Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 December	2 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. There was no support for deleting this article, and much more support for keeping it in its current form than for redirecting or merging. This was a (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by One Direction

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

One Direction discography is already of Featured Article status and obviously perfectly sufficient as is. I don’t see what this article adds to the One Direction article series that isn’t addressed there or individual album articles. This should be either deleted or redirected to One Direction discography. Trillfendi (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to One Direction discography as existing article is sufficient. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list contains many songs that were not part of an album or songs from albums that were not released as singles. It is not a redundant list by any means. Spiderone 17:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to One Direction discography. You can BOLDLY redirect without a deletion discussion, but since we're here... Catrìona (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I should’ve thought of that.Trillfendi (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I work a lot in the music content area, and I’ve held WikiProject-level discussions to try to figure out when exactly it is acceptable for bands/musicians to have these “list of songs” type article spinouts. There really wasn’t much of a consensus other than a vague “if the subject doesn’t have many song articles, it’s probably not necessary, and if they do, then it may be appropriate”. Without any clear criteria or consensus, I don’t really feel comfortable !voting to eliminate these lists unless a group only has one or two notable songs with articles. As such, this list doesn’t seem like the ideal type to be eliminating here, as this group has a larger number of notable songs. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, rather than just targeting this one article, a general discussion should be held to see whether there is consensus that these lists of songs are not notable, full stop. At the moment, it seems a bit vague. If you look at the category that the One Direction list is contained in, you will see similar lists for more than 100 other bands and artists, and that's just the British ones! There are more than 200 such lists for American artists and over 50 for Indian ones that would all need to be considered for deletion also. Spiderone 13:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t target the article. I just didn’t see what it added of any substantial value that the discography lacked. To me, is obviously different so it depends.Trillfendi (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you redirect to the discography, then you lose the A-Z listing of every One Direction song that this article currently provides. If you merge, then the article will be too long and people will be moaning that it should be separated anyway. One Direction is/was a major pop group and so it makes sense to have the two separate articles and this is in line with other major artists. I could understand a merge if we were talking about a small time artist with only one or two albums but not in this case. Spiderone 21:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these "list of songs recorded by ___" articles tend to be allowed so long as the band has recorded a lot of material, which One Direction has done. It is useful for navigational purposes and is not the same as the discography article. It is well sourced and I see no reason to delete or redirect this article nor do I see it as unencyclopaedic in any way. See here and here for just two examples where the discography and the list of songs recorded coexist successfully; there appears to be a strong consensus that such articles are notable and can exist well alongside the normal discography lists. Spiderone 13:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I’m concerned, the smattering of 5 (!) songs that aren’t in the discography article could simply be added as another table (and they aren’t even notable songs.)Trillfendi (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an A-Z listing of every One Direction song. It is something that is often done for major artists. Spiderone 21:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is time that someone referred to a policy; WP:LISTN says "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; I believe that this list meets LISTN. I also think that it is well sourced and, with over 400 page views per day average, I think that we'd be losing something if it were deleted. Spiderone 21:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous year One Direction discography also had an average of 400+ daily views so really an opportunity cost. And if “PopSirens” and “UnRealityTV” are now considered good sources I’m ready to yank my hair.Trillfendi (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spiderone. A discography is not a list of songs, it is list of recordings released and serves a different purpose. Many artists have both kinds of list. As more information comes out this article could possibly expanded by songs recorded by 1D, but not released. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would take less than 10 minutes to just merge them in the other article.Trillfendi (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see a number of songs on the list that were not issued as singles, so the list seems appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before the edit conflict (that’s what I hate about wikitext) I pointed out that since there are only 5 songs not issued as singles why not create a separate table and just put it in the discography. 5 songs, people! Five!Trillfendi (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because (1) songs that aren't issued as singles are not technically part of a discography, (2) that would eliminate the information of the other songs, some of which may be notable enough to generate articles in the future, and (3) there is no need to do so since the current situation is fine. Rlendog (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Category:Lists of songs recorded by British artists lists of recorded songs are highly prevalent on Wikipedia and would certainly be notable for a very well known musical group. Ajf773 (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s like you people aren’t even listening to what I’m saying.Trillfendi (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears maybe you’re guilty of the same and haven’t been reading your responses either? As I mentioned above, you’ve stumbled upon a bigger situation that the community hasn’t come to a consensus on how to handle, and until it does, people are reluctant to make a call on this specific article. We probably need to come up with some general guidelines on when it’s acceptable to have a song list, or what info a song list should contain beyond what a discography article covers as to not be seen as redundant. (Writing credits, performance credits, etc). Sergecross73 msg me 22:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is some of you are trying to make this about the “broader” lack of consensus on some other page which has nothing to do with this page and why I proposed deletion or redirection. This is about this page as it relates to One Direction, not all list of recordings articles.Trillfendi (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s seems you’re not quite understanding what I’m trying to say. Think of it this way. Purely hypothetically speaking, let’s say there was a lack of community consensus on how to interpret the GNG. Let’s say half the community feels 3 sources are required to be notable, while half think 5 is required. Then someone nominates an article with only 4 sources for deletion. Many would say “let’s decide on whether 3 or 5 is the requirement before we decide the fate of this article”. That is more or less what you’ve done here. I’m not you did anything wrong, I’m just explaining why people are reacting the way they are - unbeknownst to you, you kinda stumbled into an issue that is bigger than this one article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I err on the side of deletion in discussions, but in this case I can't find a reason to support the reasons for nomination you have presented. Ajf773 (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a discography and a list of songs recorded by.... are two different lists. It is normal for a major artist/group to have both. The nominator seems unfamiliar with this type of list. Aoba47 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see why we need separate pages for the albums and the songs on those albums (which have their own articles as well!). I agree that the content should not be deleted, but just because above voters would keep the content doesn't mean the article needs to be separate. Reywas92^Talk 21:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The complete list of songs, along with the album and singles discography, would just create a ridiculously long article if merged together. That's why the consensus has been established that, for major artists such as One Direction, we should have them as separate articles. Spiderone 21:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can literally count on one hand the difference in the amount of songs between these two articles, so no it wouldn’t be “ridiculously long”.Trillfendi (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But how would you go about merging the lists? If you just add another table to the discography then what about the A-Z list? Please see my comments above where I refer to the LISTN policy. Spiderone 21:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no A-Z list for One Direction.Trillfendi (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there certainly won't be if you remove this one. Spiderone 17:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as discography articles almost never contain the actual list of songs. Merging the articles together would be unnecessary and would make the resulting article too long. Jc86035 (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5 songs, dude. If 5 songs is “too long” for you then, well, I don’t know what to say. It would literally be the equal length. Trillfendi (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: I presumed that the entire table would be kept, since it includes extra data which could be useful to readers, and (unlike the discography tables) is sortable. I agree that this is a fairly unusual situation because of the large number of charting songs. However, what you're essentially saying is "we don't need this list because other articles that are not lists also contain this data", which could be used as a reason to delete a very large number of lists (e.g. List of counties in Rhode Island), and (per Sergecross73) it's not clear whether this is an accepted reason. Jc86035 (talk) 10:17, 7 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. Tone 21:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brighton Snowdogs

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

all of these, either promotional or art-cruft. either way it's non-encyclopedic. (will somone please check I added the multiple nom correctly) DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable cruft. This topic should be covered at Snowdog Art Trails. Catrìona (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 10:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)#[reply]
Keep or Merge These pages were seperated from the main article to prevent the info therein being split up by the lists. The lists themselves collate information which is valuable to those who are interested in the subject (bearing in mind these trails attract hundreds of thousands of visitors) and the information isn't available in one place anywhere else.

There are plenty of other lists of artworks on Wiki already, including (for example) List of Picasso artworks 1901–1910, as well as similar lists from other art trails (such as Wolves in Wolves).

