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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bernhardt

Kevin Bernhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only source is IMDB, which is not reliable. The article fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NACTOR. » Shadowowl | talk 12:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am not sure if the nominator has done WP:BEFORE. Per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." I have already added 7 sources, and there are plenty more. It is hard to see how someone who has had so many roles in notable TV series and in films, and has written so many notable screen plays, could not meet WP:NACTOR, and could not have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly notable for the screenplays. I don't think was ever notable as an actor, but the writer of scripts for multiple notable films can be reasonably presumed to be notable . DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable as a screenwriter and a few of his acting roles were notable too (General Hospital and Hellraiser III for example). Here's an newspaper article about him during his GH stint. 1. He also won Best Actor in a Feature and Best Screenplay for the movie Shiner at the 2017 Northeast Film Festival. 2 Not sure how notable those honors are though (personally have never heard of them before) since they have only been around since 2013. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Robinson (reporter)

David Robinson (reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Irrelevant guy from tv Billycleaner (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Robinson is a reporter on a morning TV program. Article is sourced almost entirely to his bio on the program's webbpage. Since David Robinson is a pretty common name, I searched "david robinson" + "studio 10", which turned up a few, routine mentions [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt & Meshel

Matt & Meshel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insignificant radio show Billycleaner (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom and not enough reliable sources. ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bd2412 T 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working Boy Center

Working Boy Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's notable enough. ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A wiode variety of independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Including related sources, deaItalic textd links and fundraisers. The Banner talk 14:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would agree with the "keeps". Jzsj (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naturally, as author. The Banner talk 22:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The name isn't always translated in the same way, so it's probably better to look for the Spanish name:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the Spanish name when doing my research! The Banner talk 12:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that these references that were recently removed should be restored:

https://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/sociedad/6/centro-del-muchacho-trabajador-capacita-a-los-emprendedores-urbanos

https://www.idealist.org/en/nonprofit/5de6aef6eb0e46a5abcac0e45f15d366-centro-del-muchacho-trabajador-volunteers-manhattan

https://www.osf.org/ecuador Jzsj (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really think that fundraising pages are reliable, independent sources? The Banner talk 23:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ElTelegrafo is a newspaper article and I have no reason to question its reliability.

And where does Wiki exclude the use of references like The Orphaned Starfish Foundation (www.osf.org/ecuador) once the existence of the work is established? It lends repute and importance to an organization, and it's not coming from the organization itself. Jzsj (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently, you skip to remark about "idealist.org", a fundraiser. How many times are you pointed at WP:RS? The Banner talk 08:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific: what in WP:RS bans any citation to a foundation that supports the work. Jzsj (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FIBA Intercontinental Cup Decisive Game Top Scorer

FIBA Intercontinental Cup Decisive Game Top Scorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:LISTN as independent reliable sources do not discuss this group. —Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does have independent sources in it. There are multiple sources from news sites and websites that have absolutely nothing to do with FIBA.Bluesangrel (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out the independent, reliable sources that talk about this grouping? Otherwise, the list is WP:OR about an undefined term—"Decisive Game", an unsourced claim that "Top Scorer" is an actual award, and a group of people collected from individual box scores and not prose about the grouping itself.—Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Certainly no indication that it is a real "award" as claimed. Nigej (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely a real award. All through the history of FIBA the top scorer of finals game has been an award. It predates all MVP awards. And even at FIBA's official site, it lists the award for recent tournaments ---> [2] and [3] This is the most standard and original award for all FIBA events, including this one. In fact, FIBA's archive used to list all the top scorers of the tournament, but somehow it seems that page got deleted, and now just the recent tournaments are listed. However, the award always existed, just as it did with all FIBA awards, and predates any MVP awards from FIBA.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FIBA listing a leader of a stat does not automatically make it an award. Is there a trophy? A certificate? Ceremony? And where is the independent coverage that talks about multiple "winners" at the same time, as WP:LISTN requires?—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an award. For decades FIBA gives the award for top scorer of finals. OK, you won't let it be a separate article because of multiple winners being listed somewhere - it used to be there were some, I guess they got deleted. Anyway, now you should not change that to argue it isn't a real award. Just delete this, and I will merge it back into the article.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't demonstrated that its a real award, rather than just an interesting statistic. It's difficult to make a better decision about this until we know the answer. Nigej (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Progreso & ERIC-SJ

Radio Progreso & ERIC-SJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Both organisations fail WP:GNG, largely based on unsuitable, related sources The Banner talk 11:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The frantic efforts of the author to add every blurb remotely related to the subject is turning the article into spam The Banner talk 20:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable organization. The sources are reliable and about all that one can expect in the second poorest country in Latin America.Jzsj (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We need to relate our principles to the context. Honduras hasnt a wide variety of sources and our coverage is poor. Rathfelder (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six of the sources are the own website of the radio station and at least one is a Jesuit-related source (the Jesuits run this organisation) The Banner talk 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check all the sources. And a couple I just added are clearly independent. Jzsj (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, what you added about the murdered journalist and a party are indeed irrelevant. The Banner talk 14:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources in the article as it stands now demonstrate that it does pass GNG (in particular, these two and this one). But beyond that, I think WP:NEXIST applies here, as Rathfelder alluded to above: Eric/Radio Progreso plays an important role in Honduran civil society and has been around for decades; just because we can't find a lot of sources online right now doesn't mean it's not notable. For example, I don't know exactly how to fit this into the article, but here's a story the AP ran back in 2013 about a national survey Eric conducted. -- irn (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is likelihood of offline sources given the claims of significance, it is referred to in reliable sources which is also indicative of offline coverage in a very poor country with lesser Internet coverage which has caused systemic bias Atlantic306 (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Team event

2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Team event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't need to create or separate the individual and team events from the main page 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships. As you can see this articles only cited the draw on the external link, and doesn't have secondary sources. Stvbastian (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Don't see any other convincing alternative. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is. Plus single/double/mixed events the page will be big. Also for Wikidata the division into separate pages like in tennis is better. Florentyna (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Systems of Romance. czar 05:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Motion (Ultravox song)

Slow Motion (Ultravox song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very much lacking in coverage; no charting, one paragraph in a listicle, lots of being-talked-about by (surprise) the originator in an interview. Should be reverted to redirect to Systems of Romance and stay there for the time being. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It did chart, reaching no. 33 in the UK, and got a fair amount of coverage at the time. A merge to the album would also be reasonable given the amount of current content. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Individual event

2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Individual event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't need to create or separate the individual and team events from the main page 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships. As you can see this articles only cited the draw on the external link, and doesn't have secondary sources. Stvbastian (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships and per WP:TOOSOON. There is no need for both this article and also 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships – Team event. No previous years tournaments have separate articles for each event. Ajf773 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, Yes i agree when there is 2019 Oceania Badminton Championships why shoul have another the same, Also it is [[WP:TOOSOON] Alex-h (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Sarnoi

Walter Sarnoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. PRehse (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment PRehse (talk · contribs). Latino title handed out by the World Boxing Organization wouldn't qualify as notable? As I read NBOX, a WBO titlist is notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE Competeting for a world title sure and there is also a list of regional titles were winning can infer notability. But in this case the Latino WBO title is too minor to be on that list (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment).PRehse (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that title assessment page. Therefore I say Delete per WP:NBOX....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The "interim Latino Silver" title is not enough to meet WP:NBOX and the coverage is typical sports reporting.Sandals1 (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Looks like a duck to me[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candelas (band)

Candelas (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. Nominated for a minor award and received a very minor award and nominated for an award at the National Eisteddfod doesn't make for notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, on the basis they're a very well-established Welsh band (almost unavoidable at Wales festivals at the moment). They won the best Welsh language band award in two of the first three years of the award's existence, and though this may be of no interest to non-Welsh speaking Wikipedia editors, the awards are reported by the BBC and the Wales national media, so clearly taken seriously. They also recorded the song Rhedeg i Paris to support the Wales football team at the 2016 European Championships. Sionk (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the award may be minor but it is reported by various national media outlets in Wales. M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meet WP:NBAND. Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selebobo

Selebobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not demonstrated, does not meet WP:MUS . PROD tag removed twice without substantial improvement. Mahveotm (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm weakly leaning towards keep, even though I know the article is in a terrible state and probably created by an editor with COI connection. I'm likely going to be able to improve it before this AFD ends. HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Notable enough and plenty of sources [4].Tamsier (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is a notable producer in Nigeria. He has produced several notable bodies of work (King of Queens and Mama Africa) and has been nominated for a Headie award, Nigeria's most prestigious music award. The article does need a lot of cleanup; if it is kept here, I will clean it up.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article has been at AfD for three weeks. That's more than enough time for someone to make improvements. If somebody declares a firm intention to work on it, I would consider userfying. Drop me a line. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Wheeler

David A. Wheeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability concerns. The refs really don't say why this person passes WP:N. Before isn't showing anything better than the refs already there. This is the third nomination, the last being in 2008, and ending no consensus. It appears all the refs relate to the period around 2000-2008, I'm doubtful that if he was really notable he would basically disappear although it is possible. Szzuk (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable for his open source software advocacy in the 2000s. Џ 05:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not keep, but possibly move to draft space to provide an opportunity for improvements to be made, if sources can be found. bd2412 T 19:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeky Vimto

Cheeky Vimto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability or even that it exists. Probably a hoax or neologism: Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "neologism"? What evidence do you have that it's "probably a hoax"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All my searches yielded nothing except recursive mentions back to Wikipedia. Even the canned drink mentioned in the text makes no reference to the name of the article. I suspect that this is just someone's pet name for this or a similar drink.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying it's "probably a hoax or neologism" because you can't find any original sources other than this Wikipedia article? Could you show me how, for example, this source has "recursive mentions back to Wikipedia"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A quick glance at the Google Books search linked above shows that this is not a hoax or neologism. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found two references in books which are sufficient for WP:GNG. I've added those to the article. There are additional book references to be found in Google book searches, but as I found most of them to be displayed only as "snippets," I've not added them as I haven't had a chance to retrieve the actual print books to review the references mentioned in the snippets. Still and all, there's enough there for general notability. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Geoff. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Native Scientist

Native Scientist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nonprofit organization lacking notability. There are several references on the page but they are all either primary, non-independent, or only have passing mentions of the organization. Fails WP:NORG. Citrivescence (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In what way are these many references not independent? Rathfelder (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rathfelder: A quick glance at the reference list shows that numbers 6-15 are all non-independent in that they are either produced by the organization itself or organizations that have partnerships with Native Scientist, e.g. this piece by King's College London describing an event held on their campus. Can you look at the reference list and point to two specific references that have significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources? Citrivescence (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Kings College is sufficiently well established that if it publishes stuff about it, even if held on its campus, that counts as independent. The fact that there is a relationship with a whole load of other substantial organisations does not compromise their independent status. Rathfelder (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rathfelder: That is not in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. See WP:IS. If you can find two independent sources that fulfill the other notability criteria, please share them. Citrivescence (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it has significant substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as here which is not affiliated, and another example is this one which also is not affiliated, so the subject deserves to have an article in the encyclopedia, and concerns over advertising tone can be addressed with editing for neutrality, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic". I'm quite sure these universities have no vested interest in this topic. Rathfelder (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the author of the page considered for deletion. I understand the concerns raised about its notability, given the apparent lack of independent sources. I use "apparent" because it remains unclear to me what independent sources really are, as it seems that people commenting above are not in agreement. If I understand correctly, pieces of news in general media on a specific organisation would count as independent sources for notability. There are several of these sources for Native Scientist in the Portuguese media, for example, and I can provide them if you think that would be suitable. I haven't done so before (in the page) because English-speaking readers would not necessarily understand the content of the sources. I still believe that Native Scientist would deserve an entry in the English wikipedia for several reasons: (1) this project was born in England, (2) the operating language of this organisation is English, (3) many of its activities take place across the UK, (4) this organization has a scientific purpose and the scientific community uses English as their communication language.Rafaelgalupa (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton & Area Land Trust

Edmonton & Area Land Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTABILITY / WP:ORGCRIT. I cannot find significant coverage in of this organization in independent, reliable, secondary sources. While there are a few news articles mentioning the organization and one page on the City of Edmonton's website, there's little else. There is an obnoxious amount of information here that can only be found in the WP:PRIMARY sources provided, some of which are also WP:FACEBOOK links. The article also contains substantial WP:PUFFERY, including the paragraph on the "Emerald Award" they won in 2013. I would've cleaned up the article to remove puffery, keep mainly secondary sources, and remove external links (including the PDF link in the middle of the article), but this would see most of the article content removed as it is. Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 02:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to Keep this article

I have removed many of the links to the Edmonton and Area Land Trust webpage plus some wording that I thought could be viewed as WP:PUFFERY. I have also submitted some requested changes on the talk page associated with the Edmonton and Area Land Trust Wikipedia page to add supporting links from other secondary sources - outside webpages and news sources. These sources also support the WP:NOTABILITY of this article. I appreciate your assistance in helping us comply with Wikipedia's rules and regulations. Please let me know if you have additional recommendations - I would like to keep this page but make alterations as needed.

I am the Stewardship Coordinator for the Edmonton and Area Land Trust.

Mjacklinealt (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Changes to Edmonton and Area Land Trust Article

I have suggested a number of edits to streamline the Edmonton and Area Land Trust page, and suggested the addition of references to support the information written and the WP:NOTABILITY of the page itself.

These changes introduce more secondary sources supporting the information in this article, support the notability of this article, ensures that the article contains subjective material only, and ensures that information written is unique and not copied from another website.

I am the Stewardship Coordinator for the Edmonton and Area Land Trust so I did not make these edits directly. I hope the changes meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. I am open to further suggestions.

Mjacklinealt (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The changes that have been requested are to add references to the Edmonton Journal which would not be considered an impartial source in this respect. What is needed for the article are references to sources which are not connected in any way whatsoever to the subject of the article. Without these sources, the article's POV cannot be stated as being neutral. Unfortunately, seeing the COI editor state that their changes "introduce more secondary sources supporting the information in this article, support the notability of this article, ensures that the article contains subjective material only" seems to suggest that this editor does not fully grasp WP:IIS or the requirements of WP:N.  Spintendo  22:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for taking the time to help me improve this article.

With the previous suggested edits I have been trying to address the issues highlighted at the top of the page – that the article relies too much on primary sources and that the subject appears to not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.

I reread the general notability guidelines WP:NOTABILITY as well as a number of associated pages to ensure I have a good grasp of this concept. I believe this page meets notability guidelines because of significant, non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources such as the webpages of the Edmonton Nature Club (ENC) - http://edmontonnatureclub.org/endowment-for-land-conservation-and-stewardship.html and the City of Edmonton - https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/environmental_stewardship/edmonton-area-land-trust.aspx. I realize these are primary sources and may not be considered fully independent in that they are involved in founding EALT, but they are entirely separately governed and made their webpages without influence from the Edmonton and Area Land Trust (EALT). The ENC has an elected board of directors who decide what they do, and the City of Edmonton webpage about EALT would have been created by staff and directed by elected officials. Are these unacceptable because they have any connection at all with EALT?

Whether those sources are acceptable or not, I have also looked through the suggested searches and found several sources of information that meet the most or all of the requirements of secondary, independent, verifiable sources. Would these be acceptable to support information in the article? I would format them properly and suggest them as an edit.

• This report by Canada West Foundation has no link to EALT, and is a secondary, independent source with in-depth coverage of EALT. http://cwf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CWF_BrightSpots_Report_SEP2012.pdf
• This news article from Science for Students has no link to EALT, and is a secondary and independent source. https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/bee-hotels-are-open-business
• This peer reviewed Journal Article published in Human Ecology has no link to EALT, and is a secondary, independent source with in-depth coverage of EALT. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10745-013-9621-9#citeas

Could you recommend what you think should be improved about this article at this time? I appreciate you taking the time to read through this and help me improve this article. I would welcome further recommendations to prevent this page from being deleted.

