Knowledge (XXG)

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. Enigma 23:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Anita Short Metz Grossman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Cannot find any sources for her and Horton, or her and the HUAC. I suspect that the references are mainly about the productions and only make incidental comment on Grossman. If anyone could find a reliable source, it would be welcome. Rogermx (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete being mentioned by name in a hearing of the US house is not at all a sign of notability. Thus the last AfD discussion was built around flaed reasoning. It is hard to see a way to argue that the text of such hearings are other than primary sources. Nothing presented that goes anywhere near showing the indepth coverage in reliable, secondary sources needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to lack any high-quality sources. Fails WP:NBIO. The previous nomination seemed to be stuck on a particular mention at a committee hearing. Snowycats (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma 23:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ochs-Sulzberger family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be copied in bulk from a genealogy website. As written, it contains no background on the family itself or its historical importance. Instead, it is a wide-ranging family tree, of which a few of the names are linked. The family connections could easily be incorporated in the individual articles. While an article on the history of the family would be useful, that bears no resemblance to the article that exists. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Wikiacc (¶) 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• I take back my speculation about the use of a genealogy website. The rest remains. Wikiacc (¶) 23:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 23:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Actually I used a genealogy format for this page, based on others I have seen and edited on Knowledge (XXG). It is NOT copied from a genealogy website, so I think this nomination might be a mistake if that is the basis for the deletion. I cited multiple sources and the family is highly notable. I strongly believe this page is a valuable entry on Knowledge (XXG) and should not be deleted. -- BrillLyle (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Additionally, instead of suggesting a wholesale deletion of a ton of work, if there is a need for content to summarize the value, I would request an assumption of good faith (AGF) and tag the top of the article with the request for content. Deleting this entry seems a bit extreme and reflects a possible misunderstanding of the genealogical presentation of information and the value of the page. -- BrillLyle (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• I don't know what article you were copying the format from, but I'm pretty certain it wasn't a FA or GA quality article. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments don't wash here. I'm sure the family is notable, at least through their ownership of the NYT. I can see sources discussing them as a family, here for instance. However, as it stands, the article is a massive failure of WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I suggest completely removing the genealogical table and expanding the prose of the one-sentence stub that remained. If the article remains in its current state, then I am for deleting it. SpinningSpark 23:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There are quite a few pages that list families in a genealogical way. I think this is an extreme overreaction and a weird hostility towards information. It also seems like you are the individual advocate for deleting a ton of work, and that it shouldn't be up to one editor to say what should be on this page or not. I don't understand the questioning of the notability of this family. It seems very bizarre. You are obviously going to do what you want to do here and are obviously not AGF in this instance, so I am powerless to stop you. But I want to go on record to say that I object. I think this is deletionism plain and simple. I disagree with your nomination and your assessment of the situation here. It is in my opinion against everything Knowledge (XXG) is valued for, and what you are doing is a weirdly hostile act that I'm not sure is cleanly motivated. But yeah by all means, feel free to work havoc on this page to "improve" the content that was created. -- BrillLyle (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • (after ec) You have a bad case of I didn't hear that. First of all, nobody has (so far) challenged the notability of the family. That is not the reason the article is up for deletion. You repeatedly claim (without linking to any evidence) that this is similar to other articles. Even if true, that is an invalid argument and you have shown no sign of having read the linked guidelines (let me link them again for you: WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTGENEALOGY) which explain why that argument is invalid and why the material doesn't belong. It is not too late to save the page. I advised you above what you need to do. You appear not to have heard that either.

It is patently untrue that it is up to one editor to decide – anybody can take part in this discussion. You accuse me of not assuming good faith. On the contrary, I have no doubt you created the page in good faith. It is you who is not showing good faith by accusing me of not being "cleanly motivated". SpinningSpark 16:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• The Tree list template is used on many pages. See Tree list template
• I do genealogy so maybe that's why this makes so much sense to me, but I am also Jewish and live in New York City. I do Jewish genealogy as well as other types of genealogy. All of the information on the page in question is cleanly presented and is valuable information. I think this deletion request is why there isn't MORE genealogy on Knowledge (XXG), this type of reaction and the reasoning. I am not sure why this is not clear to you from what I have explained, but this action is a real disservice to Knowledge (XXG). Again, I ask you to reconsider and re-evaluate this methodology. -- BrillLyle (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• • • The template is used on many pages, but most of them aren't for genealogies. Of the ones that are, they are mostly for royal dynasties where the majority of entries are notable individuals with their own article. I'm not seeing any pages that consist almost entirely of a genealogy of mostly non-notables. That is exactly the sort of thing that WP:NOTDIRECTORY says we shouldn't be including. SpinningSpark 16:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The family may indeed be notable but this article does not demonstrate that notability as it's a context-less family tree of (mostly unlinked) names - exactly the sort of directory that Knowledge (XXG) is not supposed to include. If there are other articles that consist solely of a family tree like this, they should also be nominated for deletion. Ca2james (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Great. So instead of adding tags to improve pages with tons of content, you choose to delete?!? On what planet is this productive? I am seriously asking. It does not seem logical. -- BrillLyle (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • And this is the regular constant request that you stop following my edits, Ca2james. It's creepy and rude, and constitutes harassment. How about if you see my edits and just move on. It is unacceptable. -- BrillLyle (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• • • Stop falsely accusing me and try a little assuming good faith of me and others. You think that any content you create is sacrosanct and any changes to it are unproductive. You do not understand that there's more to Knowledge (XXG) than your content, that Knowledge (XXG) has standards for content and sourcing, or that editors who do take care of all that are doing as much for Knowledge (XXG) as you are. That's a serious answer. Ca2james (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Ca2james: AGF? It's not false. It's actual fact, which you yourself admitted to doing, to following my edits page to page. It's documented in the page histories and you said it on at least one Talk page or AN/I board, so that's not a question. The issue is you refuse to stop. If I was more like you I would bring you up on charges via AN/I. But I'm not you. I am simply repeating my request to recuse yourself on any page I am working on, on any administrative issue that might come up directly related to me. You are stalking my edits. It is chronic. I would request you stop. I think that is reasonable.
• This made me laugh. You're saying that I don't understand there's more to Knowledge (XXG) than content?!? I guess that's how you justify what you do on Knowledge (XXG), eh? The fact is that I don't think the content that I create is sacrosanct. I am just trying to add actual content and curate the best citations possible. I do a ton of work that is really really hard and not appreciated. I think that it is a common theme that Knowledge (XXG) "editors" who almost entirely focus on admin and enforcing WIKI:Rulez and don't do the difficult task of actually contribute content tend to take deletionist approaches to editing out of fear or maybe just plain incompetence. It's working at cross-purposes, like here, yet again. There is always an opportunity to discuss and/or assist in improving the information on pages. I don't see you doing that in your editing. I only see you and your editor friends deleting content and fixating on minutae, running me off pages and generally attacking content. I'm happy to collaborate if editors are adding content, improving content, etc. But don't lecture me about understanding Knowledge (XXG). This is a continual personal attack on me that you must enjoy on some level. It needs to stop. You need to recuse yourself when I am involved until you can prove you will be more neutral and constructive. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY - also WP:BLP also heavily discourages names of non-notable people being used in articles under the presumption of privacy. I have excised a number of the obvious ones, but there are probably some more left. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The subject is possibly notable given the works listed in the Further reading section, but the version of the article nominated for deletion is TNT-iable.