Would a compromise be for me to move the info to the main page, under an expanding table as per Go_Superlambananas!?Retron (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't compare these snowdog things to Picasso's works. You just can't. Spiderone 13:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how these lists are encyclopedic.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unencyclopedic cruft. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for the comparison with Picasso, see WP:EINSTEIN. The very idea of the comparison shows the reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 7 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. Tone 21:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Side of the Mind

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

A two minute long short film. There were three references. Two were broken, one was a plot summary in Spanish. Through a quick google search, all I can find on this is the film's website, a Facebook page, and an IMDB. I had to remove a large chunk of content since it was a plot summary ripped straight from IMDB. I don't think this is notable enough, since I can't find any independent coverage of it. Beasting123 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 13:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no independent coverage --DannyS712 (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as two minute films are rarely notable, but please note that broken links should be fixed using archive.org or archive.rs Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverageReddragon7 (talk) 06:59, 7 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. Tone 21:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bello Bawa Bwari

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

no evidence for notability. Never elected, never head of a major company. No substantial references about him DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a governorship candidate in a political party that has never won, or even placed in the top 3 of any previous governorship election clearly doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. We assess politicians based on the office they currently occupy, not what they want to occupy. Doesn't meet GNG either. I would have said article creator should wait till after the 2019 elections, ~~but I am 99.999999% certain he won't win the election,~~ so WP:GNG is the only likely future route. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:22, 3 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. Tone 21:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ansira

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

Fails notability criteria of sustained and in-depth coverage. We have basically a handful of routine business directories and then some routine investment transactions. Following procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria results in an obvious fail; not up to snuff for an article here.

By the way it appears this article was moved out of AfC by its creator a few days after it was declined, then unnoticed. With one exception, the only contributors have been SPAs, business static IPs, or ACPERM evader socks, and it is an orphan article. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough to pass WP:NCOMPANY or WP:GNG, which was why it was rejected at AfC, and isn't suitable in article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no significant coverage under either company name. There is a nice Forbes article but it is written by a contributor so will not count towards notability. The rest is just brief mentions and general announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 2 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. The crucial point is that the article is completely unsourced. Contested unsourced material must go, per the core policy WP:V. If yomebody wants to work on this they can request draftification via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 11:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voter decision support system

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

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

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

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Virtually all of the content in the article is about the related concept (and various kinds) of decision support systems, as well as the definitions of various terms that are (presumably) relevant to discussions of voter decision support systems, but are not explicitly tied to them (for example, there's sections on "Workflow" and "note-taking" which just describe those two concepts with no connection to voter support systems. The phrase "Voter decision support system", however, appears to have only ever been used in the paper "Voter-centered design: Toward a voter decision support system." by Scott P Robertson, and I can find no other coverage of the subject online. Citrivescence tagged the article with notability and proposed a merge to Decision support system, but I'm honestly not sure there's anything here worth merging. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like OR, and the article's content does not support the concept of a voter support system per nom. Reywas92^Talk 20:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tagged it as a merge because the phrase is mentioned in decision support systems and as a new page reviewer, that's the typical course of action when a topic exists elsewhere. However, I am not at all opposed to deletion as I think there is too much jargon for the page to be easily comprehended by laymen. So, delete.Citrivescence (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete To the WP:GNG point, I would like to indicate that there exists a W3C Voter Decision Support Community Group (https://www.w3.org/community/voter-decision-support/) which is advancing Web standards and schemas in support of the development of voter decision support systems and related technologies. I tidied up the article as well. do not delete _signed,AdamSobieski ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Draftify: This could be a valuable article someday if the phrase and concept gains more traction (i.e. notability), but right now it appears to be too soon for an article. As noted above, "Voter-centered design: toward a voter decision support system" by Scott P. Robertson is the only published source. The Voter Decision Support Community Group that User:AdamSobieski mentioned above was created only a little over a month ago (November 27, 2018) after a proposal by Adam Sobieski himself; the group has not yet published any documents, and a note on the group's page advises: "Community Groups are proposed and run by the community. Although W3C hosts these conversations, the groups do not necessarily represent the views of the W3C Membership or staff." And User:AdamSobieski created this article a month before Adam Sobieski proposed the group, so even in relation to that group the creation of this article was "jumping the gun". In summary: Too soon. Biogeographist (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Changed from delete to draftify; see rationale below. Biogeographist (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are now two sources for the concept: (1) a 2005 publication by Scott P. Robertson and (2) a W3C Community Group originating in 2018 which indicates that scientific discussion and standardization work are underway on the topics. I would also like to indicate that a number of other scholarly publications (roughly 27) cite the Robertson publication: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=17559862892532144697&as_sdt=5,36&sciodt=0,36&hl=en . With regard to too soon, the hyperlinked-to explanation of that Wikipedia policy item doesn't seem to include scientific topics; users may hope to find fresh scientific, specifically computer scientific, articles on Wikipedia. science freshly delivered _signed,AdamSobieski ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Too soon is not a policy, just commentary on implications of the notability guidelines, but it certainly applies to articles on research topics too: "This applies to recent events, people, new products and any other topics about which facts have only recently emerged or are still emerging." Regarding the other sources that are listed on Google Scholar as citing Robertson's article: When we subtract the articles that are just Robertson citing himself and subtract the articles that are not about voter decision support systems, how many sources are left? It would be helpful if you could list here the sources that you think are relevant. Regarding the group, which as I mentioned is only a little over a month old, it does not tell us anything except that eight people are interested in the group. We still don't have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See also: WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTNEWS. Biogeographist (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would we want to subtract the articles which cite Robertson which were authored by Robertson or by Robertson with others? Each article citing Robertson's 2005 article was a peer-reviewed scientific article and the entirety of the set appeared across a number of scientific publication venues. It is unclear why we would want to dismiss Robertson's articles which cite the 2005 Robertson article: "Voter-centered design: Toward a voter decision support system." _signed,AdamSobieski ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If some of those articles by Robertson citing himself are relevant then go ahead and cite them; my point was that simply pointing out that Google Scholar lists 27 publications citing that article by Robertson does not tell us anything about how relevant each publication is to the notability of this article's subject. Google Scholar "cited by" statistics are often inflated by scholars citing their own work for tangential reasons. Take the first two examples of publications by Robertson that cite that source by Robertson: "Online video 'friends' social networking: overlapping online public spheres in the 2008 US presidential election" and "Digital government": they are not relevant to this deletion discussion. Wikipedia already has articles on social networking and digital government. Biogeographist (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you have sufficient sources to prove notability, you could just use those sources to improve the article now and then comment here pointing out the improvements that you made. I would happily change my !vote given sufficient evidence, but right now the article is a completely unreferenced orphan, and the arguments made in the deletion discussion do not support keeping the article. Biogeographist (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Below, I indicate publications which include the 2005 Robertson publication and an initial set of relevant others which cite that publication:

Robertson, Scott P. "Voter-centered design: Toward a voter decision support system." ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 12, no. 2 (2005): 263-292.
Redlawsk, David P., and Richard R. Lau. "Behavioral decision-making." In The Oxford handbook of political psychology. 2013.
Watkins, Jennifer H., and Marko A. Rodriguez. "A survey of web-based collective decision making systems." In Evolution of the Web in Artificial Intelligence Environments, pp. 243-277. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008.
Robertson, Scott P., Christine E. Wania, and S. Joon Park. "An observational study of voters on the internet." In System Sciences, 2007. HICSS 2007. 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, pp. 90-90. IEEE, 2007.
Robertson, Scott P., Palakorn Achananuparp, James L. Goldman, Sang Joon Park, Nan Zhou, and Matthew J. Clare. "Voting and political information gathering on paper and online." In CHI'05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1753-1756. ACM, 2005.
Robertson, Scott P., Christine E. Wania, George Abraham, and S. Joon Park. "Drop-Down Democracy: Internet Portal Design Influences Voters? Search Strategies." In hicss, p. 191. IEEE, 2008.
Robertson, Scott P., Ravi Vatrapu, and George Abraham. "Note taking and note sharing while browsing campaign information." In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1-10. IEEE, 2009.
Robertson, Scott P. "Digital deliberation: searching and deciding about how to vote." In Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on Digital government research, pp. 195-196. Digital Government Society of North America, 2006.