I am the Stewardship Coordinator for the Edmonton and Area Land Trust. Mjacklinealt (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dotman

Dotman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not convinced that subject of this article meets WP:MUSICIAN. As at 2017 when the article was created, it was a case of WP:TOOSOON (based on the 2017 references), am not convinced there is anything different in his career between 2017 and January 2019. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he seems to receive lots of coverage in Nigerian press. [5] Tamsier (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Contrary to what Tamsier said, the subject has not received lots of coverage. A Google search only shows the promotional links for the songs he has released or been featured on. The only convincing source I could find is this.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After a greatly extended period of time for discussion, and a volume of text that would utterly swamp the article under consideration, the actual opinions expressed in the discussion lean much more towards a consensus to keep than towards deletion, and those opinions are supported by reasonable reliance on coverage as discussed and on the effects of an award being won. bd2412 T 05:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Aziz Bagh

Aziz Bagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It is a building that simply fails WP:GEOFEAT because it requires significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability, and WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage from multiple secondary reliable sources that are WP:SIGCOV. Nothing has changed at all for 8 years now since the last AfD (and the award it won is not a notable one). I did find this in my WP:BEFORE (other than passing mentions in books or listings on websites) is a good coverage of Aziz Bagh on https://telanganatoday.com/a-turn-of-century-palatial-mansion but nothing else to satisfy WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this non-notable building with only 3 sentences. Trillfendi (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the nomination, which includes very substantial and fully-adequate-on-its-own citation. Which includes statement that the U.S. government issued a postage stamp about it. There will surely exist other coverage, too. Perhaps the deletion nomination is a statement of frustration that the article has not been developed, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Tag the article or post complaints/suggestions at its Talk page instead. --Doncram (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Doncram First of all, assume WP:AGF before accusing me of being "frustrated" for the article state and proves you ignored to read my nomination from the top to the bottom, sadly. I never said the article should be cleaned up or that the content in it sucks. Also your vote violates WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES since you are not offering them but claim the coverage will surely exist. And I am refering you again to WP:GNG (so that one source is not enough) and WP:GEOFEAT. The building was not proclaimed as national heritage so it is not even that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, I don't think I suggested anything negative. It would be perfectly fine IMO for an editor to be frustrated about the lack of development over the long time frame that you mentioned in your nomination.

  However, sure, another source, found quickly by going to the webpage on Aziz Bagh, website which self-proclaims it has been online since 1996, is the published 2009 book about Aziz Bagh, which is itself on sale and summarized at Amazon books.

  The Amazon summary mentions Aziz Bagh was built in 1899, and that it "was honored with the most prestigious award 'INTACH', Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage on July 27, 1997, 110 years after its construction", too. Is that award the one you regard as "not a notable one"? I dunno, but we do have an article about the Indian National Trust, which seems reputable, having some United Nations consultative status and so on. --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, refining a Google news search to search on "Aziz Bagh" using quotation marks brings me to New York Times article: "Returning to Hyderabad, Once a Land of Princes and Palaces", New York Times-Jan 23, 2015 with snippet "I visited family friends at the neo-Classical Aziz Bagh, where seven generations have lived since 1899 in a three-acre compound so bucolic ...". I don't have access to the article myself, but that seems like a substantial mention. --Doncram (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Doncram Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were implying I hated the article because it has no development. Trust me, I know about WP:NEXIST. And thank you for going along the discussion with me. Yeah, the award I mentioned was that. Yes, we have an article about the INTACH, but not about the award itself, and to presume it is notable would be wrong since the notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Netnavigate website seems like a primary source so it cannot contribute to WP:GNG and Zaheer Ahmed who wrote the book is the son of the founder Hasanudin Ahmed, also making it WP:PRIMARY since it comes from the person who has connection to the villa itself. And finally the NY Times article. The proper link is this https://web.archive.org/web/20180615113003/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/travel/once-a-land-of-princes-and-palaces.html and sadly it is a passing mention of one sentence which you have said already. The article goes to discuss Famous Ice Cream and Vinita Pittie just a sentence later. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for providing a link to a complete accessible version of the NYT article. The full article is detailing the nearly-lost old Hyderabad, once grand and spacious, and lists various places including 250-year-old house where Vinita Pittie lives and so on. It comes across to me that no roundup of historic Hyderabad structures would be complete without mentioning the remarkably surviving, spacious, Aziz Bagh. If there were a regional or national historic register comparable to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places or the City of Los Angeles' LAHCM, it would be on it. The full sentence about Aziz Bagh is: "I visited family friends at the neo-Classical Aziz Bagh, where seven generations have lived since 1899 in a three-acre compound so bucolic you’d never guess it existed deep within the thrum of the Old City." --Doncram (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I added links now in the article to a couple photos of historic Aziz Bagh in the MIT library collection, and there is room to improve using the good 2017 article which you had found and has not yet been used in the article. Also, I would not be so quick to dismiss the 2009 book, or to dismiss it so completely. Neither you nor I have seen it, and I want to say that it obviously could be a great gold mine for covering the place. Also I note that both "civil servant" and author Hasanuddin Ahmed and poet Aziz Jang Vila are likely wikipedia-notable persons. --Doncram (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also another source is available from the first AFD about this topic, which closed Keep. From that: "Keep - as so often with non-US/Canada/UK/Australia subjects it's not too hard to find suitable references if you actually look - eg at Know AP (Know Andhra Pradesh) Aziz Bagh is described as one of Hyderabad's Architectural Splendours. http://www.knowap.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1039&Itemid=69 Opbeith (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)". This should have been consulted. I also expect there is more extensive off-line content about events and persons there, from the heyday which might have been in the 1940s or thereabouts. But it is notable for surviving intact and in well-preserved state.[reply]

That source covers a number of significant Andhra Pradesh places which received the INTACH award in various years, and it appears that it is awarded to just one place each year in either Hyderabad which is huge or in Andra Pradesh which is even huger. That suggests the INTACH award is quite important, contrary to skepticism or lack of knowledge about it in the nomination. --Doncram (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram I saw that already, and the problem is...that the article was written by the "administrator" with no names, so I am not sure could this be a reliable source here. Could imply it is a blog, and blogs are not reliable sources. While this is good amount on info, WP:GNG requires RELIABLE sources. I cannot judge reliability here. Also for the comment upwards, WP:GNG dismisses that book because it requires secondary sources (published by someone reliable and not affiliated with the subject). Primary sources can be used in the article, but does not show the notability. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you note I cannot judge reliability here about the book. I think the book should be obtained by someone. It may be a very good work, with plenty of citations itself, and with photographs that indisputably establish various facts, and so on. I don't have it either. Does any reader of this AFD have access via inter-library loan or whatever to the book, in order to use it to develop the article. Also it is not terribly expensive, $40 on Amazon i think it was. However, based on what's been uncovered here, and based on my experience with historic sites elsewhere (which one can like or not), I think this is pretty obviously a keep based on resources known (and consulted or not) plus likelihood of offline resources existing (which I think is pretty high) plus known fact of an award from a National Trust agency (though details of the award are not completely known). I will likely not comment a lot more. thanks, --Doncram (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Doncram, the book that you describe above is published by CreateSpace; a self-publishing-medium with no minimal peer-review. The author seems to be entirely non-notable too and has no relevant academic expertise. Add WP:PRIMARY on top of that.
  And, the book fails RS by a mile or so. And, we don't need to see it to dismiss it. Also, creating a website in 1996 is not (by any means) highly unusual and I have no clue about how that contributes to notability of the subject.
  AFAIR, INTACH gives 3 annual awards; but I disagree about any of them being even a moderately good indicator of notability. Need to look on this locus; though.
  FWIW, I take no opinion on the merits of this AfD and most-importantly, will need to run a vernacular-source-search, over 'morrow. ∯WBG^converse 19:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for commenting and for your plan to look into it further, though I am less skeptical than you are given the same information so far. Again a book full of photos and perhaps diaries or other primary records or whatever can obviously be a reliable source used in developing the article. You can/do argue that because the source is non-independent of the subject, it can't go towards notability. However I think that depends more on the specifics of the source, and it needs to be seen, IMO. And we already have other indications of importance. And for a place this old there is likely offline coverage pre-internet, too, IMO.

  Suppose INTACH annually recognizes three historic sites. It's my understanding that INTACH covers Andra Pradesh, which had population of about 85 million then! (In 2014 Telangana was split out from AP, so AP's population is reduced to 49 million). For the United States, population 327 million, the U.S. (and Wikipedia) recognizes several thousand new designations of historic sites each year. So this would seem comparable to a U.S. National Historic Landmark, say, not merely a listing on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.

