserves a space in the Wikipedia.Sunita.william (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Sunita.wiliam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: I have made sifgnificant changes to the page including edits that removed promotional jargon and unreliable sources, also added a few more sources. The article substantially changed since the AFD opened and looks better now.-Tushar.ghone (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions determine - via looking at the quality of all potential sources - the notability of a topic, not the quality of an article. Cleanup is a good thing, but is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned; see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again, the article has significantly improved since the discussion opened. Look at the sources, there could be no sources better than these and discuss the subject in-depth and meets the requirements. Tushar.ghone (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response I agree that some of the more gushing parts of the original article have been trimmed but you seem to miss the entire point of requiring references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. This is a *different* standard that references that may be used to support citations and facts within the article. Since this AfD, the following sources were added:

Manufacturing Chemist which is entirely based on [https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/over-10-000-scientists-are-now-registered-on-freelance-platform-kolabtree-1028599077 this Business Insider PRWire announcement and the article is also the same as this from OnlineMarketPlaces and this from CleanRoomTechnology. It is PR and fails WP:ORGIND. The other reference added on the same subject, this from Personnel Today, fails for the exact same reasons (the URL even shows it is PR as it is in the PR section of the website).
This from Nature.com is entirely based on an interview with the CEO and contains no Independent Content (i.e. there is zero original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.) and therefore also fails WP:ORGIND.
This from AI Powered Healthcare is an article discussing an infographic *released by the company*! There are no details provided about the company (fails WP:CORPDEPTH), it is not significant coverage (fails WP:SIGCOV) and it relies extensively on quotations provided by the CEO with no Independent Content (fails WP:ORGIND). Also, the next reference from Machine Design is essentially a copy of tha one in AI Powered Healthcare, contains the same quotations from the CEO and fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability for the same reasons.

So in summary, not a single reference added to the article (nor any I have been able to find) are anything more than company announcements and PR or article drummed up by company publications. Wikipedia is not a platform for corporate spam nor the Yellow Pages. If you think this topic is notable and that sources exist which meet the criteria (as per WP:NCORP) then please post links here. The minimum number is two for a topic to meet the requirements of notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PMC. The sources are not strong enough to support the article, and it also does not have any notability which fails it via WP:ORGSIG. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 01:00, 3 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Trail Ranch, Arizona

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

Mobile home park with next to no coverage even over decades of the Arizona Republic; fails WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 04:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent Reywas92^Talk 06:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GNIS source is "Yellow Pages". No indication of notability. MB 01:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Database entries do not establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 17:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the others in this batch. Non-notable. ~riley (talk) 07:52, 31 March 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. due to minimal participation after two relists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Koller

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for journalists. The primary notability claim here is that he was a winner of minor awards that can be referenced only to the awarding organizations' own self-published websites about themselves, not to any evidence of media coverage about the awards to establish that they're notable enough to make their winners notable for winning them, and apart from that the only other sources present here at all are his own bylined content for his own former employer. A journalist's notability is not measured by the extent to which he has created coverage about other subjects, however: it's measured by the extent to which he has been the subject of coverage created by other people, but even on a ProQuest search for older coverage, going all the way back to 1980 all I can find is a couple of purely local hits in his own hometown media on the occasion of him recording a jazz album, which is not enough coverage to get him over WP:NMUSIC in lieu of having to establish his notability as a journalist. Furthermore, the article is so poorly maintained that until I found it half an hour ago it was still describing his journalism career in the present tense even though he retired a decade ago. Bearcat (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:GNG Alpateya (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 26 March 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. MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enamel (musician)

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The references cited in the article do not show him being discussed in reliable sources. He is still an up-and-coming musician who has not made a name for himself in the Nigerian music industry. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Nigerian musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 26 March 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Gassner Otting

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

Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 19:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 2 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De Vorm