_signed,AdamSobieski ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the list of publications above, I noticed the phrase "political information gathering" in the title of one of Robertson's other publications. A search for that phrase on Google Scholar turns up more potential sources. The larger topic of "political information gathering" or "deciding about how to vote" (another phrase from one of Robertson's titles) does seem extremely important. Are there other terms for the same idea? Which term would be most appropriate for an article on this topic? Should this article be moved to Political information gathering or to Voter decision support (without the "system" since political information gathering by many voters may not be very systemic)? Then computer systems for supporting that process could be a subsection of the article on the larger topic of "deciding about how to vote" (or whatever it's called). Biogeographist (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds good to me to move the article to either Political information gathering or Voter decision support (or something similar) as a subtopic of the new article, the subtopic of technology supporting voters in their decision-making processes. I'm thinking about Voter decision support (or something similar) with information gathering as a subtopic of decision-making processes. _signed,AdamSobieski ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These sound like good ideas, but it seems like there's a decent amount of further work and discussion to be had in order to determine the best way to present this material. In the interest of being able to close this AfD discussion, would people be amenable to draftifying the article while these changes are being made? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support draftifying to Draft:Voter decision support, and I changed my !vote above accordingly. (Note that the current article has two redirects that will have to be taken care of after draftifying.) The lead would change accordingly from: "Voter decision support systems are software systems designed to support voters in gathering relevant information, evaluating that information and deciding between alternatives" to something like: "Voter decision support is the design and use of systems to support voters in gathering gathering relevant information, evaluating that information and deciding between alternatives". The key change here is from a focus on the systems as products, which (correct me if I'm wrong) don't actually exist yet, to the conceptualization and design of such systems, which is already happening (described in a subsection of the key 2005 Robertson paper as "Expanding the vision of voter support"). The best approach to writing the article is probably a historical one, describing who invented the term (apparently Robertson), the antecedents in research on voter political information gathering and decision-making, and current directions in development of the field. Review articles would probably be the closest thing to a reliable secondary source on this topic. But have any good review articles on the topic been published since the 2005 Robertson paper? We have a set of articles on related topics, yes, but do we have good review articles that tie enough of that research together in a way that would allow us to write a Wikipedia article that is more than a stub but not plagiarism of Robertson and not original research? Biogeographist (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because someone proposes an idea in an academic paper, does not mean we need an encyclopedia article on the topic. No significant coverage in independent sources. --Pontificalibus 09:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The self-citation of a person's own works is taken in the academic world as more likely to be a sign of puffery and promotionalism, rather than importance; they are always omitted from citation counts. For a journal to permit this beyond the necessary links to prior work is generally taken as a sign of low quality peer review. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP is not for the presentation or promotion of new academic work; we wait until they arewell established or commented on by others. "TOOSOON" is a restatement of a critical part of the basic policy WP:NOT, and is applicable here also. I'm a little dubious about even draftification at this point. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Toward discussing technology topics in a broader article on the topics of voter decision support and political information gathering, I also found these publications. According to Google Scholar, the first publication is cited by 624 publications and the second by 925.

Kaye, Barbara K., and Thomas J. Johnson. "Online and in the know: Uses and gratifications of the web for political information." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 46, no. 1 (2002): 54-71.
Lau, Richard R., and David P. Redlawsk. How voters decide: Information processing in election campaigns. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

_signed,AdamSobieski ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 7 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. Tone 21:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arasp Kazemian

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

No coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. There's some Youtube videos of him speaking (hosted on his Youtube channel with very little context), a Quora question posted by the subject asking a question about his philosophical opinions in third person, and apparently he translated a book (but the source provided is goodreads, which is not reliable, and anyhow just having translated a book does not imply notability). As an additional note, the article has also been previously deleted twice by CSD A7. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The funny fact is that Googleread is not reliable source! but at the same time, Google check which has sent to iran and its picture is not reliable too. Google Adsense is not reliable too ! QUite funny! Google is not reliable at all, because sending check to Iran and causing problem to an Iranian professor does not sound good to public opinion! That is the fact ! Parsbyte (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the funniest thing I've ever been accused of. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Notability is shown. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 23:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears non-notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: even if there is no notability in the philosophy part (Although He is on one of our professors in western philosophy in Sohanak University. The part about getting a check from Google is very very notable! I hope the American and Russian mafia in the Wikipedia understand this. 2A01:5EC0:2025:DC99:5C32:991:B9BA:A0FF (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: RS does not support the subject. According to Notability (people),it is not considered a notable person.M1nhm (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep it, but it does not really matter. Wikipedia is losing its reputation, you can check it on Alexa website. We are in wikipedia were Sexual partner is listed! and one of the philosophers in the world should be deleted. It is funny!Parsbyte (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A person does not become a notable philosopher until they have published some books or articles which are sufficiently cited and commented on to show that they are in fact notable. This passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG/. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 7 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. Tone 21:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard James Holland

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, no coverage in RS. Provided sources are mere-mentions and press releases of the (likely also non-notable) tour company that Holland is affiliated with. I wasn't able to find anything better online. Previously nominated for PROD by User:Jmertel23, dePROD by initial editor User:RickLOD who promised to make edits that would demonstrate notability. Over a month has passed with essentially no changes made. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two of the references included in the article fail verification, the others appear to be press releases (though I admit, someone who can read Japanese would be a better judge of that than I am). However, I can't find any additional sources to demonstrate that the subject meets any notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find enough in-depth sourcing to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 07:07, 7 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. Tone 21:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wizdom Khalifahd

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

Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing any claim to notability under WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for suspected WP:COI and failing notability under WP:GNG Nannochloropsis (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:COI is not grounds for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ColinFine: You are correct. I still think it is worth pointing out though, even if it has no impact on whether or not the article is deleted. Nannochloropsis (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. --ColinFine (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThanks you so much for considering me. Please give me some additional chance to cite more references. Thanks you so much for your reputations.Sufiabdul (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that suggests that the subject of this article meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO or meets the generable notability guide. — sparklism ^hey! 10:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being largely incomprehensible is not a basis for deletion, but a lack of notability is, and so makes it unnecessary to tag the article to be rewritten to address the incomprehensibility. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 7 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. -- Scott (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Na Duigauna

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

Aside from 1 blogspot page, no site other than WP mirrors mention this. The clan where this article is about does not have a WP article. This article in the current state fails WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 20:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At present fails WP:V - let alone WP:GNG. It might be spelled wrong - however we would require sourcing regardless. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 2 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. Tone 21:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Andrew

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

Poorly referenced and résumé-toned BLP of a person notable primarily as a single-market local television journalist and executive director of a charity. As always, neither of these are automatic notability freebies that entitle a person to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- to be notable for either reason, he needs to be the subject of enough reliable source media coverage about his work in those roles to clear WP:GNG. Even the journalism award claims aren't notability freebies that exempt a journalist from having to be properly sourced -- for the purposes of an WP:ANYBIO pass, we care only about awards whose depth of media coverage tells us that the awards are "important" enough to make their winners notable for winning them, and not about awards that are either unsourced or primary sourced to their own self-published web presence. But two of the three footnotes here are primary sources, not reliable or notability-supporting ones, and the only one that is actually media coverage is a purely local human interest piece in his own local media market about his being diagnosed with cancer in 2007 -- which is not enough coverage, either in volume or in context, to make a local news anchor notable all by itself. This is possibly also an WP:AUTOBIO, as the article was created by "Mediaperson" and has since been updated primarily but not exclusively by "Mediaperson2011" and "Mediaperson2016", and none of these users have ever made any contributions to Wikipedia on any topic but Andrew and his employers. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Mediaperson, Mediaperson2011 and Mediaperson2016 have all edited this article. Methinks the duck quack too much. SITH (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absurdly promotional . About half of it is devoted to his own extensive reporting on the progress of his own illness. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. All the edits are done by Mediaperson, Mediaperson2011 and Mediaperson2016 Reddragon7 (talk) 07:22, 7 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. -- Scott (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Puleri

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

I’m proposing deletion of this page because she really does not meet GNG; being Selena Gomez’s “friend” is not notability (and besides, isn’t the Daily Mail banned on here?). EntertainmentWise isn’t a reliable source either and those Cosmo and NYPost articles are simply rehashings of the Vogue article offering nothing substantive. Being in the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show is not enough for NMODEL on its own, besides the fact that the Vogue piece is really just an interview with CMO Ed Razek about how her parents used their connections to get her in the door. Other than that, I don’t really see a career to speak of for an article at this time. Trillfendi (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the daily Mail ref is exactly the sort of material for which it was banned--In my opinion it can as an exception be used for some things, but not celebrity gossip. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 4 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. -- Scott (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ukkovaara

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

Procedural nomination as prodded twice. Both are quoted below:

This page is very short, and, given that the height of the peak is 103m, does not appear to be particularly notable.
— User:Joemalt1832 14:20, 23 June 2012

Second-highest peak in Raahe sounds impressive until you realize that Raahe is a small town and it's a 103m HILL, which is a lot less impressive on the face of things. Per WP:GEOLAND, named natural features are notable if people have actually written about them aside from just statistical info, which is not the case for this tiny wee hill. Nowhere suitable for a redirect.
— User:Premeditated Chaos 14:27, 29 December 2018