  FYI, I understand this is the mansion/estate of the tax collector of Hyderabad State, the princely state, i.e. it was not the palace of Nizam of Hyderabad himself but rather of the top / most important civil servant. --Doncram (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, this archived copy of INTACH source (which is in the article) shows Aziz Bagh was one of five INTACH awards that year, in 1997. And it maybe implies the region covered is Hyderabad, a city larger than City of Los Angeles, which recognizes I think dozens of new Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments each year, overlapping or in addition to the historic sites recognized by the U.S. within the city each year. --Doncram (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see Heritage structures in Hyderabad, India. Hyderabad has about 150 designated heritage buildings, designated during 1996 to 2005, including the palace of the Nizam of Hyderabad (designated in 1996) and Aziz Bagh (designated in 1997). The list-article needs development, and I am currently fixing it up some, and there is some confusion (including that Aziz Bagh is clearly listed in 1997 but does not appear--or at least not under the same name--in a HUDA list in 2006 which seems like it should be the summary of all the separate yearly lists), but IMO every one of these heritage sites is pretty clearly Wikipedia notable. I may try to make a table and merge two overlapping sections in the list-article. These are places like the historic high court building of Andra Pradesh, etc., appearing to me to be equivalent to U.S. National Historic Landmarks. --Doncram (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Doncram, reliability depends on the context of usage. We cannot brand a source into black-and-white and that is always implied to an extent; whenever we use the binary-classification.

  Suppose, I write a book about myself (and my family lineage) and publish a few copies through my next-door press;

  Is that reliable for supporting a claim that I was born in (say), 1976.

  Yeah; without attribution.

  Is that reliable for supporting the claim that my forefathers were the zamindars of the region?

  Maybe; but with attribution.

  Is that reliable for supporting the claim that my palatial abode has been among the finest examples of Indo-Saracenic architecture in Eastern India?

  Nope; plainly put. And, nothing needs to be seen.

  Is that a reliable source for proving the notability of my house/me/my lineage in absence of other sources?

  Never ever. And, nothing needs to be seen.

  We can use that as a source for relatively mundane claims iff the notability has been already established in the first place and by other sources.

  The INTACH Heritage Award (AP) is hardly a notable award to propel something to default notability. Any building of any size and more than 50 years of age can self-nominate for the award and the award targets the best conservation efforts.

  You have a weird sense of wiki-notability and having been subjected to sanctions in the past; you need to read WP:NOPAGE.

  I don't spot anything over regional dailies; post 2000 or so. ∯WBG^converse 15:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, User:Winged Blades of Godric, I don't particularly care, but IMO your comment verged over into domain of being a personal attack. You are invoking some past shite having nothing to do with this AFD as far as I can tell. And I did not create this Aziz Bagh article, I am instead contributing productively/positively to a discussion about an article created by someone else. But about articles I have created, I am batting approximately .999, seriously. I.e., out of tens of thousands of articles that I have created, there have been just a few random ones where I was mistaken about notability (perhaps for good reason) and where the article was deleted (and I probably agreed to it or proposed its deletion myself). --Doncram (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately. I generally prefer to preserve articles about heritage places. This is an unfortunate example of a building which has not been recognised by the government. I don't consider INTACH recognition to be notable as their recognition process is not selective and happens through local chapters. (Something like ASI list would be an example of what is truly notable). Other than government recognition, the biggest problem is the lack of coverage. I tried Hindi searches but results I am getting are not about the same building. The book about the building is self published which doesn't add much.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamLinker, it turns out it has been so recognized, see below. --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doncram: No, it is not a state protected building/site. Place of historical importance in a state are usually protected by the state government and the list for Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) is here list of state protected monuments in Andhra Pradesh (now Telengana) - Aziz Bagh is not part of this list. HUDA is an urban planning agency for Hyderabad. The adding of a structure to a "heritage list" by a local municipal agency is largely insignificant. The bigger problem is the lack of coverage about the building.--DreamLinker (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This mansion seems pretty clearly encyclopedic. On top of the citations currently in the article, It is discussed in depth on page 204 in, "A Guide to Architecture in Hyderabad, Deccan, India"[6], a manuscript written by MIT Research Librarian Omar Khalidi in 2009, who also cites, Hasanuddin Ahmad, Mahfil, (Hyderabad: Wila Academy, 1982), p. 153 (Hasanuddin Ahmad being the former owner). It was also declared a heritage building by the Hyderabad Municipal Administration and Urban Development in 2013.[7] Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thanks User:Smmurphy for your info; i added the 2013 official designation of Aziz Bagh as a heritage structure to the article. Some more from the MIT librarian-authored study should be added too. Note, so this is one of only a few officially designated heritage structures in Hyderabad city or metropolitan region, a huge area. I have edited a bit at Heritage structures in Hyderabad, India, please see, and note there is more development to do there. So Aziz Bagh was in a sort of top 10 list, i.e. within the first two batches of 5 places designated by the INTACH, Hyderabad awards, when that was making a private start in effect making nominations for wider recognition. Aziz Bagh is now (2013) officially one of the 166 heritage buildings designated by the government. The heritage structures list-article needs to be better integrated in covering the INTACH chapter's nominations and the finally designated places, and in linking to articles. I created at least one new stub article, for St. John's Church, Secunderabad, and found my way to make more than a few links, e.g. Makkah Masjid, Hyderabad. Based on the ones I can see, it appears that Aziz Bagh is among great company, and I presume that all 166 will be accepted as Wikipedia-notable. It would be nice to have some help from editors in Hyderabad, with access to more sources to develop these more quickly, but this is a start. --Doncram (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just posted notices about this AFD at an inactive WikiProject Hyderabad and also at the India noticeboard. --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think "officially designated heritage structure" counts for much, especially when the designation is by a local authority, and especially when the Indian land/property system is so corrupt. There is no standard for designation in India of which I am aware and it's bad enough that we seem to think US National Listings & UK Listed buildings are inherently notable without adding what will be hundreds of thousands of minor roadside Hindu temples etc if we pursue this line. We have too many stubs of this type, including of US stuff, without encouraging it further. If anything, we should be deleting WP:NHLE and WP:NRHP stub articles that rely almost entirely on their listing details, not adding more of the same from elsewhere. And, yes I am aware that this is one of 15 designated by the body in question at that particular time, not one of thousands. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you. Thank you for your understanding about India. Actually we don't have anything as "officially designated heritage structure". What we have is ASI list of national and state protected monuments (which would perhaps be the equivalent of National Registrar of Historic Buildings in US). Aziz Bagh is among neither of them, but rather in a list of heritage structures identified by a local municipal body. That counts for far less. That, coupled with the fact that there is hardly any coverage, is what makes me feel that this is not a particularly important building. There are many such 100+ year old havelis in India and I don't think every one of them would be notable.--DreamLinker (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure it is perfectly relevant to this discussion, but I would disagree that very many stub NHLE/NRHP articles are about subjects which are not encyclopedic. Similarly, I would disagree that there shouldn't be articles on hundreds of residential buildings in India (I would guess well over a thousand such structures are encyclopedic). Khalidi's manuscript includes about 100 "residential structures" in Hyderabad; even if an article were created on each of these, that would result in a relatively small number of articles given the age, size, and cultural importance of Hyderabad (Category:Houses in Paris contains a similar number of residential structures in that much smaller and younger city). Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am fine with articles on historic houses, but there should be some detailed independent coverage (otherwise I prefer merging them to a list). I don't think however that every house older than 100 years would be notable. About Aziz Bagh, Khalidi's manuscript is not a great source, as it relies on primary sources without critical analysis/verification. I do agree about the Western bias (There are many articles about historic places in London), but I think in this case the building itself is not particularly notable or has not been properly researched. On a historical note, I thought Paris (established ~ 1200s) is actually older than Hyderabad (established during the later Mughal period ~ 1550s)?--DreamLinker (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The INTACH award clearly qualifies it per WP:GEOFEAT. There aren't that many given out every year. Also note that only 151 buildings had been granted cultural heritage status by Hyderabad by 2013. In an historic city of nearly 7 million people that isn't very many at all. Lacking an official national built cultural heritage listing system for India, we have to rely on this sort of thing to establish notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Necrothesp:, I think the biggest problem is the lack of quality independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Just to clarify, "Lacking an official national built cultural heritage listing system for India" is not correct. We do have an official list of protected sites by state/national. The INTACH (which is a private NGO) award is given out by each local chapter (and there are many such chapters all over India). While I admire the work of INTACH (in my city, they do heritage walks, book exhibitions etc.), I don't think the local awards are significant, particularly given that the selection criteria is not transparent. About "buildings had been granted cultural heritage status by Hyderabad", this isn't exactly correct either. The HUDA (a local municipal agency) added these to a "heritage list", which is not the same as being granted heritage status by the state government.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I know. That's why I said "Hyderabad" and not "Telangana"! I maintain that this is enough for notability. I would be very surprised if such a house in the UK, for instance, would not be a listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a large bungalow with some embellishments. The only thing it would be listed in would be the local A-Z. Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A Palladian villa? I can only conclude that you don't know a lot about heritage listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a few tiny ionic columns and rather unimpressive facade make that bungalow a palladian villa, then I guess you are right. Cesdeva ^(talk) 16:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant coverage ([8] and [9]) satisifies WP:NBUILD.--Pontificalibus 16:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of these are the same article (seems like one is a reprint of the other).--DreamLinker (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apolgies for the wrong link. For the avoidance of doubt, these are sources I beleive contain signficant coverage i.e. "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material": [10], [11], [12]. The first is an entire article, and the other two both contain paragraphs that address the subject directly and detail why the building is notable. These are both more than a trivial mention, which is exemplified by the NYT source which while mentioning some details, does so in passing in the context of a number of places the author visited that week.--Pontificalibus 11:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Foster