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

I've been on the fence about this one for weeks now and figure that it's time to bring it to AfD to get a definitive consensus as to whether it's notable or not. My impression based on the provided sources is that WP:NCORP has not been met, and I was unable to find more coverage online (although the fact that "de vorm" is a common phrase in Dutch did not help). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the references given in the article are really to stories about other things or persons, not this company. Two that are about the article subject are very short. The two books are just annually-published industry references. This is not really significant coverage as the term is usually meant here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON and likely WP:OR. gidonb (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a few sources that I think are independent and reliable. A notable exception is 2luxury2.com, which is neither. Not that it matters, because they didn't have much to say about the LJ Series (Chair) anyway. dezeen has a fairly in-depth article about Benjamin Hubert and his design for de Vorm, Pod. It mentions its "distinctive aesthetic" ( I think that's industry jargon for "ugly as hell"). design-milk.com has a small editorial on the AK2, six sentences. The article in frame isn't really about de Vorm or the Pod, but provides a page to post a series of interviews that take place in a Pod, so-called podsessions. This is clearly not an independent source. That also creates a problem for the two frame books by the same publisher, frame; they're not independent.
The problem is that the articles that appeared to be independent and reliable are not really about the company. There's almost nothing we can find out about the subject from those few articles. They concern the designer or the product, but not the subject of the article. Vexations (talk) 17:52, 30 March 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 merge to Low-level laser therapy. MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red light therapy

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

No MEDRS used. Not prodded because of project ARS. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um could you provide some links to those terms so I can see what they mean? I don't speak acronym all that well. Thanks. A loose necktie (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS: "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."

WP:PROD = proposed deletion.

ARS = Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the topic has gained some notice in sources, but not much. There certainly doesn't seem to any MEDRS-compliant evidence of efficacy, so I've trimmed the article's content to what can be acceptably sourced from the references provided. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable subject even if there isn't excellent scientific evidence about it (yet). The existence of scientific evidence is not what makes something notable. Note that there are multiple different things that involve red light. This is not Photodynamic therapy ("red laser activates pharmaceutical drug") or Low-level laser therapy ("red laser sometimes improves wound healing"). This is the "wellness trend" involving mostly red LEDs.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] If you keep in mind that this is a consumer product (one with excellent potential as a Halloween costume), rather than a scientific subject, it's obvious that Wikipedia should mention it. The only unsettled questions are how to present it in Light therapy (a broad survey article that contains a mishmash of conventional medical treatments, outright quackery, and wellness products), and whether it ought to be all about red light, or converted to a larger article about modern products that shine different colors of lights on people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For biomedical claims, PMID 30853864 is a review, but the research is all in rats, and PMID 30850041 is a review that declares it to be promising for acne in humans, but there is insufficient evidence to recommend it yet. This review has some specific advice about how to differentiate the related articles. A merge to LLLT (which would then need to be renamed) is not entirely unreasonable, according to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources needed

The current article does not cite reliable sources. If the article author(s) reviewed relevant guidelines and policies regarding article creation and asked for help, perhaps they could craft an article with sufficient reliable sources. Suggestions:

Google Scholar search for "red light therapy".
Pubmed search for "red light treatment"[Title/Abstract] AND (Humans[Mesh]) AND (Humans[Mesh])
RSS for the Pubmed search. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether a source is reliable depends upon the WP:RSCONTEXT. Despite this recent trend to declare some sources "reliable" and others "unreliable", the fact remains that no source can be judged to be (un)reliable until you know what sentence it's supposed to be supporting. I agree that there are very few sources that could support claims about Wikipedia:Biomedical information in relation to this subject. (The same can be said about every single drug candidate in pharmaceutical industry's pipeline, by the way.) However, there exist many reliable sources for describing this as an electronic consumer product, which is what it actually is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your very helpful explanations WhatamIdoing. What you wrote here and above makes good sense and I have learned a lot reading your responses. Much appreciated! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 07:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable bit of pseudoscience, now much reduced without the glowing woo. If one day proper controlled trials are carried out, then we might be able to cover it, but without reliable sources this fails WP:N and indeed WP:GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ Keep - I'm wondering if it might be good to keep the article so that people might land on the page and learn objective information. ~~What do others think?~~ EDIT (27 Mar 2020 @ 12:43 UTC) - Thank you Spinningspark :0) - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WhatamIdoing. There is confusion in this discussion between notability and proven effectiveness. Notability does not require that clinical trials have taken place. It does not even require that there are WP:MEDRS present in the article. A subject can still meet notability through WP:GNG without that, and the fact that a reputable publisher (Simon & Schuster) has published a book on the subject is enough to cross that hurdle imo. Of course, we should not be presenting the claims about the treatment as facts without MEDRS to back up those claims. But we can still discuss those claims and we are doing our readers a service by having the article and highlighting the lack of medical evidence. SpinningSpark 00:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge with Low-level laser therapy? As discussed. It seems to be WP:Fringe, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. There seems to be sufficient coverage. Here's another article that appears to be reliable. Thoughts on this one?Jlevi (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2020(UTC)