Both users gave good explanations for their positions, and the former was contested without explanation or improvement. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Raahe is a municipality as well as a town, Ukkovaara is about 15km out of town, havent found anything out in gsearchland, unfortunately the Raahe article appears to concentrate on the town, otherwise, a redirect to a (presently non-existent) "Geography" section might be appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the second PROD-tagger. I don't think there's much point to adding a whole geography section in the Raahe article just to include the existence of a 103m-tall hill, especially given the absence of sources about the hill to verify anything we decide to merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything notable about this hill from Finnish-language sources. --Pudeo (talk) 22:34, 4 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. -- Scott (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Helton Park

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

Fails WP:GNG. I haven't nominated places in a very long time because it seems that if a place exists, no matter how inconsequential, editors vote to keep it. But I'm breaking my rule. I fail to see how a 1/4 acre park in a medium-sized town with nothing remarkable about it is notable. Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing on this park except a primary source, a directory listing, and a blog post. I agree geography articles tend to get kept more often than not since the notability standards are lower, but that doesn't mean they all deserve to be kept, as this fails WP:GEOFEAT. SportingFlyer talk 23:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a park the size of a house block that isnt even listed in its town article, with no sources available should not have a wikiarticle, a quick gsearch, as well as not bringing up any useable sources, did not reveal who the park was named after but instead revealed a bit of confusion about the name, is it Sue Helton (see here) or Charlotte Sue Helton (see here)? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has one source, but no evidence of notability or significant independent coverage --DannyS712 (talk) 23:23, 7 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carboxymethylguanine

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

All chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound. The title is ambiguous - there is more than one known chemical compound that could be named "carboxymethylguanine". Carboxymethylguanine is not mentioned in the cited reference (although a different chemical compound with a related name, carboxymethylguanosine, is mentioned), so the content remains unverifiable as well. Article fails both WP:N and WP:V. ChemNerd (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the -guanine/-guanosine difference mentioned by nom is, in this case, a semantic distinction but nom is right that it is a false-grouping of distinct adducts - O⁶- and 7-carboxymethylguanine are both biologically relevant but chemically very different [see [1], upper left for the different structures of the two]. However, the only cited source is only passing reference. PubMed turns up 19 refs to carboxymethylguanine but they are all either primary or passing reference and don't seem to rise to the level of notability among the hundreds of thousands of biochemical adducts found in biological systems. Agricolae (talk) 14:48, 6 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. -- Scott (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Covent Garden

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

no indication of WP:notability. One of hundreds of local magazines that can be found all over the country. Only reference is a listing site and is not WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Title of the publication makes it very difficult to do a proper WP:BEFORE, but I was unable to find anything to sustain notability. FOARP (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 1 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) 17:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Payal Keyal

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

Fluff generated from passing mentions in sources. Previously redirected to Asiana Couture but restored. wumbolo ^^^ 17:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG. Clear violation of WP:PROMO. Needs to be deleted. Skirts89 (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 11:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and violation of WP:PROMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddragon7 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rory McShane

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

WP:AUTOBIO of a political strategist, not properly referenced as passing WP:GNG. The references here do not constitute reliable source coverage about him -- right across the board, they constitute glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people. As always, our notability standards are not passed just because newspaper articles can be found in which the subject's name gets mentioned -- Rory McShane has to be the subject of a source, not just a giver of soundbite in a source about somebody else, before that source actually supports his notability at all. And even if he could be properly sourced as passing our notability criteria, our conflict of interest rules would still preclude him from starting the article himself. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Bearcat, How do you know it is a WP:AUTOBIO? WP:GNG clearly states " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Several of these articles are not trivial and are based entirely on interviews with him< https://www.(b)reitbart.com/politics/2017/06/26/how-corey-stewart-went-full-troll-and-stunned-virginia-politics Breitbart is blocked for some reason so you have to change the (b) to a b

but also...

^[1] --Johnston49er (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Rory McShane lead counter protests to the Westboro Baptist Church when they protested in Washington DC ^[2] he is a consistently published author in the political consulting industry's leading publication ^[3] Johnston49er (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://kxnt.radio.com/media/audio-channel/election-2018-podcast-race-closer-you-think
^ https://genprogress.org/hate-on-display/&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1546456993506000&usg=AFQjCNHXlcZ9JGH__Xeyk0k-3EP6xjEFVA
^ https://www.campaignsandelections.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Rory+McShane

Firstly, I know it's an AUTOBIO because the creator's username is Rkmcshane — and besides this, the only other contributions Rkmcshane has ever made to Wikipedia at all have been to articles about people who are directly named in this article as clients of McShane's, which pretty much eliminates the slim possibility that Rkmcshane is just a person who coincidentally happens to have the same surname and initials as the article subject. Secondly, interviews in which a person is talking about himself are not notability-makers — a source has to represent third party coverage about him written in the third person, not a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself or something else, to support his notability. And while a person does not have to be the sole topic of the source material, he does still have to be more than just glancingly namechecked a single time in an article whose actual topic is somebody else entirely — we're looking for coverage about him, which is not the same thing as coverage about other people that just mentions his name in the process. Thirdly, Breitbart is not a reliable or notability-assisting source at all — and neither is Generation Progress, which is an organizational blog, not a media outlet. Fourthly, people do not get over our notability criteria by being the published author of content about other things, as verified by their own primary source directories of their own content — people get over our notability criteria by being the subject of reliable source content written by other people. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That might be evidence but it's not necessarily proof. For example I could claim that because you are homosexual Canadian you have a vested interested in reducing the standing of a conservative political consultant. I do not, however, much like you, do not have proof of this so to submit that as a statement of fact seems very presumptive. It could be a big fan of Rory McShane who edited it. You keep saying McShane McShane McShane it could be China It could be anyone, it also be someone sitting on their bed that weights 400 pounds. It could be anyone. But also you are practicing WP:REPEAT on saying it has to be coverage about him even though the WIKIPEDIA:GNG you cited says that is unecessary --Johnston49er (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG most certainly does not say that coverage about him is unnecessary — it says exactly the opposite of that, in fact. Coverage about him is exactly what GNG is measuring, so by definition a person can't pass GNG if he doesn't have the type of coverage that GNG requires. And incidentally, you can trust me on this: in my 15+ years of being a contributor to Wikipedia, I have never once edited with so much as one iota of political bias for or against any political party on ideological grounds. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just before you started this deletion you said this "00:08, 2 January 2019 diff hist -1,885‎ Rocco Rossi ‎ nobody gives half a shit what he tweeted on the stupid worthless platform of nothingness that is Twitter; wrapping citation needed in reference tags is not how you call attention to lack of referencing." Seems like at least an iota of bias. Here you are cussing out a center-right politician associated with the PCPO. Seems like your bias might be centered around Rory McShane's regular contributions to the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario --Johnston49er (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I have no bias for or against Rossi whatsoever — kindly note that what I cussed out was Twitter, not Rossi. What people say on Twitter is not encyclopedic content — not because it's Rossi, but because it's Twitter (an inherently unreliable source on which people of all political persuasions say silly stuff of no meaningful consequence or enduring significance all the time). And if you think I have a bias against Rossi, you might want to peruse its full edit history to see how much I've contributed to the article in the past. My agenda on here centres around reliable sourcing, not pushing my political opinions. And didja also notice, perhaps, that the Twitter-sourced crap I removed was partisan criticism of Rossi, not pro-Rossi stuff? Kinda inherently disembowels the notion that I'm biased against Rossi, dunnit? Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. SportingFlyer talk 23:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERNOM is to be avoided SportingFlyer --Johnston49er (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per that link "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient." I've done this before with Bearcat, a user who frequently writes good AfD nominations, since I have nothing else to add, but if you want me to throw in a clear autobio/fails WP:GNG, I'm happy to do so. SportingFlyer talk 00:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But then that would be WP:REPEAT--Johnston49er (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I think the man is relevant to modern GOP politics. He's received a ton of media coverage and has had major clients. Perhaps the article should be edited to be more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelLeDoux (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as promotionalism . I'm going to disclose one of my tricks, any bio that has "achieving the rank of Eagle Scout." is either pure PR or totally naive. that's for beginner's job applications when they have nothing else to say, it's not encyclopedic notability. to confirm the promotionalism , It has a photo caption "international media has also relied on McShane's insight and analysis." which is thorougly promotional content as for the rest of the article, it tells about the notable politicians & causes he " helped " to one degree or another, and the interviews he gave--just as his job requires. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting given Jeff Roe the singlest most notable Republican Strategist in politics today has that in his article too. --Johnston49er (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO. Beyond the promo issue, passing mentions and quotes in available sources do not rise to the level of significant coverage required by the WP:GNG. Additionally, Bearcat is almost certainly correct about the COI issue, based on behavioral evidence. Bakazaka (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Johnston49er also article has been up for well over a year Bearcat is clearly retaliating because of sour grapes over Chris Fails --OmegaDeltaAlpha (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that the SPA template on OmegaDeltaAlpha, whose first edit upon joining Wikipedia was to post a keep vote to an AfD discussion already involving COI issues, was removed by Johnston49er. Bakazaka (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it, just for the record. Johnston49er isn't who gets to decide whether it's "relevant" or not that a user's first-ever Wikipedia edit was to an AFD discussion — that has to be stated on the record regardless of how anybody feels about it, because it's the discussion closer who gets to decide whether it's "relevant" or not. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I have "sour grapes" over Chris Fails? I wasn't the nominator of that article, and it's not on track to get kept — so what is there for me to "retaliate" about, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wholeheartedly endorse Johnston49er's arguments --98.168.227.238 (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— 98.168.227.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Massive COI issues here, it doesn't seem like any of the sources cited are about McShane, but passing mentions. Given the issues here, could perhaps be a WP:G11. Bkissin (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article subject seems to not be notable, especially considering that notability is not inherited from other, more notable topics. There is also a seeming lack of coverage that is actually about McShane, which is required for even a base passing of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Futhermore, the SPA and COI activities (though not explicit reasons for deletion) surrounding this AfD should be noted by the closing admin.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't really any coverage about McShane himself. Appears to be a WP:G11, not to mention the COI issues at hand. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:46, 4 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 Methodist Church of Peru. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist Church in Peru