Cecil Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A BLP with just one trivial ref. Google showing little I can find. Tagged for notability for over a year. Appears promotional. Szzuk (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As always, the notability test for writers is not just the ability to technically verify that they and their work exist — it requires evidence of distinctions, such as winning a notable literary award and/or receiving enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG. (And no, having been on the judging panel of a notable literary award is not a notability criterion.) But even on a ProQuest search for older media coverage that wouldn't Google, I wasn't able to find anything approaching what needs to be shown — I got a lot of hits where he was the bylined author of coverage about other things, which is not the kind of sourcing we're looking for, and virtually none where he was the subject of coverage written by other people, which is the kind of sourcing that's actually required. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt an article about him from having to be referenced much better than this, but I simply can't find the kind of referencing he needs to have. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Biographical information here and here. Blackness and Modernity won the 2008 John Porter Award from the Canadian Sociological Association[13] and has reviews including [14][15][16][17]. Independence has reviews including [18][19]. Has reviews for other works. If a case can't be made for WP:NACADEMIC (Professor but not named chair; 122+48+45 cites[20]), then meets NAUTHOR. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of the "award-winning" criterion, we don't care about just any random award that exists — a literary award only makes its winners notable if the media care enough about that award to report its winners and nominees as news, and not if it can only be "referenced" to its own self-published website about itself. The existence or non-existence of journalism, in reliable sources, about the award is what tells us whether the award is notable or not. Bearcat (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Doesn't meet ANYBIO#1 or NBOOK#2, but is evidence against ACADEMIC#1 and #2 (according to this -- not necessarily unbiased, but expert -- it's the top award in Canada for a sociologist). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added two newspapers profiles to the page. the problem, an unfortunately familiar one, is that Nom appears to have relied on a google search. However, when dealing with a writer who was publishing back in the 90s, it is necessary to look beyond a simple google search. More htan enough reviews found in my search to make this a keeper. Page needs a lot of work. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HEY I brought the page up to a a very minimal level level; it remains a page in need of an editor. However, it iss clear that there are more than enough profiles, review to pass WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACADEMIC # 6., and WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WP:HEY. Thanks E.M.Gregory. /Julle (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I agree with the reasons of those wanting to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Salunkhe

Subhash Salunkhe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to meet biographical or academic notability guidelines. He was cited in a BBC News article about a child mortality spike, but the coverage was not primarily about him. The other two sources display error messages for me so I cannot analyse them. Opting for AFD over PROD as I have tried searching in Marathi and Hindi but I am in no way an expert in those languages so input community would be appreciated. SITH (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it very difficult to believe that someone who has been director general of health services of a state with a population of over 100 million would not be notable. In English I can only find sources that do little more than verify his position, but I don't read Marathi or Hindi. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of coverage. While Director General is an important post in many civil service departments, I am not finding any reports about the person. He is quoted in many places of course, but nothing in detail seems to be available. In general, civil servants do not get the same media limelight as elected representatives in India, as they usually work behind the scenes.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. No real consensus to keep but also no strong consensus for deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeway

Lifeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I haven't been able to find any sources that would allow this to be expanded to any more than a dictionary definition. The term seems to be relatively frequently used in anthropological and archaeological scholarship, but I haven't been able to find any significant coverage that discusses the concept rather than simply using the term. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If we could find evidence in reliable sources that this is genuinely used to any real degree to mean 'way of life' as the article claims, then the most appropriate redirect may be to Lifestyle (sociology) – I didn't find such evidence but it may be out there. Otherwise we're left with an unsourced dictionary definition for a word that other dictionaries don't yet include. --Michig (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Basically makes its own case for deletion, but yeah, absent sources there's nothing to keep here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: temporarily struck !vote. The article is completely different now and demands closer examination (which I cannot do now). Certainly merits a relist at least. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:NEO. While this is definitely a term that is seeing some minimal use, I wasn't able to find anyone talking about the term itself, rather than merely using it. If it gains traction, then it might be suitable for an article at some point in the future, but for now it's pretty much impossible for it to be more than a dictionary definition. Lowercaserho (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to neutral based on RebeccaGreen's findings. Not enough yet to make me switch to keep, but enough that I no longer feel confident supporting delete. Lowercaserho (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's not that new, actually. The earliest use I have found so far is in the book An Apache Life-Way: The Economic, Social, and Religious Institutions of the Chiricahua Indians by Morris Edward Opler, first published in 1941. I can't see anything in this book to indicate whether the author used an existing term, or coined it. I have found an explanation in the Encyclopedia of Bioethics (in the Gale Reference Library), which, in an entry on ' Native American Religions, Bioethics in', says "In contrast [to religion], the term lifeway emphasizes the road of life as indigenous people see it. Such a perspective can be associated with the concept "worldview," a distinct way of thinking about the cosmos and of evaluating life's actions in terms of those views. The Dakota/Sioux lawyer and professor of history Vine Deloria, Jr., speaks thus of an Indian ethical view of the universe: "In the moral universe all activities, events, and entities are related, and consequently it does not matter what kind of existence an entity enjoys, for the responsibility is always there for it to participate in the continuing creation of reality" (Deloria, p. 63). This view understands all life forms as having purpose, as being related, and as being cocreators of the world they occupy." Later, it says "Thus, the terms lifeway, synthetic ethics, and bioethics are used in this entry to suggest the wholeness or totality of a good life that is lived in thoughtful relationship to the seasons and the living bioregion." [21] There's also an explanation in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology, pages 286-289 especially.[22] I will keep looking. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Userify. Still requires more work and proper citations. Nevertheless, it appears interesting and wiki-worthyMgbo120 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, I have had a go at revising the article based on the sources I mentioned above, and some others. I will leave it to others to assess it now. Pinging Arms & Hearts, Michig, Rhododendrites, Lowercaserho, Mgbo120. I will not be offended if you still consider that it should be deleted or userfied. It could still use input from specialists in the fields of anthropology, sociology, archaeology, etc - not my areas of expertise. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, RebeccaGreen, for your work on the article. I think it's a more marginal case than I'd realised, but ultimately I'm still not convinced it's notable. The sources you've added show that the term is used somewhat frequently in reliable sources, but using a term does not amount to the reliable coverage we require. The two most promising sources, the Encyclopedia of Bioethics and Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology, do contain some discussion of the concept and its valences, but do so mostly as a precursor to discussions of specific forms of lifeways and don't really discuss the concept on its own terms beyond a couple of sentences in each. They're also both by the same author (John Grim) and per WP:GNG "Multiple publications from the same author [...] are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability," so we're left with a single source that contains something approaching significant coverage – which in my view is just not enough. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still seems to be synonymous with Way of life to me, and an article about a term for a concept that we already have covered rather than about a distinct concept. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for any action. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Keeley