According to the linked CNET article, it looks like red light therapy has many names, one of which is Low-level laser therapy. That article looks much more developed, so a merge might be better. Jlevi (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to a merge, so long as "red light therapy" is added to the list of alternate names on the article page. I am not at all opposed to the inclusion of references that discredit the application of this type of therapy, and I don't personally believe it is particularly effective for the treatment of almost any condition— I encountered the concept on an Internet health and wellness page, wanted more info, came to Wikipedia, found none, and so did some research and put together an article. If it really is the same thing as low level laser therapy, then by all means, merge it (I read over that article and still wasn't entirely sure myself). A loose necktie (talk) 15:16, 30 March 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. It seems like we have a consensus that the topic is notable, irrespective of the quality of either the article on the topic or of the topic itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpIndia

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

Website fails WP:GNG. Website has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable and secondary sources.Only Business standard and Economic Times' articles mention few details along with other 'fact-checking' websites which are not enough to pass GNG.

Newslaundry is questionable source according to RSN archives due to shabby journalism and editorial practices.

Alt News and Boom live hardly qualify for establishing notability purpose as they are fact-checking websites. If they are going to establish notability then there are chances that every fake news peddler on social media or such shabby websites will have their Wikipedia pages.

My whole point is: website is not notable yet. It has not received significant coverage in multiple independent and secondary reliable sources which can be used for creating Wikipedia article.

Hence, this discussion. Brihaspati (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 04:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Busting fake news: Who funds whom?" from the Business Standard
2. "Tables Turn on Twitter's Hindutva Warriors, and It's the BJP Doing the Strong-Arming" from The Wire
3. "Fake news, lies, Muslim bashing, and Ravish Kumar: Inside OpIndia’s harrowing world" from Newslaundry
  There was no consensus in the noticeboard discussion at "Newslaundry on OpIndia".
4. "Can fact-checking emerge as big and viable business?" from The Economic Times