@BrillLyle: I'd suggest that instead of arguing a case for "keep" here, you and other interested editors edit the article to make it a better fit for wikipedia. Take a look, for example, at the Kennedy family article. It's far from great, but the substantive lede and history sections, and mainly restricting the family tree to notable members (especially for recent/current generations) would be a good start. (I intend to re-evaluate and update my comment to keep/delete/draftify later in the week depending upon status of the article at the time). Abecedare (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Abecedare: I'm more than happy to do that. I simply object here to the wholesale deletion of this information. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• delete per NOT. Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Needs a section that describes in narrative form the way the editorship/publishing of the New York Times passed from family member to family member to family member.- Nunh-huh 17:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTGENEALOGY. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10 18:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTGENEALOGY fail. Not worth keeping without supporting context. Snowycats (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a genealogy site. Felicia (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete NOTGENEALOGY, plus it is unclear this family, as a family and not as individuals who happen to be members of it, satisfies GNG. Agricolae (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. North America 13:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

fails notability criteria and only a claim that they are one of the more popular bands in the Midwestern metal scene. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

What I found were these, but not enough to convince me they meet a notability criteria. http://metalholic.com/dirtfedd-interview-nebraska-metal-outfit-talks-mayhem-knotfest-influences-blythe/ http://noisecreep.com/dirtfedd-explain-their-journey-to-the-american-nightmare/ http://www.dailynebraskan.com/backstage-with-dirtfedd/article_0376d610-d418-55ce-b87a-14d92cf4187a.html http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/slipknot-s-clown-produces-dirtfedd-debut/ http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/slipknot-percussionist-producing-new-dirtfedd-album/ (both blabbermouth entries are brief mentions and are more about Slipknot's drummer doing the production than the band) https://www.alternativenation.net/best-metal-bands-state/ three sentences in the piece. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Does not appear to be notable (a Google search only seems to turn up their Facebook, MySpace, etc. pages without any indepent, reliable sources turning up) and is not supported by any sources in the article. _Hypercube ✎ 00:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - I wouldn't be surprised if there is a COI. Deb (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG - Not a notable band. Snowycats (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete on account of subject failing WP:MUSICBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma 23:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The Magic of Thinking Big (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book by a non-notable author (whose biographical article I have just nominated for deletion also). This article, like the author's article, is purely promotional. The only sources are primary or minor. In a search I could find nothing about this book in Reliable Sources, and I could not verify the claim that it sold over 4 million copies. If others of you are better at searching and come up with evidence that it is notable, the article will require a major trimming and rewrite to get rid of the promotional material and make it encyclopedic; WP:TNT might be preferable. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Merge with David J. Schwartz (motivational writer) according to my reasoning here. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall)
• Merge with David J. Schwartz (motivational writer). I'm in agreement with the reasons laid out by Frayae. In addition, I would add that this book was originally published in 1959 and is still on sale today. 4 million copies sold would not be out of line for a book with that staying power. I'm assuming the promotional verbiage comes from newer recruits and the fact that the book was reprinted in 2014. A look at Youtube shows that there are several audio versions of the book posted as well as numerous reviews--that is amazing given the original publishing date. I'm studying and writing articles on publishing history, and would think this book has a place in the pantheon of notable books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaldous1 (talk • contribs)

this book has a place in the pantheon of notable books -- I'm confused. Your saying it's notable, but !voting against an article. See WP:NBOOK. -- GreenC 19:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - I removed the unreliable sources and promotional content and added reliable sources. There are plenty more reliable sources by searching Google News. This is widely considered a "classic" self-help book. -- GreenC 20:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The article has gone through massive changes since being nominated. Forbes putting it on its list of its greatest self-help books, it having over a million confirmed sales, plus the rest, clearly confirm its notability. Dream Focus 21:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• OK, you all have convinced me. I withdraw the nomination. Nice work by User:StrayBolt and User:GreenC. Note that this does not allow for a speedy close of this nomination since there were some !votes for a merge. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep perfectly decent separate article after rewrite. No need to merge. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per GreenC and what Frayae said at the author's AfD. Editions of 1959, 1965 and 1987 (the number of editions is is an indicator of popularity). Simon and Schuster actually claim sales of six million, not four: . James500 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Since the nomination, the article has been revamped. The nomination was withdrawn. Snowycats (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma 23:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

David J. Schwartz (motivational writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should have been deleted years ago. The subject fails GNG; the only sources are primary, and in a search I could find no secondary coverage. The article is so promotional it is embarrassing. I was going to remove the most blatant promotional material, but it would have meant blanking the whole article. Let's just delete it instead. We could redirect to the article about his book, but I intend to nominate that for deletion too, for the same reasons. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

In further searching I found one actual reference - a scholarship offered in his name at Georgia State University - and in fairness I have added it to the article. My recommendation to delete has not changed. MelanieN alt (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. With his main work (The Magic of Thinking Big) published in 1959 I doubt much is in Google. I found a Kirkus review from 1983. The scholarship in his name is something to do with his being a professor at that university, sources confirming this are available but are primary to the university. I went behind paywall and found articles such as the general theme in these independent sources is positive, with almost all the sources calling him an 'expert' and 'well known', also describing his book as a 'bestseller' and a 'classic'. I could go further but the most part of sources are people giving short snippets from the book to describe their success. While that's nice, it does not help notability to list hundreds of mentions, and these do clutter the search results. I don't think any of this is very strong, but it should be sufficient to merge the book article into this and have a reasonably well sourced stub. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. A bit of history - The thoughts articulated by the author inspired me to open a wiki page about him, in spite of having limited online references. The intent while creating the skeletal wiki page of Mr. Schwartz was that it would be later appended with more content & references by fellow Wikipedians. However, that wasn't the case and I do agree with user MelamieN regarding the sad state of the page. Instead of deleting it, couldn't it be edited? ; Julius (Talk)
• Comment To me, the sources that Frayae found are not Reliable Sources as required to meet WP:GNG. They are more the kind of sources that will uncritically praise something and/or repeat whatever the author has said about himself. (If we could find independent confirmation of the claimed 4 million sales, that would certainly help.) We still have virtually no Reliable Sources about him. But I agree that it can be hard to find material on pre-Internet subjects. Anyhow, if the consensus here turns out to be Keep despite the poor sourcing, I will take responsibility for putting the article in shape. That would involve summarizing or removing almost all of the current content, which is almost entirely promotional; adding a few references such as the ones Frayae found; and reducing it to an encyclopedic stub, which is a perfectly acceptable form of Knowledge (XXG) article provided it is sourced. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @ MelanieN alt (talk) That would be helpful. Julius (talk)