Angelina Keeley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:NBIO [23]. Only claim to fame is being on Survivor, which does not make you automatically notable. Also dubious sources such as another wiki. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added some references from outside sources. Greggens (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to say the same thing. Being on a reality show isn’t notability. There’s more to it than that. Trillfendi (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Creator here -- many Survivor contestants have been classified as notable enough for pages. She was a major contestant (3rd place, most confessionals) and meets GNG. Longdashes (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has notability outside of Survivor, which is covered in the article. Spengouli (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced and person has coverage outside of Survivor. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Survivor: David vs. Goliath that she has done nothing outside of the show due to notability requirements. I give a strong support to merge the show article. ApprenticeFan work 04:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Janakan. RL0919 (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saji Paravoor

Saji Paravoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails GNG. Of the handful of articles I could find[24][25][26][27][28][29] all appear to be obituaries. The subject directed one film as far as I can tell. Even looking under his other name "Sanjeev N.R.", there are no significant hits. Since the article was created in March 2016, around when the subject died, it seems as though the article was created as a memorial, which is not what we should be doing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both N.R. Sanjeev and Saji Paravoor to Janakan. The film is notable, but he does not appear to have enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC, and does not meet WP:DIRECTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ShareNow

ShareNow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability, poorly written and the contributors seem to have a personal connection to the topic Abcmaxx (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see how the nominator reached the conclusion that the contributors have a personal connection to the topic. Regardless, I agree that the article fails the test of notability. A really paranoid android (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was started by Davidingram (talk · contribs) and according to this website "David Ingram" was a co-founder. Џ 04:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Note This nomination was not transcluded for discussion and was missing the AfD Template. I have corrected both, please use the time of this comment as the listing time when closing. Monty₈₄₅ 02:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG for nowMgbo120 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. 3 out of 4 sources are reliable enough for it to exist. However, I would move it userspace and copyedit. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kokoro: The Heart Within

Kokoro: The Heart Within (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find a single source to substantiate any of the claims made on this article about awards won or nominated for, and I did everything I could think of to do so. I searched the Emmy Awards site for Kokoro, Heart Within, Scott Featherstone, and just Featherstone, and came up with utterly nothing. Rotten Tomatoes has nothing for the box set, or for the series as a whole on a search. Newspapers.com and Google produce TV schedules and sales listings, but no reviews or critical commentary. JSTOR results are muddied by the fact that "kokoro" exists as a Shinto concept outside of this title, but even adding Featherstone just produced false positives. Zero reliable results for searching " kokoro "gold medal" "new york film festival" " - the only thing that comes up is LDSFilm.com which borrows substantially from the author's own site. There's not even an IMDB page for it.

Tldr; this exists but isn't as notable or award-winning as it claims to be, and in the absence of reliable in-depth independent sources, we can't maintain an article - especially considering the inflated claims of noteworthiness. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I haven't really tried to evaluate whether this meets the inclusion bar, but the Emmy nomination (which is probably not sufficient in and of itself) is real. Art Wilder and Scott Featherstone received a 1994 News & Documentary Emmy Award nomination for Outstanding Individual Achievement in a Craft: Cinematographers for their work on Kokoro, as noted in the press release (p. 20) announcing that year's nominees. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's so bizarre. I tried like a dozen different searches on the Emmy website and came up with nothing. I guess it doesn't take the smaller Emmies into account, only the Primetime ones? In any case, I don't think one lesser-known Emmy nom for cinematography can really salvage the notability claim. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A list item in an AP Wire story on PBS nominees: [30], otherwise generally mentioned as Scott Featherstone's sole claim to fame in discussions of his other work, e.g. "this trite melodrama from local filmmaker Scott Featherstone (the Emmy-nominated documentary "Kokoro: The Heart Within")" [31]. There is a recommendation to use the documentary in teaching, but it's at a think tank's site: [32]. Overall it doesn't add up to sufficient notability to keep, but willing to reconsider if significant coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I think even if we want to say that minor emmys nominations shouldn't confer notability (which I don't personally agree with), I would say that a minor emmy nomination coupled with prizes at film festivals would. matt91486 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt91486: How did you verify those prizes? Bakazaka (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I haven't been able to find any reliable list of 1995ish New York Film Festival awards. There are several different types of awards that the NYFF gives out; assuming good faith that this film received the claimed awards, what kind of award they were would make a big difference in determining whether they contribute directly to notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Anton

James Anton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An article created in 2007. All of the sources (Allmusic, Discogs, IMDb) are user-generated content and none is WP:RS. A search turned up nothing RS. WP:AGF, but I could find no evidence that he has worked with any of the musicians named in the article. Non-notable session musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician, no claim to notability other than by association.--Pontificalibus 12:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the reasons stated.Vmavanti (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Graduation (album). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk and Hot Girls

Drunk and Hot Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Contains unreliable source(s), including a copyright infringing inline YouTube citation as well as original research, particularly in regards to the YOLO claim. Already explained at length within Graduation album article. Much on the background info is dedicated to a different topic, backed by OR. Ascribe4 (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This already had an AfD a couple months ago and the result was no consensus. Trillfendi (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Most of the citations are passing mentions, but 1, 2, 3 and 4 single out the song - admittedly within list-type music journalism articles - for its dreadfulness. Perhaps more notorious than notable, but IMO it just scrapes through WP:NSONG. Narky Blert (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I’m going to say the same thing I said last time: the only “notability” of this song as that some regard it as one of Kanye West’s worst songs. That is just not notability; it’s only a matter of opinion. Maybe if Rolling Stone or Billboard called it that, it’d be a different story but it doesn’t even meet NSONG because it never charted (nor was it a single!). People just like to nitpick out of boredom. Redirect this thing to Good Article Graduation (album) and get it over with. Trillfendi (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect painlessly to Graduation (album) per Trillfendi. --Lockley (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per my comment on the previous AfD. Aoba47 (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - This whole article reads like WP:CRUFT so not seeing anything worthy of being merged.—NØ 21:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It is not solid, but I am satisfied that a rough consensus exists to keep this. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheOdd1sOut