— Newslinger talk 04:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Added one more source. — Newslinger talk 05:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed OpIndia's 2019 rejection from the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) from list. The assessment itself shouldn't count toward notability, since any organization can apply for accreditation. — Newslinger talk 08:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newslinger. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This passes even my notoriously high bar for notability. It seems as if this nomination is motivated more by dislike of what RS say about the subject, which really isn't our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 08:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, are you using appeal to motive as your argument at AfD? Where did I mention anything about bad things about publication or like that? Your argument can be categorised as personal attack and violation of our WP:Civility policy. -- Brihaspati (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brihaspati, my reason for keeping is as stated. As a secondary issue, I am not convinced this nomination is in good faith, again, as stated. Guy (help!) 16:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A new media outlet that has a tense relationship with Wikipedia in the last month or so and has made allegations against WP at the way it works. ItOpIndia has enough of a presence an article is reasonable, the precise content of which may be a pain to manage, but thats another problem. And OpIndia likely non-RS from a WP viewpoint but it is well capable of making actions that might evoke Jimmy Wales to tweet. In general from once a media outlet has has some impact or exposure I want keep it on WP, I want to know something about it. I am the opinion the nomination may have been in good faith but I have many concerns it was misguided.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC) If I was being nice to the nom. I would suggest they considers withdrawal through Wikipedia:Speedy keep; but the nom. may of course choose to let this run and I am just as happy if they do so.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject does not seem to be credible, but it is notable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of the page about opindia from Wikipedia is necessary. Opindia may be a centre right idiology base but they don't spread fake news, infact they show the truth about others media channels like the wire , the print. — Therightpen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Not liking the contents of an article is not a sufficient reason to delete it. — Newslinger talk 19:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This looks like a deliberate attempt to damage Opindia's reputation after they exposed nefarious activities of few English Wikipedia editors. First they were put in spam list, later their [was questioned] and now their page . Has this encyclopedia become a place to settle personal scores? Please keep your biases away before editing the encyclopedia Quartzd (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is varifying Facts which involves some political party, Unethical practice? The Fact chcek authority dismissed their application on these grounds. But, I havent seen any report where they were found spreading Fake News. on the other hand, Ive seen few fake news/content busted by this portal. With the coverage it has received in recent past, I think the page should stay. Santoshdts (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly DELETE: The entire article on the news portal is a whitewashed version with prominent bias against the news portal or its editor(s). The article here has the POVs of those against it being pushed to deliberately portray the news portal in bad light highlighting a few of its editorial errors that every media house or portal has furthered at some point of time or other. News articles from portals like Alt News, Boom, Newslaundry etc. have been used here which themselves have been questioned for own biases in the past & shoddy practices of journalism. While each of these portals and several others are painted as credible' without writing about their political biases, fake news controversies, fakery propagating tweets by their journalists etc. all that has been ignored completely while axes are being ground against only at this portal. Either a consensus should be reached to revert the bias on this page or this article that feeds misinformation into the minds of those reading this should better be deleted. There have been numerous attempts by many an admin here to reach consensus but nothing seems to achieve a neutral version of this article. HarshithaHappyGoLucky (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Djm-leighpark. Even if the ideology of the website is RW. Wikipedia is not property of anyone. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 00:58, 1 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 merge to Fun Spot America Theme Parks#Kissimmee location. MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Voyage

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

There are no sources cited. Viking Voyage is also an insignificant topic with very little content, other than to say when and where it existed (already covered in the Wild Adventures article). There are specs associated with the coaster, but these are insignificant as well. GoneIn60 (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably to Wild Adventures#Roller coasters, or "Keep" and expand. Roller coasters are big items that are of significant interest to the public, that usually have extensive coverage. wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION. However, the current article is short and unsatisfying as an article. it is not necessary to have a separate article if the material written in Wikipedia is not long; they can be covered in list-articles about roller coasters or in articles about theme parks that have them. Here, there is existing article Wild Adventures which mentions this in the text but does not have a row for it in its table of roller coasters. Maybe the table only covers current ones? Well, modify the table to include past ones too, as is often/usually done for lists of significant things/places. Also the table could/should be modified to include thumbnail images of the roller coasters it covers. It would be inappropriate to delete this topic entirely and deny readers the opportunity to find their way to where the topic is covered in Wikipedia. Merging leaves a redirect behind and allows restoration if someone chooses to expand using significant additional sourced information. --Doncram (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, a closer look at this ride reveals that it was actually removed prior to the 2019 season. The article says it was moved to Fun Spot Kissimmee, and this is backed up by RCDB. Perhaps we can briefly mention it at the Fun Spot article and change this to a redirect. While I agree that roller coasters in general are big items that often deserve coverage in a dedicated article (I work on hundreds of coaster articles), this one doesn't qualify. It hasn't received any extensive coverage. It's a junior coaster that isn't any more significant than other amusement rides offered at the parks it existed in. Other than minor specs and the years it was featured, there's not much more that can be said. A one- or two-line mention at the amusement park article it's currently located at is probably ample coverage for a ride of this magnitude. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger to Fun Spot America Theme Parks#Kissimmee location would be fine too, adding it to the table there which includes other rides which have been moved to there. The ride should probably be mentioned, still, at Wild Adventures#Roller coasters. Thanks, GoneIn60, and sure, one or two line mention is okay, but it should be mentioned, and readers should be directed to where it is covered most substantially. --Doncram (talk) 18:31, 26 March 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 and redirect to Sanofi. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aventis Pharma