Julius Do you think I should do it now - so that people can evaluate his notability (or lack of same) without all the distracting puffery? I have usually disliked it when people gut an article and then nominate it for deletion, but since it wouldn't involve removing any SOURCED material maybe it would actually make the discussion easier. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to the idea. I pruned it a bit and think that most of whats left is sourcable. But feel free to go further. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Good job, Frayae. I think the subject can now be evaluated for notability and (I still insist as required by GNG) whether it has the required references to independent, reliable sources. --MelanieN alt (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the opportunity to add some content from the magic of thinking big article, and a variety of mostly unreliable sources. Theres two claims which keep appearing but I can't verify, one is the oft cited 6 million copies sold figure, and the other is a claim it was a New York Times Bestseller. I don't know how to conclusively prove or disprove either claims so I have both in there. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I loved your edit summary "That's enough unreliable sources for now"! You have worked hard on this article, thank you. --MelanieN alt (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry everyone & @MelanieN alt to join late for the discussion. Noted the page has been summarised perfectly. Thank you all for the edits. :) --Julius (talk)

• Keep. Qualifies for WP:NACADEMIC Criteria #5. He held the "chair of consumer finance at Georgia Slate College, which is sponsored by the Georgia Consumer Finance Association". StrayBolt (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

What are you quoting from, StrayBolt? There are three references cited for this information but I was unable to use them to confirm it. The article contains one Reliable Source, namely the Georgia State University page about the scholarship in his name, but the only position it reports for him is professor of marketing. You would think, if he had also been chair of a department or head of a sponsored unit of the college, that they would have mentioned that. (In any case I'm not sure that being chair of an independently funded department or subdepartment or whatever it was, is equivalent to holding a named professorship which would qualify him per WP:ACADEMIC.) --MelanieN alt (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Xenia, OH newspaper (it is in the article or search for the quote). Here is a GSU page saying he was "chair of the marketing department". The meritpages.com probably got his middle initial wrong from a typo like from here. Perhaps it doesn't qualify under #5 where in his case it was an organization-named annually(?) sponsored chair, but not an endowed chair. StrayBolt (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Someone has left a message on the talk page. Should we move it to the right place? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I pinged a reply. Since they said they were unsure, moving does not seem inappropriate (unlike the norm of not changing people's posts). You can delete my reply if you move it. StrayBolt (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep WP:AUTHOR he is notable because of what he created, his book selling over a million copies and getting ample praise. Decades after his book came out, it is still mentioned in business articles like this one , they even quoting him at the end of it. Had a lasting effect. Others notable people credit his work to their success. Dream Focus 22:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per Dream Focus and Frayae. James500 (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Notable per WP:AUTHOR guidelines. I agree that he has expert quality of work. Snowycats (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

List of I Know What You Did Last Summer characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:UNIVERSE WP:FANCRUFT detail of character bios from I Know What You Did Last Summer (film series). Article content has no citations and is rehash of plot from films, providing no additional character exposition. Many characters appear in a single scene and/or are not integral to plot of film nor series. AldezD (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, unnecessary list. 344917661X (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks sources and WP:FANCRUFT issues. Snowycats (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Mayor of a small city. Only cited sources are city records, an unpublished memoir, and his obituary in the local paper. No evidence subject meets the WP:GNG Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. _Hypercube ✎ 21:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Taunton MA is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors, but this article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to actually get him over NPOL #2. Apart from one obituary in the local newspaper, which is not enough sourcing to constitute a magic GNG pass all by itself, this is otherwise sourced entirely to the city's own self-published records in its own municipal archive, and a colleague's unpublished memoir — neither of which are notability-assisting sources. And considering the dichotomy between how long the article is and how few sources are actually being cited, there's almost certainly some original research in here as well. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete poorly sourced, not enough for WP:GNG; doesn't get the WP:NPOL notability pass; and reads almost like a memorial. SportingFlyer talk 19:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Non-notable mayor. Sources aren't up to standards either. Snowycats (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Mayor of a city with 43,000 people when he was mayor. It might be worth mentioning both him and his father in the article on the high school, and maybe brief mentions in the article on the city, but nothing justifies a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

This is a procedural nomination for this page due to its apparent non-notability based on the hour-long conversation on IRC with the page creator arguing with DragonflySixtyseven about getting the related image deleted. From the edit history it looks like various parties have been attempting (and failing) to nominate the page properly, so I'm being nice and doing it for them. I have no opinions on the page, and have not done any BEFORE. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - None of the news Google pulls up is about the films. Instead they either use the phrasing, are about various charities, or a World of Warcraft guild that counts the infamous Leeroy Jenkins among its number and discussing the staged nature of that video. —Jeremy v^_^v 20:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete with regrets, as this seems to be a worthy creative work that should get more attention than it has received. I also found similar sources, and when adding "World War I" to the search query in news and newspapers I would get only one irrelevant result. If anyone else can find a couple of valid sources beyond the blog already cited in the article, I will heartily change my vote. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Google News does not find any significant coverage of the film, so it fails WP:NFILM. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Author asked for the article to be delete as they created it for marketing reasons. Also fails WP:NFILM. Snowycats (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as immediately above. Bondegezou (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. North America 14:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Kisi Se Dil Lagaake Dekho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreleased film that fails on WP:GNG. No credible evidence of notability can be found as per WP:NFO or WP:NFF. Hitro talk 20:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking significant coverage in rs for this unreleased film. If the director gets an article it can be mentioned there, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete : The film was never released and never even hinted at being something of a curio or a cult item. Subject fails all notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphan 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete- Fails on WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Hitro talk 20:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Completely non-notable musician who occasionally makes tunes and plays live, but not even unreliable sources exist, never mind reliable ones. Article creation was the only Knowledge (XXG) edit by a WP:SPA back in 2013. Richard3120 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO (none of the labels his recordings are featured on are important or even have Knowledge (XXG) aricles) or the wp:gng - almost no coverage in independent reliable sources. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Lack of reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. Snowycats (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Center for Research and Social Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

as far as I can see, fails WP:GNG. Promo The Banner talk 20:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete references provided are very minor. I checked several and they appear to be either self-published or simply fact-based listings akin to contact pages. Fails GNG.96.127.242.226 (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be a prolific publisher, but I struggled to find any independent citations to it's research activity. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks reliable sources. Snowycats (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The first "retain" opinion does not address our inclusion criteria. Sandstein 18:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Mother of Peace Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I did a search for this one as it has two good references. unfortunately I did not find additional refs. I removed Google maps being used as a ref in the article. Fails GNG as it does not have adequate RS.96.127.242.226 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Retain Such a large institution that serves all of Zimbabwe's AIDS orphans deserves to be noted, even though the press is not going to rub peoples' noses in the problems created by relatives who will not take in these orphans, at least until they are old enough to work. Also, I suggest the restoral of the gallery which was just deleted. It nicely complements the article. Jzsj (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sympathy is seldom reason to keep an article when there are no or just a few sources. The Banner talk 12:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:NORG

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC) (editted to number cites 08:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC))

WP:RS? Anyone? The Banner talk 14:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a waste of other editors' time and resources to try and pass off such poor sources as supporting the notability of the article. The second source given above is a dissertation. Not RS. The third mentions the fact that a woman who got murdered who happened to pass by the orphanage the day of her death. Trivial. The fourth source is ISSU.com. Self published, not RS. We do not know what the fourth source says, as it is only snipped view. The seventh source, the postnewsgroup, is not independent as at the end of the article it calls for donations. The Publication also looks sketchy. The last source, the Oxfortimes, is in-depth about a fundraiser for the orphanage, but only a passing mention of orphanage. As The Banner says, these have serious RS problems. At most we are looking at one or two reliable sources, and they are not very high quality. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

With respect to (2), a PHD thesis can be a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Grace Ntombizodwa Mugabe's thesis has recieved significant coverage in the mainstream meadia , but the coverage tends to indicate this thesis is not considered a reliable source.