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

Seems to be a duplicate of Methodist Church of Peru, but with much less information. Rathfelder (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply redirect there? --Lambiam 16:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Methodist Church of Peru. Despite the target being a specific form of Methodism, there's no indication that the religion as practised specifically in Peru is notable outside of the main Methodism article. SITH (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Methodist Church of Peru. Although theoretical the two could be different, there is no indication in the article that it is intended to be different, and the only source given in the article is for the Methodist Church of Peru. There may well be different Methodist churches in the country, and if someone wants to write something more substantial on Methodist churches in that country, it can easily be restored from the redirect and expanded. Hzh (talk) 20:42, 6 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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonni Phillips

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

no indication of WP:notability. References given are all primary sources and not WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Google searches not finding anything significant. noq (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: source searches (Google, WorldCat, Books) turn up nothing which could be considered both independent and significant. The sources cited don't meet the threshold for notability per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
^[1]	WP:SPS	For biographical data.	By nature of being self-published.	✘ No
^[2]	Blog appears unaffiliated.	An interview on someone else's Tumblr blog can't be considered reliable unless it's a major media source.	Not significant coverage by virtue of the publication.	✘ No
^[3]	Channel appears unaffiliated.	Coverage on someone else's YouTube channel can't be considered reliable unless it's a major media source.	Not significant coverage by virtue of the publication.	✘ No
^[4]	WP:SPS	For biographical data, but not assertions of notability.	By virtue of being self-published, but everyone has Twitter.	✘ No
^[5]	WP:SPS	For biographical data, but not assertions of notability.	Same as for Twitter.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Overall, it's clear Phillips isn't notable. SITH (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Phillips, Jonni. "Jonni Phillips - YouTube Channel". YouTube. Retrieved 29 December 2018.
^ Nelson, Cooper. "Meet Jonni Phillips, creator of "Rachel and her Grandfather Control the Island"". Frederator-Studios. Tumblr. Retrieved 29 December 2018.
^ "Rachel and Her Grandfather Control the Island - From GO! Cartoons - Full Episode". YouTube. Cartoon Hangover. Retrieved 29 December 2018.
^ Phillips, Jonni. "@jonniphillips". Twitter. Retrieved 29 December 2018.
^ Phillips, Jonni. "About". jonniphillips. Tumblr. Retrieved 29 December 2018.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we are going to make articles for everyone with a twitter page, there is no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, not enough significant independent coverage --DannyS712 (talk) 23:24, 7 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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Jon Drinkard

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

Bringing this article up for deletion after 12 years. Most of the arguments in favour of keep back then were because of the show in itself (Survivor) being popular. The rationale never argued why the person was notable. Their claim to fame is being on Survivor, there isn't any sources to indicate notability beyond that. Thus this fails general notability standards. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Adding:[reply]

Delete being a contestant on Survivor does not automatically make one notable. No individual signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as it stands, this is a delete per WP:BLP1E, and not a keep by WP:ENT. The claim of hosting On the Job (TV series) (an entirely unsourced article on a local TV show) doesn't help. His current occupation doesn't indicate that he is a public figure at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 7 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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T. L. Williams

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

(Not to be confused with the musician T. L. Williams.) I spent time tidying up this article and came to realise that there was a serious question over notability of this ex-CIA employee and author. The article was created on 21 April 2015 by User:Wmsterry (COI clearly) and this is the only article he has edited. I suspect several of the anon edits are also by him or his family. According to Open Library, his publisher, First Coast Publishers, has published only two books and one ebook between 2002 and 2014, all by Williams. According to novelrank.com, Amazon has sold a total of three copies of Unit 400.

Detailed Amazon's rankings:

Zero Day: #738,536 Paid in Kindle Store, #363,428 in Books

Cooper's Revenge: #1,097,329 Paid in Kindle Store, #3,513,954 in Books

Unit 400: #1,385,691 Paid in Kindle Store, #4,230,544 in Books.

That don't impress me much. His awards are from what appears to be a club for writers. Much of the article is unreferenced and the whole appears to be a vanity project for a would-be writer. Emeraude (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a VANITY page PROMO for non-notable retired gentleman author. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:11, 3 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard per WP:G11. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“Tvoya Krayina” (“Your Country”)

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

Not sure this passes notability. There are issues with an over use of primary sources. The few sources I have checked (but the translations may not be that good) either do not seem to mention the topic or do so only as trivial coverage.

Also reds very much like a promo page. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 1 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. General consensus to keep. (NAC) (non-admin closure) Nightfury 13:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Sofia

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

Zero notably fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Many dead references, the rest are name drops. scope_creep^Talk 10:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race ETA: got here via list of women-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What metric are you using to measure notability? Seems way too subjective and the WP:BIO page does little to actually explain what is expected. But, should we slavishly adhere to WP:BIO, it suggests that entertainers with a large fan base or a significant "cult" following are notable. Yara Sofia has a large fan base. Lack of active cites is concerning, however. Ausymptote (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ausymptote, like every other on Wikipedia, the facts must be shown to be true. Find reliable secondary sources from third parties that describe the large fan base, in an impartial manner, and the article will be show be notable. This is my last comment on this. scope_creep^Talk 21:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ausymptote It is a bit subjective. The coverage needs to be "significant," which most editors understand to mean that an article needs to be about the person or talk about them at length rather than simply listing them or mentioning them. The source needs to be "reliable" which most editors understand to mean at minimum local print or tv media, or if an online-only source, at minimum a major regional/special-interest outlet. Blogs, Youtube, etc. don't count. Straight interviews don't count. And having a large fan base or cult following isn't by itself enough; that fan base or cult following needs to have been talked about, again in a reliable source. So it's not enough for her blog to get lots of hits or her twitter to have lots of followers. Someone has to have MENTIONED the fact her blog has lots of hits or her twitter feed has lots of followers. Someone has to be talking about her/her fans/her cult following at some length in a reliable source. In general many editors will agree that even as few as three such sources shows notability, but that's not a hard-and-fast rule; at that minimum, many editors will want to know that those three sources really are both clearly reliable and provide definitely significant coverage. valereee (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to just make sure everyone is aware that this topic might be at risk for brigading Oath2order (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yara is a public figure. According to the Wikipedia notability guidelines,Yara falls under all three bullets.