TheOdd1sOut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Was deleted in September and was endorsed at deletion review. The original AfD had some IP socking going on. I declined the draft in November for being substantially similar (I participated in the deletion review and the page looked very familiar.) It was moved out of draftspace by a new editor earlier today, I'm not sure if it was still at AfC or not from the history. I checked the diffs between the version which was moved and it was almost the same as the edition I declined at AfC. I tagged with a WP:G4 which was removed by Szzuk (talk · contribs) saying this needed to go to AfD. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I still think it qualifies for WP:G4. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I removed the CSD tag because the first AfD wasn't a categorical outcome. I'm neutral. Szzuk (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Add. Referring to the first AfD; if you remove the votes of the IP editors and the 'Per above' vote then the simple vote count from established editors is 3 Delete and 3 Keep. I just don't think this is CSD territory. Szzuk (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfD went to deletion review and was endorsed there, and this is a substantially similar article. I just don't know why WP:G4 wouldn't apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per my watchlist, the article under consideration was just moved back to draftspace. Unsure of what the proper next step is. SportingFlyer T·C 04:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been moved back per my request at WP:RM/TR. Given that he is a web comedian there may be more issues. Szzuk (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer: Moved back. Technically, moving it is allowed (WP:AFDEQ), but I moved it back to allow the discussion to continue. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @DannyS712: Thanks, I saw that but wasn't sure if it included moving to draft space. SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep? Or draft it if needed. The subject does meet notability guidelines, being covered by Rare, Market Insider, Publisher's Weekly, Collider (reliable?), Fansided, Slate, not to mention the coverage of the most recent YouTube Rewind which he took part in. Notability is there, though the article doesn't look particularly good, what with all the unreliable and primary sources. Certainly not a speedy situation. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy with this being moved back to draftspace. It's definitely a speedy situation, though, because it's substantially similar to the version that was deleted only a couple months ago. Also, the Market Insider source is a press release, Culturess/Fansided is just a list, Slate is more about the author of the subject than the subject. I don't think notability is clear. SportingFlyer T·C 22:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources seem good enough, and his videos can always be cited. unsigned comment added by ANDREWs13 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Rename to TheOdd1sOut as he is known more by his online name rather than his real name. As well, the original article was titled with his online name. Handoto (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look that other Wikipedia's articles about YouTubers are titled by their real name (e.g. its Alex Clark: Alex Clark (animator)). Also, this is Wikipedia articule, not your private blog, so stop acting like boss of this page. Polski Robert (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey buddy, look at PewDiePie, Jacksepticeye, Markiplier, RiceGum, MrBeast, iDubbbz, h3h3Productions, JonTron, etc. These are all YouTubers not titled by their real name because they are very well known by their Internet pseudonyms. The same applies here. As well, each time this article was created, it was created by the name TheOdd1sOut and there has already been a discussion on moving the page to his real name. I've also had to remove disruptive edits you make to the page. This is not your blog, so leave it to the community. Handoto (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well sorry that I wrote "I created this page and have no idea what the heck happened to it [...]". Oh wait, that was you. So don't call me bloger, because you are acting like it was your private page. Polski Robert (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want to keep discussing, let's please move this to my talk page, so we don't cluster the discussion here. The page formatting was incorrect at the time. Handoto (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. The subject does meet notability guidelines, and the sources are good. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't commented on the sources/this passing WP:GNG since I nominated this as a technical WP:G4 deletion, but suffice to say I think WP:G4 still applies without any significant improvement to the sourcing that would get it past WP:GNG. I have no idea how you'd close this one, so good luck to the closer! SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. At the time that this was recreated it was certainly similar enough to the deleted version for a G4 speedy deletion. Now it is (just, in my view) different enough to warrant discussion at AfD, so I think whether or not it could have been deleted as a G4 is now moot. --Michig (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Undid my closure per the nominator's request on the talk page that he wants this to be either relisted or closed by an administrator. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have had a look at the sources here, and they do not seem to include substantive discussion of the subject in reliable independent verifiable published sources. References that show he is his mom's son (notability is not inherited), references to his high school newspaper, references to his twitter account, references to his Youtube channel ratings, and the occasional altogether dead link (iFunny and Crixeo— if this article had recently been genuinely rewritten, why are there dead links already?) do not paint a picture of real world notability. The "keep" votes would do well to point specifically at which sources they believe certify the subject as notable. I do not see them, and what I do see is much too thin to qualify. A loose noose (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alternative hip hop. RL0919 (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental hip hop

Experimental hip hop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Renominated as the first nomination gave way to virtually no discussion whatsoever apart from a sock.
Misleading article almost completely devoid of sources. The primary basis for the page is an AllMusic entry describing a different subgenre. Aside from that, as it is, article is original research. Ascribe4 (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to alternative rap Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to alternative hip hop. By definition, hip hop that is experimental will all be experimental in different ways, and hence not a coherent genre. This term is used quite widely ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37]), but it seems largely synonymous with (or part of) alternative hip hop, rather than a distinct concept. --Michig (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I did just find a more convincing source here. I think the question here is whether we can find multiple decent sources that define it in the same way. Otherwise the article is just about a term that is used to describe various diverse hip hop artists. --Michig (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to YNW Melly. Randykitty (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Personalities

Mixed Personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart, contains unreliable source(s). See:WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Ascribe4 (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being as it just came out less than, what, 24 hours ago? this is an unmitigated WP:TOOSOON. Who knows whether this song will flop or succeed. Trillfendi (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to YNW Melly - I have not created but have edited this page, though I can see it currently doesn't meet the criteria required for WP:NSONG. I believe it should be redirected to YNW Melly's Wikipedia page because the edit history should be preserved since if it manages to chart then combining the position(s) with the information already on the page would meet the criteria. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Worth noting that I created this article. This song will surely chart and the music video, also notable, is trending at #3 on YouTube at the moment. The argument that it came out less than 24 hours ago is also weak, it would mean putting up 7 Rings for contention too. Delay the deletion for at least a week and we'll see where the song is on the Billboard 100. Nice4What (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ascribe4 (talk)

Could argue that the music video's trends are what make the song already notable. Nice4What (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need I remind you it hasn’t even been 48 hours.... Who the heck knows how a music video will affect it yet. It’s too soon to even have chart data.Trillfendi (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect My crystal ball says this will likely chart, but if it doesn't, it should stay a redirect unless there's another case for notability (simply "trending" doesn't count). Џ 01:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nottingham College. Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central College Nottingham

Central College Nottingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This entry should either by deleted or redirected to Nottingham College. The organisation itself no longer exists and this page is essentially duplicate information. Jamesmacwhite (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Central College Nottingham Jamesmacwhite (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: As described, this college has merged to become Nottingham College. Shouldn't be hard, the Nottingham College article already contains most (all?) of the information from here. Then redirect as attempted already. The alternative, rewriting this article from a historical perspective is undesirable since it lacks notability as a no-longer-existing institution and because frankly it is a bit of a mess right now. Lithopsian (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: It makes sense to merge/redirect and simply blank the existing content on this entry. This is case with the New College Nottingham article, and there's no reason to be any different. All the heritage college entries i.e. South Nottingham College, Castle College Nottingham, New College Nottingham all redirect. This one should as well. There are references (albeit small) to the former college names on the Nottingham College entry, which should be fine at this point. Jamesmacwhite (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for the reasons given by users Lithopsian and Jamesmacwhite above. Ntmamgtw (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Note: This nomination was not transcluded for discussion and was missing the AfD Template. I have corrected both, please use the time of this comment as the listing time when closing. Monty₈₄₅ 03:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Page appears to be in line with WP:SCHOOLMgbo120 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Westerfeld

Kurt Westerfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seven-year-old declined PROD. Still fails WP:NBIO; WP:BEFORE reveals he's a guy with a job, that's it. "Coverage" is mere mentions or worse (book acknowledgement?). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NOT. A really paranoid android (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Bone

Deborah Bone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be notable for a single event only, namely being the subject of a single song. See WP:SINGLEEVENT.
(Note that receiving an MBE is not notable. See here and here.) I guess some of the information in the article could be merged into Disco 2000 (song). Chrisahn (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge into Disco 2000 (song), as suggested by nominator. I agree the subject is not notable other than for being the subject of this song, so there's no reason to have a separate article. However, it seems worth having a little more info about her role in inspiring the lyrics than Disco 2000 (song) has at present, so some of the material could be merged into a new section, analogous to Common People (song)#Inspiration (but shorter). Qwfp (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being notable for being the subject of a top-ten song is hardly a reason for deletion. The subject is also a Member of the Order of the British Empire, for something unrelated to the song. The first discussion cited by the nominator confirms that such honours "do, of course, contribute to notability"; while the second says of an MBE "Of course having one may contribute to notability: notability is a spectrum, not either/or". The article has citations from multiple, reliable sources, about both of these aspects of the subject's life and achievements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the selected quotes give a slightly misleading impression of their author's intent. Here's the complete quote from this discussion about the question 'Is an MBE recipient notable?': "No, the MBE (or OBE) does not confer inherent notability. Consensus is, however, that the CBE (and above) does. Any honours do, of course, contribute to notability." And here are two quotes from this discussion about the question 'Does an MBE confer notability?'. Quote 1: "No, absolutely not. According to the UK Government, there are over 100,000 living members of the order today." Quote 2: "That's too many for every MBE recipient to merit an article purely because of having one. (Of course having one may contribute to notability: notability is a spectrum, not either/or.)" -- Chrisahn (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You prove my point; since nobody is claiming that Bone is notable "purely because of having" an MBE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we agree that an MBE may contribute to notability. My point was that the selected quotes gave a slightly misleading impression. Thus the complete quotes. -- Chrisahn (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable for her contribution to the development of mental health provision in the UK. In my travels I see many male health professionals with articles on wikipedia, establishing for me that notable healthcare contributions and careers are considered notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tagishsimon: Could you give a few examples, i.e. links to articles? It would probably be helpful if we could compare their contributions and careers. Thanks! -- Chrisahn (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not comparative but a spectrum. Subject is notable for her "pioneering work in mental health" including Brainbox per the adequate sources for WP notability.Littleolive oil (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Littleolive oil: Does 'The Brainbox' still exist? The website http://www.thebrainbox.org.uk is currently offline. -- Chrisahn (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep combination of pioneering work in healthcare AND relation to an iconic song, keep her as a person please. If facts were merged to the song and to health care, - where would a redirect go. We have room for her, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some more details why I don't think Bone passes WP:Notability, particularly the requirement of significant coverage: While it is true that several major news sources published an article about Deborah Bone in early 2015 (a few days after her death), no source (except for The Comet, a local newspaper) ran more than this one article, and the content of all these articles is almost identical. See [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] (The second article published by The Comet a few days later is a short text about the reception of its article: [47].) It appears that most of the sources basically copied the content from The Comet. (Roughly half of them mention The Comet as a source.) While the meaning of 'significant coverage' is deliberately left vague by WP:N, I think a single article is not significant (even if there are several slightly different copies of it).