With respect to (4), the Zimbabwe Independent is a mainstream newspaper. The fact that is is distributed via ISSU.com does not discount it’s credibility.

I agree that (7) is not a RS. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 08:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Some more sources:

1. Ndangariro, Ndangariro. "Mother of Peace gets early Xmas present". The Herald.
2. Sifile, Vusumuzi (April 13, 2006). "Zimind donates to two charities - The Zimbabwe Independent". Zimbabwe Independent.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 08:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Aha, another two sources of corporate-see-how-good-we-are-to-donate-a-minimal-amount-of-money type. The Banner talk 09:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

These two new sources are news reports about small donations to an unknown school. Like most of the reporting here, it's local trivia. The problem with this article and most of the other small Jesuit school articles at hand is that they have been created out of a belief that Jesuit organizations serving socially and economically under-represented and under-serviced populations are morally well-served by having first-world English Knowledge (XXG) articles that may help their status, even if the sources are nonexistent or inadequate. It's God's work, thinly veiled, to put it plainly. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete-Per analysis by IP.No significant hits in newspaper archives, either.∯WBG 06:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

"Common sense" would suggest that the country's newspapers have no reason to showcase that such an effort is needed. And the orphans don't buy newspapers. Jzsj (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete for subject failing WP:GNG. This is one of those occasions where some arguments are so strongly infected by sentiment and emotion that we need to douse the place afterwards with a repellent. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a nationwide project with the government kicking it off because of the AIDS epidemic. This is not just one project like many others. Jzsj (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not mistake my suggestion here to delete the contested article with my personal sentiments about such projects. But, per WP:SOAP, Knowledge (XXG) is explicitly not the means or the place for advocacy or agitation or even sympathy for a cause, no matter how noble the cause may be. Knowledge (XXG) may, as a foundation, assist good causes in many ways, but the content itself is shaped according to encyclopaedic policies and guidelines. We keep, or at least I try to keep, separate the encyclopaedia from the activism. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Would it be too much to expect that Knowledge (XXG)'s reviewers and deleters start going by the same playbook? For two years and nine months I went by the guideline that a charity with national scope and one reasonably independent source was notable, it seemed like "common sense" and satisfied the reviewers. Now I find my articles subject to a new playbook. Jzsj (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma 19:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

This page had been PRODed and speedied multiple times since 2016 for the same reasons as in the note tags here, appears to be non-notable and no reliable sources other than self published ones. Additionally this act and most of the linked associated acts have been repeatedly linked to sockpuppets (for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Rtjfan) that exist only to promote them. Looking at the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Martinluciddreamjr of the creator of this page this appears to be yet another set of promotional efforts for non-notable musicians. JamesG5 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see why this is listed in the "Artists-related deletion discussions". He should be in music or something similar.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete There's nothing in the article to support a claim of notability and nothing else I could find in a Google search that would support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. There are a lot of releases mentioned in the article, but none of them have garnered significant critical or commercial attention. Newslinger (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient (which is to say pretty much no) WP:reliable sources to establish notability. If the promotional music track lists are the best that can be found for this artist, it is small wonder that this has never survived speedy deletions or PRODs. Snow 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks reliable sources and fails WP:MUSICBIO. Snowycats (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

No sources to support that he is notable as a person, architect, or painter. It seems that almost nothing on him in the article can be verified. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

PS. The article on Barta has a very interesting history. The article in the English-language WP was created in February 2010. The article in the Slovak-language WP was created two years later, as a translation of the article in English. Until lately in the Slovakian article there was a no footnotes tag , removed by an IP, without good reason. This IP has started to translate the article in other WPs (, ), even recreating it in the Czech-language WP , where it had been deleted in 2010 for lacking notability , . In the meantime this IP persistently removes the notability, or the no footnote tags from the Barta articles of several language editions, although nothing has changed concerning the sources, references, and verification of its content , , . Even after I had proposed this article for deletion, this IP tried to remove all tags , . All these may point to a cross-wiki job to "force" Barta's notability. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• I dont understand you... you have many sources there, just because you dont understand the language you want to delete entire page??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.10.38 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

In this version of the article, the latest at this moment:

• Refs ##1,2,4 are identical, and are just a link to the cover of a book, as it is listed in the webpage of a bookshop.
• Refs ##3,6 are identical, just mentioning Barta in passing, as one of the architetcs that designed a project ("Naprojektovaný a realizovaný bol v rokoch 1959 až 1963, jeho autormi sú architekti Ján Steller a Imrich Bárta"). While adding this information you didn't even wrote that, οmitting the other name mentioned in the source, by writing in the article that only "Barta was architect of Bratislava´s city quarter called Ružová Dolina between the years 1959-1963" , though he was not alone in that according to the source.
• Ref #5 is a extract from the aforementioned book. The only thing we get to know from this pdf is from the name index of the book (p. 485), that there is a reference to Barta on page 244, but we can't see what kind of reference is that. It is quite interesting that in the "Biografie architektov" (=Biography of architects) section of the book there is a biography of Eugen Barta (p. 465), but not of Imrich Barta (biographies are in alphabetical order: before Eugen Barta is Zoltan Balit, and follows Peter Bauer).
• in Ref #7 the only thing about Barta is this "5/ 1959-1963: Ružová dolina (1 110 bytov) architekti: Ján Steller a Imrich Bárta", something we already know from Refs ##3,6.

These are the "many sources there". ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I think that claiming an editor went to the trouble of translating the English Wiki article into Slovenian in order to boost notability is a bit of a stretch.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Well 96.127.242.226, there is no translation into Slovenian (sl:Slovenščina); sk:Slovenčina means Slovak language. The person behind the 178.59…/176.92… etc IPs translated the article in English on Barta into German, Czech, and Italian; the article in the Italian-language WP has been already speedily deleted after tagged by myself. These IPs are all Greek, and their provider is Cyta Hellas, the Greek branch of the a Cyprus telecommunications company. The Greek article on Barta was created by another Cyta Hellas IP (Cyta Hellas has no more than 16% of the Greek telecommunications market), just a line in the beginning, and then another user -who has nothing to do with the abovementioned IPs- translated to Greek the whole article from the English-language WP. Later the 176/178… IPs were also involved. It is very interesting that 176.92.127.118 added to the text (without a source as the rule is) that Barta's Greek origin was from Salonica . In Sk-WP it was also created this stub that has to do with Barta too (the only verifible content about his activities). The Greek IPs were also busy in removing repedately the notability and no footnotes templates from Barta's articles, and adding unreferenced content about his activities in some articles of several language versions of WP , , , , . ΙP 178.59.10.38 also claimed in a file deletion discussion at Commons concerning Barta that she/he is the owner of a Barta's painting picturing the Blumental Church in Bratislava; Barta, according to the article on him besides an architect he was supposed to be a painter too, who as stated in the article "He created many oil paintings in the style of Van Gogh", and that "After his death his works became exclusive and marketable". All evidence support that there is a "promotional" cross-wiki job undertook by these Greek IPs, and this is either WP:COI, or trolling. I cannot think of something else to expalain facts. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice detective work. However I do not think such activity is anything to worry about. What happens on other wikis happens. We can handle the notability here without reference to other wikis, even given collusion, conspiracy, meat and sockpuppets should they come along.96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete This is ridiculous. Imrich Barta was not a famous painter, and did not bring many Americans to visit Bratislava to see works "in the style of Van Gogh". Americans who want to see van Goghs go to the Van Gogh Museum or the Kröller-Müller Museum, not to Bratislava to visit the non-existent Imrich Barta Museum or any of the fine museums of Bratislava, none of who appear to gave an Imrich Barta in their collections. Vexations (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak delete He seems to have some reliable source coverage as an architect, although none at all as a painter. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 00:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and Chalk19's additional sleuthing. A person who fails WP:NPERSON, an architect who fails WP:ARCHITECT, and a painter who fails WP:CREATIVE. Trifecta! -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma 19:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable company. No significant coverage Uhooep (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as corporate spam; borders on WP:G11. Beyond that, does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. No significant news coverage from reliable sources. Newslinger (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Promotional and not notable. Fails WP:NCORP. Snowycats (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above. Fails WP:SPIP and WP:NCORP. HighKing 12:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma 19:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