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.“

Yara has been on multiple tv shows, has a cult following, produces notable stage performances and other products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMGshNicholas (talk • contribs) Incorrectly placed at top of page; moved by RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, OMGshNicholas unfortunately none of the sources say those things about her. I've gone through all the sources (many of which were dead links, which I removed) and none of them are reliable sources of significant coverage. The ones that are reliable barely mention Sofia, and the ones that give her significant coverage are not reliable. She was on a notable reality/elimination television show twice, but she didn't win either season which means she isn't automatically notable for that. She may very well have a large fan base, but no one is mentioning that it's unusually large for a member of the gay community or for a drag queen. If she's made unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to the field of entertainment, I'm not finding it mentioned in reliable sources. valereee (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – I feel that WP:BLP1E may apply here. I may change my vote if people can successfully argue otherwise. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Changing vote to Weak Keep — I feel like there is some coverage to help for GNG in what is mentioned below now but I may revisit later to see if there is enough. The coverage isn’t from any major national publications however this definitely helps to diverge away from BLP1E, my main concern from before. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Redditaddict69:. Given the info below, are you still leaning Weak Delete? I am not sure if you're following this conversation. I'm not incredibly invested in this article, as I didn't follow it and don't believe I've edited it before (I could be wrong on that), but I do think we'd be doing WP a disservice if we aren't looking at all the information available about a subject. Either way, hope you're well. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think the nominator of this article has done their due diligence. A cursory Google search turns up coverage of Yara Sofia as the sole subject in NewNowNext, Seattle Gay News, OutinSA, and Hotspots Magazine, none of which have currently been included in the article (as of me writing this comment). Additional coverage (with Yara not being the sole subject) includes World of Wonder and others. They've appeared on RPDR on two different seasons (winning Miss Congeniality on one of them), guest starred on a third season of RPDR, appeared on the television show Skin Wars, appeared in a video game, had a show at RuPaul's Drag Con, and headlined a NYE party. I think that meets GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kbabej. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 6 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. Clear consensus to keep. Discussion of sources can be done on article's talk page from now (NAC) (non-admin closure) Nightfury 13:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faysal Manzoor

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article have strong sources and it does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Sources mention the subject properly and have sources from notable websites. Lillyput4455 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article does not cite strong sources. --Saqib (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews of a person are considered as strong cite to provide, there are 2 interviews there which strongly support the subject, also other sources contain strong information about subject projects and achievements.Both sources explore subject notability which is appropriate and meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:PERSON. Lillyput4455 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 14:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 14:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 14:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:Creative as has worked on many nationally broadcast television series of note in Pakistan. Also there are two reliable sources referenced in the article which devote entire articles to him, particularly the first one from The Daily Times which has two or three paragraphs of solid information about him in prose before the interview section. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among two reliable sources, one is a blog post which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. Only one RS (Daily Times) is not enough to establish WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article contains reliable citations and meet the subject notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.195.43.30 (talk) 14:29, 7 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. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caswell Berry

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

Non notable skateboarder. WP:BIO and WP:GNG are not met because of lack of secondary reliable sources that significant coverage of the subject and independent of the subject (Caswell). References in the article (after doing a clean-up, which had dead links, empty review reference, short bio promo links) are: a bio of Caswell, interview, passing mention, interview. Nothing that fits the criteria I mentioned above. Nothing much to find on WP:BEFORE either apart from other interviews. Also reads like a bit of WP:PROMO (section entirely for sponsors?). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, plenty of coverage (including a lot of mentions) in Transworld Skateboarding, but is this enough? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That Transworld Skateboarding coverage is all on interviews (there is one in the article already), which fails the independent part WP:GNG and WP:BIO require. Vice one is a passing mention as well. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't find the significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources that I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. I found some videos, passing mentions, an interview, and a mention on a skateboard maker's website, but nothing to convince me that he's WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to fail WP:GNG. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:29, 6 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 14:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely the Best (The Zombies album)

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

Compilation album which fails GNG and NALBUM. There is one AllMusic review, but besides that I’m finding the usual discogs, Amazon, Rate Your Music, etc. hits—all unreliable sources for Wikipedia. This probably could serve as a redirect but not much else given the lack of significant coverage. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 13:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My WP:BEFORE failed to find any WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to The Zombies. Vorbee (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to The Zombies. KokoPhantom (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing worth merging and this would be useless as a redirect. --Michig (talk) 21:22, 7 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 14:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nanotough

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

Google news produces no hits on this subject. Google Books had some hits, but none seemed to be a discussion of this subject. Does not appear to meet GNG or WP:ORG. A loose noose (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 13:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as usual with European Framework projects, this will only be notable to the extent it produced notable results. Just having been created in the hope of doing so is not enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 7 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. Michig (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pope

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

I fail to see how is he notable here per both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Contains a lot of unsourced WP:OR trivia about him. First reference is a short mention that fails WP:SIGCOV. Nothing much to find in my WP:BEFORE search (I was constantly getting other people including Robert F. Kennedy Jr). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 13:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author of a novel and of short stories, lit prof, has a very common name. I have tried and am not finding notability. a few grants, recognition of a personal essay by Pushcart, a few published stories and a novel, published by "another Chicago Pr" which appears to have been a short-lived, small, literary publisher. the novel appears to have gotten no attention. I cannot find notability or WP:SIGCOV, anyone who does should ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing or finding evidence to show he meets WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPROF, or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:01, 5 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. Sandstein 14:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chōsokabe Chikatada

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

A year ago, this article was proposed for deletion. It has been the product of someone's imagination since 2009 (no references). The PROD was deleted with the reasoning that only a Japanese speaker is qualified to referee. English-only speakers are unqualified to evaluate this article in the English language Wikipedia. Rhadow (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finding information about this person isn't easy, but it is out there. I found two books on Google books who have Chikatada in the index (not just one page)(I can't access the books). Wikipedia.jp has an article on the clan (it would take a little to get all the information, but it might help clear up other, similar articles). Wikipedia.it also has information. A site called The Samurai Archives also has a short article about them (unsure of the source, but they are interested in Japanese history and not gaming or anime). Aurornisxui (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I added a See Also section with links to the below mentioned Wikipedia.jp article, the list of books on Google.jp, and the Samuri Archive I mentioned. I do not know Japanese, but I will attempt to add actual references. At the least, I will add a tag for a professional to help with the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurornisxui (talk • contribs) 17:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aurornisxui: "The Samurai Archives" is pretty clearly not a reliable source. Few reputable historians would brag about being associated with the History Channel in 2018. Something like half the proper nouns (not to mention more than a few of the common English words) in this page are misspelled. This variously marks and doesn't mark long vowels, then thinks that two words that in Japanese are distinguished by vowel length are the same word ("taiko"). This includes the hilariously anachronistic he traveled to Kamakura, which had become the military capitol of Japan after the Minamoto overcame the Fujiwara clan. This page appears to be a copy-paste of another source that misspelled the name of Empress Jingū, and appears to think "Taika" is the name of an emperor. Maybe some of their interviews are useful as primary sources for the opinions of the interviewees, but we can't rely on such a website for basic information when said information has a good chance of being wrong, let alone for notability. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Japanese version of the article has his name at Tsuno Chikatada, which is actually the kanji (津野親忠) that our article gives for his name. The J-article does cite sources, by the way¸ and his name gets several hundred GBooks hits, so the article's definitely not a "product of someone's imagination". Per WP:BEFORE, I would have expected someone to at least have GBook searched the kanji of his name, even if they weren't a J-speaker. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While echoing the above, I am sympathetic to the nomination because as it stands the article basically doesn't assert individual notability. Dekimasuよ! 22:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT We shouldn't be deleting this article without getting input from the Japanese project. I'll send them a message FOARP (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not all that much lost or gained if this article is deleted/redirected. I don't know (or have the ability to quickly find out) a whole lot about this time period, but the article is messy and doesn't demonstrate or claim independent notability. I saw this AFD yesterday and thought about the same but didn't think it was worth noting. I took a look at some of the several hundred GBooks hits and what I saw was either name-drops with nothing much to add to our article or works of fiction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If TSA's (unreliable) claim that is was because of his being murdered by his own people that Tokugawa Ieyasu harshly judged Morichika for this and used it as a basis to deprive him of his domain. can be attributed to a reliable source, that would probably be the basis for a standalone article, but our article doesn't currently make this claim and it can't be attributed to TSA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably draftify this, but that would be tantamount to deletion because it doesn't seem likely anyone will pick the article up and work on it. This is one of the most "meh" AfD discussions I've seen. With respect to input from editors who understand Japanese, we're already fine on that count. But the answer still seems to be "meh". Dekimasuよ! 19:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with deleting it then. FOARP (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I do not see a strong reason for deleting this; I have made a start by correcting the Japanese names, so it at least is plausible to Japanese readers. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium: If you're willing to work on this, wouldn't it make sense to put it in your userspace per User:Dekimasu's suggestion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 3 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 14:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Aylesbury

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

This article has been tagged as a concern for quite some time. It is purely original research and there is no clear reason why Aylesbury would be notable enough for such an article. There are good lists for London and Manchester but, then again, these are major cities. The list contains only two notable buildings; I think that such information could just go in those individual articles rather than having a separate list. A separate article could be created for the Wind Turbine although I highly doubt that it is notable enough. Spiderone 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:LISTN. A town of around 50,000 isn't going to be as notable as any similar list to a big city such as Manchester or London. Ajf773 (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Turns out Aylesbury built a 15-story modern city hall. The only "other" building on this list-of-2-buildings is the medieval church with a tower. The new City Hall and the old church each already has a freestanding articles. Although the church tower does taper to a point, There is not point to this list. None at all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 4 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 14:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh H. Puri