About Bone's achievements: The article mentions 'The Brainbox' and 'Step2'. I looked for more information about these projects. 'The Brainbox' seems to be a small company offering a single product. It's unclear if it still exists. Its website http://www.thebrainbox.org.uk is currently offline. The Internet Archive last indexed it in November 2018: [48]. 'Step2' appears to be a local and rather specialized service. Its homepage says: "Step2 is an Early Intervention Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service for children and young people in Hertfordshire aged 0-19." The notability of 'The Brainbox' and 'Step2' appears to be rather low.

On a more personal note, I'd like to add that I don't want to hurt or offend anyone by nominating the article for deletion. I don't doubt Deborah Bone was a nice person. I just don't think she passes the criteria of WP:N.

As the nominator, I can't add a wp:!vote here, but I'd like to add that I would be in favor of a Merge / Redirect to Disco 2000 (song), as Qwfp said above, as opposed a simple Delete. -- Chrisahn (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisahn: See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Miscellaneous advice. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: Thanks a lot! I changed my !vote to a comment. -- Chrisahn (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with a side-order of fish sauce. How does anyone with an MBE warrant a CSD A7? (And if your response to that is "An MBE doesn't mean notable" then you do not understand CSD A7). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I read several pages about CSD before I suggested the speedy deletion, and I didn't find anything supporting the assumption that an MBE gives someone "noteworthiness/importance/significance". But that doesn't matter anyway, because it looks like you don't understand the difference between CSD and AfD (hint: this is an AfD discussion), and you don't know how AfD discussions work. Here are a few quotes that may help you. WP:AFD: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. ... Please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." WP:REPEAT: "Avoid repeating statements previously made in AfD discussions." Enjoy your fish sauce! -- Chrisahn (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Detailed obituaries in the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Indy, NME and elsewhere and so she easily passes WP:BASIC. No-one, not even the nominator, thinks this should be deleted and so we shouldn't be having this discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Chrome version history

Google Chrome version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested prod. WP:NOTCHANGELOG explictly states Wikipedia is not a repository for software change logs and similar items. All the sourcing is primary - there is no secondary discussion of the significance of each version. Wtshymanski (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This provides a very useful source of information which would take considerably more time to find elsewhere
• Keep There may not be any secondary sources in the article, but they certainly WP:NEXIST. I just searched Newspapers.com for ' "Google Chrome" version', and over 1200 results came up, from 2008-2018. Some are syndicated stories published in multiple outlets, but even taking duplicates out, there is plenty of SIGCOV just in ordinary newspapers, let alone reviews in computer magazines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:IINFO, where extensive logs of software updates are explicitly included in this criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as one of the things that Wikipedia is not, by policy, as indicated in bold type at WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Bakazaka (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Just because sources exist about something, doesn't mean we must have an article.--Pontificalibus 08:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Google Chrome. Vorbee (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Google Chrome where readers will reasonably expect a summary of its history in the relevant section but currently that has been spun off into this page. That's our editing policy per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as a mimimized table to not be a giant eyesore by default for people who aren't interested. -Pmffl (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The table is excessive detail. Some prose describing major milestones would be more appropriate.--Pontificalibus 18:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, but in practice it can become too bloated, like the Chromium history. Having a table that's hidden by default is better than a giant wall of text. -Pmffl (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since this and the Firefox history page were nominated at the same time, it's worth considering other browser articles too. I took a quick look at some of these. The Microsoft Edge and Vivaldi pages have changelog tables that are a similar copy-paste of release notes. As stated above, I advocate for keeping these tables but making them minimized (collapsed) by default. I also agree with others that the info can be pared down to major releases, rather than a copy-paste of vendor's release notes.

The Pale Moon article also has a table. Today I changed it to collapsed by default. Here's a permalink in case it changes. (I would prefer to integrate the legend and possibly some other changes to the table, but I haven't made any edits to it besides the collapsing default. The content can be trimmed as well.) For now, I just wanted to share this for discussion purposes. That way it can be more consistent for browser articles. -Pmffl (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:COLLAPSE says content should not be collapsed by default as it creates accessibility problems. I don't believe collapsing these tables is a viable alternative to deleting them.-Pontificalibus 07:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. From that MOS: "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g. several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats)." So a collapsed version history table could supplement a brief prose section of browser history. The Pale Moon article is a good example of this. -Pmffl (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:IINFO. I too searched Newspapers.com for the search listed above. Of the first 5 articles, only one briefly mentions new features but they are basic things like opening tabs and security fixes, nothing along the lines of the list (from the Owensburg, KY Messenger - Inquirer 19 Dec, 2011). Aurornisxui (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Should be kept as it is notable softwere and merging it with the Google Chrome article would be a eyesore for most people who read that article Abote2 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abote2 Do you have any non primary references that deal specifically with what this article is about - Google Chrome version history? Aurornisxui (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Abote2. Google Chrome itself is notable, but software editions are unlikely to be, especially if the only sourcing is from Google itself. Ajf773 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I love these version history charts, please don't delete them. Especially the Chrome one because there is simply not another source to get all the information in one place like this. Google does not really publish one !! !0I0000100110010101101110! !! (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Google Chrome. Vulphere 15:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a reminder..."delete and merge" is not a valid voting option. If content is merged the source page cannot be deleted, as doing so removes the contribution history and renders the merged content a copyright violation under Wikipedia's licensing. Merging is followed by redirecting (by default, so "redirect and merge"/"merge and redirect" is redundant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable software; Google Chrome would become difficult to scroll if merged.  samee  converse  09:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is really just a "sub-article" of Google Chrome, rather than an independent topic in its own right. I think if the primary topic is notable, spin-out articles on aspects of that topic should be treated leniently. This is useful factual information, and Wikipedia is not Paper. SJK (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would support merging if the article was not this long. Separate article would be needed. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator If any particular change was significant, and marked a major milestone of the product development, then it should be desscribed in the main article. But themonthly bug fixes releases are just a change log and out of the mandate for the Wikipedia. We don't have bus schedules, either, and those are far more important that change logs. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woodmeister Master Builders

Woodmeister Master Builders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT.--Pontificalibus 11:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even throwing in this Worcester Telegram piece [49] there just isn't the level of coverage required by WP:CORPDEPTH to justify keeping this article. Lots of local and well-regarded businesses aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. This appears to be one of them. Bakazaka (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution (term)

Evolution (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Quite a straightforward WP:DICDEF, with no content beyond what you might expect in an inadequate dictionary's entry for the term. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. More than a dictdef, touches on varieties and subtleties. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect seems better. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• • In much the same way a dictionary would. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Absolutely, 100% clearly a dicdef. I have no idea what article Xxanthippe is reading, because it's not this one. GliderMaven (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's pretty much an exemplary dictionary definition. The intended job of this page, minus a bit of verbiage, is being done by Evolution (disambiguation). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia has been weakening WP:DICDEF for years in cases where the mere usage of a word has become notable per se, such as Fuck, Cuckservative, and Democrat In Name Only. I am not a fan of this trend. However, if reliable sources could be provided for such notability, a case could be made for keeping this article. As it stands, I would either Delete or do away with WP:DICDEF and admit definitions in Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pretty straightforward example of DICDEF. Wikipedia is not a DIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete WP:DICDEF Any non biological meaning of evolution is already covered in the field of study for example Chemical Evolution, Economic Evolution Aurornisxui (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect a DICDEF that does nothing that can't be done on Evolution (disambiguation). Several of the entries may need to be moved to that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]