South End, Moncton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It is extremely questionable whether this neighborhood exists or not. The only place it comes up on the internet is this very article. Besides, even if it did exist, the population is minimal and there is nothing distinguishing it from the rest of Moncton. Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Cities and towns in Canada's Maritime provinces often were made up of distinct areas characterised by income, ethnicity, language and religious affiliation. This study https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/Acadiensis/article/viewFile/10782/11552 discusses the history of the North End of Saint John, New Brunswick. I am quite prepared to believe that Moncton neighbourhoods a century ago had different demographics, and that these changed as a result of industrialisation and deindustrialization, the changing role of governments, increasing rights and income for Catholics and francophones, and suburban sprawl. There ought to be references that document these changes. Whether those references can save this article is another matter. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources are provided that vouch for the actual conceptual existence of the neighborhood. And if there are sources, but not much to them, it's likely best to merge and redirect to the city's article. —innotata 15:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete completely unsourced article. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced. Every city that exists at all has north, south, east and west parts — so you can't just automatically reify "Cardinal Direction + City" into a neighbourhood, in the absence of reliable sourcing about that neighbourhood being recognized as a thing. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks reliable sources - WP:RS Snowycats (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma 19:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Much of the page was copyvio (a direct copy-paste of the company's titles), and page is also promotional in tone. Secondary coverage limited to trade publications, which WP:ORGIND recommends against using to gauge notability. Etzedek24 17:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Possible speedy delete. Page was speedily deleted and then recreated in the past, other creator pages have been marked for CSD in the past as well. Etzedek24 17:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Contains no content that can't be included / isn't already included in Everything Is Love or the artists' respective discography articles. Chase (talk | contributions) 14:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep – As per sources searches, qualifies for a standalone article per meeting WP:GNG and WP:BAND. North America 15:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Their songs and album have charted, so they pass WP:BAND. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC - #6 (is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians). Has charts, airplay, etc. The editor whose username is Z0 18:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Reminder that NMUSIC and GNG are not hard rules that insist everyone who meets those criteria need articles. The point is that this is an unnecessary content fork, a stub with information that is easily contained – if not already present – in Everything Is Love (the only release by the duo as a collective), Beyoncé, Jay-Z, and their respective discography articles Jay-Z albums discography, Jay-Z singles discography, and Beyoncé discography. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect or Merge into Everything Is Love. If this duo had more albums together, I'd say Keep, but they've only had one album and single so far and there collaborations can be mentioned in the retrospective Beyonce and Jay-Z articles. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Everything Is Love this is a blatant content fork of that record and it's too soon for a separate page until Beyoncé and Jay-Z at least release another album under this joint name as pretty much everything here is already covered there and/or the artists' respective discography pages. Nothing of value would be lost. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Everything Is Love was credited to "The Carters," not "Beyoncé and Jay-Z." This separates this article from The Throne (group), which was redirected to Watch The Throne because that album was credited to "Jay-Z and Kanye West." Newslinger (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Knowledge (XXG) wil be the laughingstock of social media if we delete this. 01:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

With no personal comment intended, who gives a fuck? Knowledge (XXG) never worried and hopefully never worry about what social media's tittering about. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Meets the criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Snowycats (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep because subject easily meets WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that GNG is met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

We don't have articles about secretaries. There now seems to be a tendency to write about everyone working at the White House for Trump, even in the most junior role; we don't do that for any other country. Her job is a menial one. Tataral (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. If reliable sources ccver her, she is notable. It is unfair and inaccurate to characterize her role as "menial". Besides, Rose Mary Woods. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Woods was a key figure in the Watergate scandal and only got a Knowledge (XXG) article after that and a career spanning decades. There is no evidence that Westerhout has any comparable historical significance (of course, if she played a comparable role in events leading to Trump's impeachment, she might become notable). We can't have articles about any secretary, janitor or gardener working at the White House just because their boss happens to be an influential politician. We don't have such articles about French or German or Polish secretaries to government figures. This article is really emblematic of the special treatment the US gets compared to other countries, which needs to stop. --Tataral (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Eastmain: if someone is covered in RS, then GNG is met. It doesn't matter why they're covered at all. Also, arguing that there aren't comparable articles for other countries, so we shouldn't have this one isn't valid. If there's not comparable coverage in other countries, then we can't write about that person. If there is comparable coverage, then go ahead and write about the secretaries. If they're women, we can put together a good redlist for Women in Red and sponsor an editathon on the topic. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete the coverage is of the human interest type. It is not the level of indepth reliable source coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, primarily per Eastmain. Individual has been covered by WP:RS, and proposing deletion on the grounds that their job "is a menail one" is insufficient at best. --HunterM267  17:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep: It is simply not true that "We don't have articles about secretaries." Twelve of the 17 other Personal Secretaries to the President listed on Knowledge (XXG) do have an article. When a secretary holds a position of national political importance, it is appropriate to have an article. Political historians write about these figues because they are significant. --Albany NY (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Repeating my comment at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ashley Estes Kavanaugh: I don't mean to go all WP:WAX, but it strikes me of similar importance to Evelyn Lincoln, Grace Tully, etc. The list at the heading Personal secretary to the President shows that most such secretaries have Knowledge (XXG) articles. The article should be improved, perhaps; but not deleted. TJRC (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per TJRC, reliable sources cover her, she is notable. Thazinkoko (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per John Pack Lambert - I definitely agree with above sentiments, there are a lot of notable women we still don't have articles on, but all I am seeing here are a few fluff pieces - nothing to suggest the lasting notability that's needed for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The nominator should probably withdraw the comment about secretarial work being menial. I completely agree that the deciding factor here is WP:RS, and I don't think there are enough here.Seraphim System 00:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America 06:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BASIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Not notable singer. Clearly WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete competing in a singing competition does not give notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Being one of multiple contestants on a television show is not a significant assertion of notability. This is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. — CactusWriter 18:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, as others. Bondegezou (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete For sure WP:TOOEARLY. Also has WP:GNG issues. Snowycats (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Linguisticgeek (talk)
• Delete she was on a reality-TV singing competition in 2010. The only information after that I can find is appearing on a 2016 Youtube-based competition. There's insufficient significant coverage of her to meet WP:GNG; I doubt this is a WP:TOOSOON case, she's not a notable singer now and probably never will be one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Line G (Buenos Aires Underground) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Stub about a subway line that probably will never be realized and there is not enough material to expand the current page. There is no real project, so it is a hypothetical line. I think it is enough to talk about it on the Buenos Aires Underground page (as already happens; This page does not add any information), at least until there are further developments. Wind of freedom (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep - Firstly the "will probably never be realized" claim is OR and isn't in and of itself sufficient reason to delete an article. As for claims that there isn't enough information to warrant a separate article, I have edited a number of Buenos Aires Underground related articles at great length and seen many sources referring to Line G. Off the top of my head, information which should be added to this article includes:

- When a Chinese company offered USD 1.4 billion a few years ago to finance and construct the line in return for operating concessions. This was turned down because of concerns with the turnkey tender.