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

Unremarkable private company article created by UPE sock. Fails WP:NCORP. KartikeyaS (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sanofi. It is just one out of five Sanofi subsidiaries in India ([30]). Worth coverage in Wikipedia but probably not a standalone article. --MarioGom (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Also there is a section in the Sanofi article on Aventis so no merge necessary. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A Redirect to Sanofi seems appropriate here. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable. Couldn’t find many reliable sources. ~ HAL 333 02:17, 26 March 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits of All Times – Remix '89 – Volume II

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. This venue is a last resort after multiple redirect overwrites. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUM. No evidence has been provided that this album appeared on a national music chart, was certified gold, or received multiple reviews or news articles in reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The albums fails WP:NALBUM. A Google search of the project doesn't bring up any coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:24, 26 March 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Esty Jr.

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

While I have found a few primary sources confirming that the subject held the two offices mentioned (mayor of his town and state senator), there is a desert of secondary sources showing any kind of importance. BD2412 T 00:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable. Keep per GPL93. ~ HAL 333 02:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Clear WP:NPOL pass. He was the Majority Leader of the Maine State Senate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added this to the article, but would still like to see more. Surely a party leader in a state senate is still not necessarily inherently notable. BD2412 T 02:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 actually all members of state legislatures are considered inherently notable per WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is problematic, with respect to those for whom sources are sparse to non-existent. BD2412 T 03:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a longstanding inclusionary policy and such policies exist for situations such as the one regarding Esty. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, extremely obvious WP:NPOL pass, all members of state legislatures are default notable, nevermind a State Senate majority leader. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:POLITICIAN/WP:NPOL. GPL93 stated it well: "all members of state legislatures are default notable." --Kbabej (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep passes WP:NPOL as a state senator. --Enos733 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; clearly passes NPOL as a state senator. Yes, the article needs some improvement — but there is no such thing as a state legislator (much less a majority leader) who somehow failed to ever garner any GNG-worthy coverage at all. The trick is that his term in office was 25-35 years ago, which means his best sources won't be found on Google — as a rule, Google is usually a waste of time for even trying to find any media coverage older than the past three to four years. For somebody whose term in office was this long ago, rather, you have to look for archived media coverage in databases like ProQuest or Questia or newspapers.com, not just on Google News. It's true that our articles about older officeholders from decades or centuries ago tend to be a lot worse than our articles about current incumbents — but that's not because media coverage of their careers didn't exist, it's just because Wikipedians tend to be lazy about actually making an effort to track down sources they can't just stumble over in a Google search, so people who aren't still present in the contemporary news cycle tend to get overlooked. But the reason that state legislators get an automatic NPOL pass isn't that they're somehow exempted from having to pass GNG — it's that they do pass GNG, because they always have sources, and the articles sometimes just look like they don't because we're not always on the ball about actually locating all of the sources they have. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearcat: I also searched Newspapers.com and Google Books, and found nothing of use in either search. I certainly hope you are not implying that I was "lazy" in my efforts. BD2412 T 18:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. He served as a Maine state senator and was also the Senate Majority Leader. Members of state legislatures are deemed notable here on Wikipedia. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NPOL is pretty clear on this one. ~riley (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State senators are automatically notable because of the power state legislatures have over our health and safety. If the Corona virus has done anything, it has reminded us that state governments literally have the power of life and death over us. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 1 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.

[1] ttps://www.biblioiranica.info/dating-the-reigns-of-xerxes-and-artaxerxes/

[2] ttps://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/157125/1/OBO.SA_40_CRRAI_DEF.pdf

[1]

[2]

Reliable sources needed

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.