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

I struggle to find anything that conveys notability here. The refs are clearly interviews and/or press releases. This appears to be just a puff piece and probably self promotion. This appears to confirm that the content come directly from the subject via a (paid?) intermediary. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG; promotional article Spiderone 11:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs are from interviews and press-releases and fails GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 07:40, 7 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. Consensus to keep. (NAC) (non-admin closure) Nightfury 13:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Inayat Shaheed

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy was for G11, promotional. What is really needed here is a search for references, and some adjustment of the tone. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is plenty of coverage found by this Google Books search including extensive coverage in this book from an academic publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Phil Bridger, there appears to be another Shah Inayat, which is what your references appear to be referring too. Please correct me if I am wrong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start, the years of birth and death and many other biographical details are the same. What makes you think this is a different person? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appear to be many sources on the person [2][3][4][5][6]. Obviously passes WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 22:05, 6 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 14:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal School for the Deaf

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

Simply not notable due to the lack of sufficient coverage in independent journalistic or academic sources Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a usually state-administered institution for a certain need, schools for the deaf or hard of hearing are usually notable. The largest SFTD in its province is definitely notable (though others should not confuse this with the closed Montreal Institute for the Deaf and Mute). Nate • (chatter) 23:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mrschimpf, is there a SNG I'm not aware of that declares a "usually state-administered institution for a certain need" is notable without any regard to sourcing? This one is actually a private school, not state run and no claim or evidence is presented that it's the biggest anything. Since the "downgrade" of SCHOOLOUTCOMES some time ago, all such subjects have to comply with WP:NORG afaik. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few passing mentions is scholarly papers concerning studies that were done there, but nothing that would get it past GNG. The only thing in any depth is a couple of news items concerning a sex abuse scandal there. I'm pretty sure the school would rather have the article deleted than see that go in which is about all that would justify keeping the article. SpinningSpark 02:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Spinningspark - The school has only gained notability because of that issue which is a shame .... The article cannot rely on those 3 "issue" stories - They could be used as an aside but not for the entire article, Would be better off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on [7], this seems to be a pre-school/primary school with fewer than 50 students total. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 7 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. Sandstein 14:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bekir Kaya

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

@Lean Anael: Queried speedy delete as copyright-violation of http://en.hdpeurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BIOs_KurdishMayorsinPrison.pdf Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have written this article and asked why there was a deletion request. Apparently it was because of copyright issues; 44% of the text matched the text of the HDP website from where i really had most of the original content for the article. After I googled for other sources that confirm what is written on HDP. I rephrased most phrases but apparently 1 sentence stayed really the same and after the deletion request, I rephrased it. Other phrases I rephrased as well until reaching 33% on copyvio. 2 long phrases from my point of view were simply as good as they were and I changed only a few words. But on the Copyvio page it said that a violation is unlikely, and i thought this is enough then. Anyway the page got deleted. I appealed and thank you very much to Appleyard, the page reappeared. I deleted the 2 phrases now as well in order to get even a lower % on copyvio than before. I would reintroduce the info after completely rephrasing it, or find the information in an other webpage.

If someone else has an Idea how to improve the page, I would be thankful. Bekir Kaya is a rather influential and well known mayor and human rights lawyer of Van. He is in prison for alleged terror charges which in turkey are really easy to get. From my point of view if we can have board members of an university or a boxer who competed (according to the article he did not win anything) in the olympic games 1968 in wikipedia, we can include a mayor from almost any city as well.

Still I think a discussion could be made about what it means if on copyvio it is stated, that a violation is unlikely or what is the percentage that recommendable to be reached on copyvio? Maybe this info is already somewhere, but I did not find it, if someone could show where this info is I thank in advance.

With the very best regards,

--Lean Anael (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copyvio aside, the subject appears to fail WP:NPOLITICIAN. We do not compare the article to others, please see WP:WHATABOUTX, it is judged on its own. Ifnord (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appears to meet WP:GNG, and, in fact, WP:NPOL: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." (I see there is a lot more in Turkish., some in German, etc.) More references for the information would be good, but that is a matter of quality, not AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL and has received significant coverage for passing the criteria. Anatoliatheo (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NPOL / WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. The coverage is routine and / or trivial; the crime does not appear to be significant either. Best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus even after 2 relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 07:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably should have been closed as no consensus by now, but fails WP:NPOL (mayors do not presumptively pass NPOL) and while it's borderline GNG I'm voting delete since it's still a copyright violation. SportingFlyer talk 18:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The copyvio is not good. Does not make NPOL Jip Orlando (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ just saw the votes here and and am beginning to overhaul. From my point of view he passes WP:NPOL. He may not be so well known in the west, but he is a rather influential politician and human rights lawyer. He and his conviction on grounds of having built a bridge as a Mayor is quite well known in the Kurdish community but also at human rights NGO`s. It is a unique and symbolic conviction to show how justice works under Erdogans Government. Lean Anael (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !votes are not permitted. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to duplicate my vote. I am sorry to have given to wrong impression. I just saw there was added a new deletion template (there were 2 different ones in the article until the deletion of the second), so I just wanted to state that I am on it overhauling it, and would appreciate if you waited until I have made an overhaul of the page until you decide. I have made now several changes. Copyvio should not apply anymore (I guess, I do not know how to check it), since I added several other sources and phrases. If someone, after having read the article after the recent changes and still thinks he was not an important politician according to WP:NPOL I would like to know why they think like this. He was elected twice, is a rather important figure in the peace process between Armenia and Turkey and there are plenty or articles about him from different news agencies in several languages from turkish/Kurdish over german/english to french/spanish/italian books exist, too in various languages like german, or english (other languages I leave out here, he was visited by a swiss parliamentary delegation in prison...I hope to have given you some more good arguments to vote keep. :) With the very best regards, Lean Anael (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a strikethrough to the word "keep" to avoid misleading the closer. For future reference, you are free to leave additional comments in deletion discussions, but you should generally bold the words "keep" or "delete" only once (they're sometimes called "!votes"). Mz7 (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ithink there's enough evidence to show his general notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 7 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Marshall (chemist)

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

This chemist fails WP:NBIO. No reliable sources covering this person could be found, unlike for the presenter with the same name, Geoff Marshall (presenter). Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If he is actually a member or fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, then that is a pass on WP:NACADEMIC #3, but I can't find any evidence either way. shoy (reactions) 14:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He won the distinguished service award in 1993 (per ref 3 in the article), and the criteria indicate that it is open to "members of the RSC analytical division" which shows he is (or was) a member but I'm not 100% certain yet whether it is open to all categories of members, but it seems unlikely that someone who has given 10 years of distinguished voluntary service would be anything less than a member or fellow. It's not surprising though that sources for a research chemist mostly active before the internet are harder to find online than for a contemporary youtuber - not that the notability of the later has any relevance to the notability of the former. I'm leaning keep here, but it's going to take a bit more looking to be certain. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is another reference for him winning the award [8]. The article could do with improving - the "active" years in the info box appear to refer only to his volunteer guide activities, not being an analytical chemist, so are a bit misleading. However, he does seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this is a division-level service award, I'd be surprised if it were enough to get past WP:PROF. I think it would be important to know whether he was a fellow or simply a member of the RSC. I haven't found any evidence that he was the former. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't think the award is enough for WP:PROF and there doesn't seem to be anything else there. So the only possibility for notability would be for WP:AUTHOR for his travel books, but I didn't find the reliably published independent reviews that would be needed for notability that way. I'd be willing to change my mind if enough such reviews turn up (say more than one book reviewed, and at least four reviews total). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 07:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a member of the RSC, or any professional society for that matter, is not enough to show notability as some people seem to think. Being a fellow would be a stronger indication, but there is no evidence that he is that and it would still only be an indication. The society award does not seem to be an especially prestigous one; it was given to fifteen other people in the same year as Marshall according to the article. He comes nowhere near a WP:PROF pass; his work, such as it is, has not had a significant impact. Contrary to claims above, Marshall's publications from the 70s and 80s are easy to find online. He has only a small number of published papers and gscholar shows low citation counts. His later career as an author is an even more dismal notability failure of WP:AUTHOR. Literally thousands of local history books are published every year. There is no sign that any special interest has been taken in Marshall's contribution other than his own claim that London's Docklands is "award-winning". He doesn't say which award and I can find no independent confirmation, let alone that the award is of any significance. SpinningSpark 15:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Anne Bennett Memorial Award recognises exceptional voluntary services over a period of years to the RSC Analytical Division - typically at least ten years. It's basically a long service award and doesn't pass the bar set by WP:PROF which requires 'a highly prestigious academic award or honor'. Nothing else here passes notability either. I'm sure he's a good man but he doesn't warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia.--Project Osprey (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above comments, his achievements and membership of the RSC and the award for long service do not meet the threshold the PROF,and no other sources seem to establish GNG. — Amakuru (talk) 23:50, 4 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) 00:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The A to Z Symphony