- A most recent expansion plan included Line G with plans to reroute it through the centre of the city instead of terminating at Retiro.

- This was actually one of the first planned lines back in the 1930s, but the company opted to construct Line D instead. As such, it has always remained a high priority in expansion plans and all sources indicate it will be the next line to be built after Line F.

Given all this, the best solution would be to expand and update the article. There's plenty of content to add here without cluttering the Buenos Aires Underground Article and the project has significant noteriety as an important part of the network's expansion, as would any article about an important infrastructure project for an important city. This makes the most sense as per WP:SPINOFF. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as per SegataSanshiro1. Expansion seems reasonable given the listed points; if not, merging to the Buenos Aires Underground page and leaving a redirect makes sense. = paul2520 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, or "Weak Keep", I guess, because this AFD has been open for a while, and on not very well informed reasoning that it sounds major, it sounds like a substantial proposal, and my view that we can cover a major transportation proposal even if it is delayed and/or might not happen. The current article has just two sources, from 2011 and 2015, the latter one not being dated in the article, which I will fix now. User:SegataSanshiro1, could you possibly please list here, and/or add to the article, what other sources you have? --Doncram (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, they're all in Spanish, but these refer to some of the history of the Line, the canceled Chinese financing and the current re-routed project, with EnElSubte having some pretty in-depth info:

Part 1 Part 2 - overview and history of the line up to the Chinese investment.

- details on the proposed financing from China Railway Engineering Corporation.

- more on that proposed deal.

- Copy of Law 670, which established the construction of lines F, G and I.

- reasons why CREC agreement didn't go forward.

- PETERS plan, which established a new proposed route for the Line. It also has a lot of other useful information about the projected number of passengers, etc.

More information on the early history can be found easily with a bit of time, such as why Line D was built instead. At the moment, the Underground is in a process of finding a new concessionaire to begin next year, with the Paris Metro, London Underground and Berlin U-Bahn operators among the bidders. Line F is likely to move forward as a Public–private partnership, so there will be information coming out in the future on if Line G will also go forward with the new operator or not. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I remembered that a long time ago I was working on an article for CHADOPyF in my sandbox and this makes reference to the fact that the company had planned this line as Line 3 in the 1930s. There's a nice image there which could potentially be used in this article as well if it's expanded. I could probably find more sources about that part of the Line's history, though I remember there being quite a lot in the PETERS source about the history following that. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources in the article already demonstrate sufficient notability, and the ones in this discussion only reinforce that. The article could be expanded, but the current state of he article is not a reason to delete. oknazevad (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Down's Heart Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• delete per nominators rational--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. A lecturer only at Stanford. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train 08:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• DELETE as per nom. In addition, fails WP:PROF. Jmertel23 (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:PROF. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10 22:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Passes GNG. Please see the references I've found and added to the article. I also cleaned the article up. @Jmertel23 and Septrillion: you may want to take another look at the article and see what you think. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Per Megalibrarygirl. Closer examination shows that the topic meets WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10 20:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Very weak keep, as to notability, per references added. Kierzek (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:MUSICBIO, paras 5 (her two solo albums were published on well-established labels, founded in 1950 (Lyrichord Discs) and 1975 (Koch International Classics are now part of Entertainment One) ); 8 (Gramophone Critics' Award) and 9 (runner up in the International Harpichord Competition). --Mirokado (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Besides anything else, as an unattributed copy-paste it is a copyright violation SpinningSpark 19:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article is a copy of Recapture of Bahia with slight changes. Super Ψ Dro 09:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete WP:A10.Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Tagged. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep withdrawn. (non-admin closure) \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10 16:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Declined PROD. Reason was: "This article mentions numerous (assumedly) living people by names and makes substantial accusations about their (allegedly) criminal behavior. It is poorly sourced and the sources that are provided do not substantiate most of the content. Substantial portions of the content seem to be running afoul of WP:EDITORIALIZING." \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10 09:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy keep \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10 16:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. I think we can omit the "allegedly". "On June 5, 2003, both men were found guilty of all 46 counts - 23 each of interstate fraud and money laundering... The sentences were upheld on appeal..." The television documentary ("In 2009, a documentary on the scam as part of the series American Greed aired on CNBC.") is an in-depth reliable source and talken together with the other references is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep with a substantial clean up. Convictions were secured, so most of the BLP issues are resolved. The scam passes WP:N/CA with lasting significant coverage from multiple sources including Car and Driver and multiple books. The sensationalist tone of the article can be fixed through regular editing. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• 'Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Scam clearly meets NCRIME - full length book , coverage in others , some lasting news mentions - e.g.

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. Nominated by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet with no delete votes just a comment to change the article structure and name. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

All of the sources are talking about her brand, and that too in a passing mention sort of way. I do not find any significant coverage in reliable sources for her to pass WP:GNG. There are blogs and unreliable websites included as well, that do nothing to add to the encyclopedic value of the article, if it had any. 2Joules (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train 11:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train 11:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train 11:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Move to Analeena, if the references are more about the brand than the person. There's no need to delete if the brand is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. After the creation of this AfD, the nominator, 2Joules (talk · contribs · count), was blocked as a sockpuppet of FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · count). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 08:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Is not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. I could not find it on any of the top ten games listed by reputable sources. 2Joules (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train 07:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Toucharcade review, Gamezebo review, Toucharcade followup, Gamezebo followup, Gamezebo followup 2. Not much else, so I'm going with a weak delete. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

  Video game mags will review any and all video games that make it out of the pipeline and then some. This is their standard way of doing things. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

  I guess you can bug me for !voting weak delete rather than just delete. Seems like there are better things to do though... I do disagree just about categorically with your assertion however, because some games will pull up 0 results. This one didn't. --Izno (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep has enough significant coverage in reliable sources as shown above to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• delete - Despite a claim for borderline notability, it's not convincing. The article as a whole deserves WP:TNT. Lee Vilenski 15:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, on account of subject failing notability criteria. The whole text is someone's personal work, typically unsourced. Much as I despise sockpuppetry, the nomination is correct. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. : WP:NVIDEOGAMES's requirements seem to accomodate what the article's subject has to offer. But it's an essay and not a guideline. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No opinion on recreation as a redirect. ansh666 08:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur and author. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the subject's company, which was deleted here: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/YouBar. Created as part of a promo walled garden. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train 06:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Custom Nation. I can't find anything more than passing mentions for his YouBar product, and his name itself doesn't return any notable press coverage. His book would be the best place to redirect the article to. Newslinger (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Nom's comment: I think a straight "delete" is preferable in this case. I'm not convinced that the book itself is notable; the article on it was created by Special:Contributions/Anonymity32 who is currently indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV and also fails WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to New Jersey Film Festival. ansh666 08:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

He is a college professor that organized the New Jersey Film Festival. All the news coverage he has received has been about that festival. Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:CREATIVE, the applicable guidelines. Rusf10 (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 03:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 03:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. 03:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. 03:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Weak keep - An article in The New York Times about him just pushes him past the bar, barely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete The NYT article is a local interest story about a businessman within the newspapers reading area, it is just not enough to make Nigrin notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

He's not really a businessman, he's a college professor.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep due to the NYT profile and the fact that he's a creator of a notable film festival. ~EDDY ~ 00:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to New Jersey Film Festival. The NYT piece is mostly about the festival (and the NYT covers local news - which includes NJ, and half of it is a Q&A interview (which is not independent coverage, the top half is perhaps not). There's little scope for development here with current sources and both the festival and this article are quite short stubs.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to New Jersey Film Festival per Icewhiz.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to New Jersey Film Festival per Icewhiz. Marquardtika (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to New Jersey Film Festival in lieu of deletion; I don't see any reason to put a stub bio of this person in that article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep on account of subject passing the independent-notability threshold of WP:NARTIST. There's the already cited NYT article plus another one, which are very strong for our purposes. Moreover, the subject is an artist himself. The article somewhat bypasses this. There's extensive coverage of the subject as an artist in, for example, an offline 1993 Star-Ledger extensive, critical presentation ("Visual Arts Center presents screenings of Nigrin films"). The text needs some serious improvement, though. -The Gnome (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to film festival. No notability to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 08:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO . There is little biographical information about this person in any of the sources cited. He is a successful lawyer who has appeared on television to give his opinion, but this alone does not make him notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, Magnolia677

I'm the original author of the Alex Ozols Wiki page at https://en.wikipedia.org/Alex_Ozols. I got your notification that you'd like to begin the process of deleting the article. I went to Wiki's list of American Lawyers and saw a ton of lawyers on there with similar pages, and in a lot of instances less public notability, so I'm a bit confused? I really want to contribute to Wiki and I enjoy it a lot (it's hard to contribute new information, but I'm trying every couple of days), but it's a little dissuading when a long article you worked on is scheduled for deletion. I did read your note saying that Alex Ozols is successful, but not notable, which is where I'm having the confusion. In my eyes, many people are successful and don't warrant Wiki pages, because they're not in the public realm, they're just rich or innovative people in private sectors. Conversely, Alex Ozols is in the public a lot in California and on national news media. Aside from being on TV, he's been involved some historical cases with regards to records being set and their high-profile nature. I thought my sources for Alex were objective and large, so I don't think that's the problem. Is it solely because he's not a household name? I'd love to work with you on this augment the page with your guidance so I can learn how to properly contribute full articles. This isn't a fly by night thing for me, I enjoy this, but I did a lot if citation-research and what not for the page, so I'd love to find a way to appease your (and Wiki's) preferences.

As an aside, there are a lot of articles like this one on Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/The_American_Lawyer) that have been up for years with warnings or requests to enhance. Why are they allowed to stay published for so long, but my more thought out and thorough contribution isn't? I really wish we could IM or something so I could understand this whole process. lol. Sorry for being so needy.

I accidentally added this to your personal talk page first. I think it was suppose to be here? Thanks!

IPlayNiceWithOthers (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep As a student from San Diego trying to get into wikipedia I thought I would start with some additions to a lawyer here in San Diego that everyone knows. I have never met Alex Ozols but I have heard about him and see him very frequently on local TV. I made some additions today and then saw that this page is now up for deletion. I looked at WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO and it seems that this would not fail either or those. When looking at the footnotes it says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". This is an individual that has not just posted their own biography but instead has been notated in the media about cases that they personally handled. They are not cases that Alex Ozols commented on but instead are cases that he was the one handling which means the story is about his representation.

The footnotes say that: "Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Again, not self published links but news outlets, magazines, and national news coverage.

In regards to the comment "There is little biographical information about this person in any of the sources cited". There is a citation from the University of British Columbia, an extremely prestigious school, talking about him as a notable alumni. I also found an article from Thomas Jefferson School of Law describing his accomplishments as a notable alumni, which is a third party source acknowledging he went there, which I will add to the citations. I also found articles from Attorney Journal Magazine, featuring him and talking about his biographical background.

I respect your notations but wanted to make a quick comment about the television. This is an individual with tons of media coverage that is a very notable figure in San Diego and throughout the US. Although the guidelines say that IMDB does not fully establish notability, this is someone who does have an IMDB page and it does not even list the local news credits we see here in San Diego. The television networks that create our media each and every day look to Alex Ozols to provide comment, which is an endorsement. Media is not always in print these days, we also need to consider the media that is digital as well.

If you were doing this trying to make the page better than that is understandable but after about 60 minutes of research I can find at least 50 lawyers with pages that have a lot less notoriety than Alex Ozols.