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

Article is about a direct-to-video DVD release. External links are to self-published sources. Article has an 'awards' section but these are of dubious notability. Almost a candidate for a PROD but there is enough of a claim of notability for me to want to put this up for discussion. Deletion criteria: GNG, NFILM Jip Orlando (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including three independent reviews in Family Time magazine, Booklist magazine and Midwest Book Review included in the article, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial non-RS sources in article, can't find anything significant in search to show notability, fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 07:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. I am dubious about the sources cited in the article since these are actually uploaded to another website (cmkids.org), and not from the original source. FOARP (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to lack coverage in independent sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:39, 1 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. If the previous AfD were more recent, I would have made a "keep" assumption, but standards from 2005 were different from today, especially around the notability of organizations. RL0919 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inibsa

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The 2006 AfD was closed as keep because of WP:ITSNOTABLE assumption, with no reference cited. The article hasn't improved and I don't see much to add (WP:BEFORE yields little except one or two press releases, and mentions in passing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 07:08, 1 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Media

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

Completely unsourced corporate article. I would tag this as G11 but it's been around since 2015. No significant sources available to add - fails WP:NCORP. Bradv🍁 06:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MILL. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could probably still go speedy as there are no reliable sources out there other whatsoever. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete - surprisingly few google hits even in its home country. Arved (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no reliable sources available Reddragon7 (talk) 07:44, 7 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 10:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Streaming

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

Looks to fail WP:GNG. Prodded a while back, deprodded by article creator. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a few passing mentions, but nothing that comes close to WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 1 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. Vanamonde (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Pathfinder Off Road Association

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

No significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I feel like this article is just something that's been lost in the crevices for a long time, but it 100% fails WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only source in the article is dead and there's nothing anywhere on Google in terms of reliable (or any!) sources, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 16:30, 2 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 withdraw. looks to now have enough third party sources to pass notability. Therefore, withdraw normination. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironclad (video game)

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

May not meet notability guidelines Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added several sources (there were none before). Notable as one of a handful of exclusives for the Neo Geo CD. TarkusAB^talk 07:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE JOE BRO 64 16:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TheJoebro64, I've searched Google books and Google but couldn't find anything relevant --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: You should try Googling the Japanese title next time. You don't need to be able to read Japanese to see that there appear to be quite a few GBooks hits for the Japanese title.[9] GBooks doesn't tend to give previews of Japanese books like English ones (?), but it appears that Yu Suzuki gave it at least a mention in a book about game philosophy and aesthetics. Granted not having read the book myself this is not an argument to keep, but when you say you've searched GBooks you you appear to be indicating you didn't even try searching for the title in its native language. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88, noted. Yeah, I searched for the English title and that brought up little results. It brought up more results for Ironclad ships than the game. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I plan to save various articles from being deleted here, including this one. I do know about more sources talking about Ironclad but they are very hard to come by. Once i'm done with Zero-5 (i haven't finished it due to a unfortunate event that left me without internet to make full-fledged edits on my PC), i'll come back to improve this article! Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has tonal problems but it seems to be "reliable" enough by English Wikipedia video game article standards, and is fairly in-depth. As an aside, Tyw7, you really have to be more careful: May not meet notability guidelines? You are just giving ammo to disruptive keepist editors with nominations like this one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88, well to me it does not meet guidelines as I can't find any references on the web. But I'm not ruling out there might be offline third-party references that appear when the nomination is made --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:14, 2 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. If anyone is especially keen on a draft/userspace copy, I am willing to provide one. Vanamonde (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Álex Craninx

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

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Craninx. The reasons from two years ago remain valid. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 15:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify as per above, can be recreated if and when he meets either requirement. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:34, 1 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HotShot (video game)

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

Couldn't find third party coverage of game Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per the reviews in Crash, Sinclair User, and Your Sinclair. Whenever assessing the notability of 8-bit and 16-bit games it's best to check archives like www.worldofspectrum.org when doing your WP:BEFORE since the magazines that covered that period of games history were almost all platform-specific and now defunct. FOARP (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. WP:BEFORE was not done JOE BRO 64 16:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TheJoebro64, BEFORE WAS done but the title is so generic I can't find anything specific for the game --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I knew that this game existed since I was a gamer (and regular reader of Crash) at the time this game came out. FOARP (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the sources that have now been added. Phediuk (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to there being even more available sources on this archive page. It is tough to thoroughly do a BEFORE for old games.Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:51, 6 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. -- Scott (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khyle Diaz

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

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:NATHLETE; significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Ukhoopsguide with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Sources currently cited in the article are not independent (e.g. his schools). Spacecityscoop.com is from Fansided, which is a non-reliable fan site. Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL either.—Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOOPS and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:53, 5 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 speedy delete. Article creator blanked the page, deleted as 'author request'. No prejudice against recreation, other than the requirement for a non-spammy article that shows notability. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 05:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Nicoll

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

Self-created article, no evidence of meeting notability guidelines Melcous (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:08, 1 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. Vanamonde (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Goodheart

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

All sources about him seem to be affiliated or are really about his 1861 book instead of him. Fails WP:GNG. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice against moving: The book clearly meets WP:NBOOK (NYT and WP among other reviews), but with limited coverage outside the book he doesn't clearly meet WP:GNG and may not meet WP:NAUTHOR (NAUTHOR#3c for the book is closest). There are thus two good options, neither involving deletion: either cover the book under his article, or cover him under an article on the book. Both require an article and a redirect. If there is to only be one article, I prefer keeping as author since it can legitimately build if/as RS coverage of him happens to appear. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need encyclopedic coverage of this author and his book. I would not object moving the content to an article about the book. But simply deleting this article would be bad for the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Believe the article could be expanded in the future. Also found 244 mentions of his name in the New York Times as a columnist, reviewer and/or quoted going back to 2011. Mostly civil war or history coverage. Conlinp (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Scholar shows his 1861 book being cited 61 times and a variety of his other writings being cited in other works. It's difficult for historians, isn't it? They do the writing and are seldom the subject of it. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; exceptionally well put, Schazjmd. ——SerialNumber54129 15:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 3 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) 00:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subash Siriwardana

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

Has never competed in any major notable international Bodybuilding competitions. Neither the IFBB Amateur Bodybuilding Chamionship or Mr Sri Lanka are notable events. Dan arndt (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know very little about competitive bodybuilding, but the events he competed at don't seem to be the highest level since they're either not world events and/or amateur. More importantly, however, is the fact that I can find no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trillfendi (talk) 23:41, 7 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. Vanamonde (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Songsar

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

Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, ProQuest, and Questia, including by Bengali-script name, found two sentences about this Songsar in reliable sources.[10][11] The film exists, but doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Worldbruce (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:NFILM. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough independent coverage to allow it to pass the WP:GNG or any of the NFILM principles and categories.^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:23, 1 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.

[1] ttps://kxnt.radio.com/media/audio-channel/election-2018-podcast-race-closer-you-think

[2] ttps://genprogress.org/hate-on-display/&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1546456993506000&usg=AFQjCNHXlcZ9JGH__Xeyk0k-3EP6xjEFVA

[3] ttps://www.campaignsandelections.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Rory+McShane

[4] Phillips, Jonni. "Jonni Phillips - YouTube Channel". YouTube. Retrieved 29 December 2018.

[Interview1-5] Nelson, Cooper. "Meet Jonni Phillips, creator of "Rachel and her Grandfather Control the Island"". Frederator-Studios. Tumblr. Retrieved 29 December 2018.

[6] "Rachel and Her Grandfather Control the Island - From GO! Cartoons - Full Episode". YouTube. Cartoon Hangover. Retrieved 29 December 2018.

[7] Phillips, Jonni. "@jonniphillips". Twitter. Retrieved 29 December 2018.

[8] Phillips, Jonni. "About". jonniphillips. Tumblr. Retrieved 29 December 2018.