I don't know much about wikipedia but I hope this is the right place to post my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiadreamin87 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete ; not a lawyer and not from San Francisco, but the article as it exists is a description of a person doing the job educated for. Regardless of outcome, see no value for descriptions of individual cases. I mean, really, a dog custody case? David notMD (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Specifics about the dog case aside, Alex Ozols is on TV regularly as a commentator, contributor, and legal analyst across national TV media and all his citations are legitimate national newspapers. I perused this list of American media commentators that have passed Wiki's standards, and I see many that are equal to Alex. https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:American_political_commentators As I mentioned to the original reviewer, I also did this with American lawyers and he is equal to many of those listed. https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:American_lawyers I am happy to augment my article, but I want to learn how to contribute properly so I can continue to use Wiki in a manner that adds content to the site. Just saying "he's not popular enough in my eyes" but then allowing equal pages to exist, helps no one, as it doesn't explain what is allowed and not. There cannot be a double-standard allowed on this site, like so many other sites allow. If you're allowing all of these examples to remain without concern, explain to me how Alex is different. This is an education moment for you; take it. Tell me how to make it better and I will try to edit it to your liking. Thank you!IPlayNiceWithOthers (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The existence of other articles (bios of other lawyers) is not sufficient argument for not deleting an article. There are many, many existing articles in Knowledge (XXG) about people who do not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s definition of notability. The decision to retain or delete this article on Ozols will rest on its own merits. The nature of many of the citations (YouTube clips, interviews, IMBd...) are weak. David notMD (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I see no reason why he is not notable, he is a regular commentator and considered an expert by wide variety of various news outlets, and the article contains sources such as that clearly contradict the nom's assertions that "There is little biographical information about this person in any of the sources cited". — Insertcleverphrasehere 23:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The cited article's a quite clearly promotional piece of text, unworthy of inclusion. -The Gnome (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Every television market in America has a lawyer that saturates the airwaves with ads and will provide comment about law issues to any station if needed. This looks like San Diego's version of Cellino & Barnes; sources, indeed, but media saturation doesn't equal meeting WP:N. We've also got WP:RESUME issues here with 'lawyer helps litigant get case dismissed' cases. Nate • (chatter) 05:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a promotional resume for an attorney, based on his own promotional efforts. The utter lack of notability is shown by the utter insignificance of the cases discussed. Personally, as advertising goes, this is pretty feeble, but that's clearly what the article sets out to do. But one of the other comments above is right--there are tens of thousand almost equally promotional articles for non-notable people, including several hundred lawyers. It will take us a while to get rid of all of them, but at the very least we shouldn't be adding to them. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete this blatantly promotional, possibly advertising text, per nomination, as lacking verifiable evidence of notability. And the argument "There's other similar stuff on Knowledge (XXG)" is null and void. It simply means more work for us. -The Gnome (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Per WP:NFF Jamez42 (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFF, no evidence filming has ever taken place. BOVINEBOY2008 13:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. this source indicates that filming was to begin on 7th May. — Insertcleverphrasehere 02:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Article says that filming was going to begin on that date, but given the article's date (1st May), that the film was already delayed for months until the filming date was confirmed and that only two months have passed, I don't know if other sources are needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wait until around mid-November to see if any more coverage has occurred. The films producers would with no doubt have started promoting by then. However, if there is no more word from the press, it would be safe to delete the article or draftify until there is enough coverage to move the article back to mainspace. -- Henry  02:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the impressive (in a bad way) amount of typing expended on this page, the WP:NOTINHERITED argument and the lack of reliable sources seems stronger. ansh666 08:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to passing mentions / WP:SPIP sources. Created by a SPA with three edits and edited by a sock farm, such as Special:Contributions/Fouetté_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant. Notability is not inherited from the notable artists the gallery has represented. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 00:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 02:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 02:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Suject fails WP:N, never mind WP:NCORP. And socks never help the cause, folks. -The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep This is an ongoing concern exhibiting artwork in Brussels, Belgium. If we look at the article on Filip Gilissen we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Thu Van Tran we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Adam Henry (artist) we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Sarah Bostwick we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Sarah Pickering we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Maarten Vanden Eynde we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Jordi Colomer we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Benoît Maire we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Susan Collis we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Ellen Harvey we find that she has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on José María Sicilia we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at the article on Leon Vranken we find that he has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. If we look at an article named Brussels Gallery Weekend, we find one of the galleries participating in that annual event is Meessen De Clercq gallery. Bus stop (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I warned them there should be a limit to the use of the copy/paste function. -The Gnome (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

As Bus Stop points out, the artists who show there are notable. However notability is not inherited, even if you repeat the sentence a lot.104.163.157.79 (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• An art gallery virtually only receives notability from the art exhibitions shown there and from the art gallery's participation in other art-related events. This is not inheritance. Rather this is an art gallery's raison d'être. There are few other reasons that an art gallery could be reported upon in sources. Perhaps a gallery occupies a renovated disused meatpacking plant or power station and sources report on that. But there is little else that sources are likely to report on. Perhaps a reliable source will comment on the spaciousness of an art gallery or the quality of its lighting. But coverage of such factors are not the mainstay of coverage in sources of art galleries. We should want to know whether or not a schedule of art exhibitions are held at an art gallery. That should be our primary metric for determining notability for art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• And by the way, the artists who show there do not even have to be notable. There is no argument whatsoever that galleries WP:INHERIT notability from artists. You say "As Bus Stop points out, the artists who show there are notable." It is not the notability of the artists that matters here—it is support in sources for an exhibition schedule. Reliable sources establish for us the existence of a regular exhibition schedule by publishing criticism and other commentary on art exhibitions held at art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I had a good poke around the Interwebs, Gnews and Gbooks, and could nor find any information in RS about their history. Almost all entries in RS are name checks saying "artist X , of Messen de Clerq".104.163.157.79 (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• The gallery exists and indeed sources do take note of the gallery's existence, but they do so primarily in the form of the art exhibitions that take place there: Leon Vranken: Great plans, random ideas - at Meessen De Clercq, Brussels. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly: the individual artists they exhibit are notable, but the gallery is not.104.163.157.79 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It would not matter whether the individual artists that the gallery shows are notable or not. Some of the artists are not notable. The gallery is notable if sufficient support is found in reliable sources for a steady exhibition schedule of art. Our question is: do sources cover art exhibitions at the art gallery? An art gallery hosts the artworks of artists. If the gallery is ignored then it is non-notable. But if reliable sources critique the art exhibitions, the gallery is notable. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You're inventing policy for notability when you say they're notable if "sufficient support is found in reliable sources for a steady exhibition schedule of art." There's a bus near my house that lots of notable people ride. it has a regular schedule of carrying notable people, in fact.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Also, here is an interview with the two principals of Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• This gallery also participates in other art exhibitions elsewhere: "Gallery Meessen De Clercq explores the relation of a Dutch Golden Era painting and the gallery’s contemporary artists at Brussels Art Fair BRAFA on 23–31 January 2016." Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Meessen De Clercq at Brafa Art Fair Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• "By 2018, Meessen De Clercq will be able to look back on seventy solo exhibitions, thirteen group shows and twelve publications (often first monographs on emerging artists). The gallery has participated in forty-seven international art fairs, including Art Basel, Frieze New York and Fiac." Bus stop (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This last item, for example, is two sentences. There is simply no in-depth coverage of the gallery itself.104.163.157.79 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Seventy solo exhibitions, thirteen group shows" suggests the existence of an exhibition schedule. In and of itself this does not establish notability for the gallery. But critical notice of those exhibitions in reliable sources establishes notability. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I know what you are getting at, and It is admirable, but the notability fo the artists reviewed in the exhibition reviews does not establish the notability of the gallery. the reviews are, to put it plainly, abotu work that the artist insets into the gallery space, and not about the gallery space. The reviews do not go on at length abotu the history of the gallery, its walls, its operations and the aesthetic quality of its floors. They talk about the artist's intentions, the artist's work and the subjective reaction of viewers to that work. You know that. And again, notability is not inherited.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

No one is saying that the notability of the artists in the reviews establishes the notability of the gallery. We are concerned with the notability of the gallery, not the notability of the artists. And we are concerned with the amount of interest reviewers show for art galleries. They take notice of art galleries by writing about art exhibitions. They are not going to write about the floors, the walls, or even the history of the gallery. Why would they? The owners of the gallery choose which artists to show. In so doing they are promoting a type of art. They become known for their particular "taste" in art. Some galleries are more eclectic than others. But art comes in an extraordinarily wide range of forms, and successful galleries inevitably are tastemakers. There is a degree of frisson surrounding the most successful art galleries. The public is not interested in the physical plant of an art gallery. It is silly to expect that reliable sources are going to cover the stability of the staircases or even the lighting, which is an important factor in a good exhibition space. It is inarguably the relevance or the irrelevance of the artists that a gallery chooses to represent that either garners reviews or not. All three parts work together: reviewers, galleries, artists. They either feed into one another or they deaden one another. Contrary to your argument, we are concerned with the reviews of art shows at art galleries. The reviews of shows at art galleries establish the notability of the art gallery provided the reviews are in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You're just inventing a new policy for notability. However we already have a policy for notability. All we need are ind-depth sources for the gallery, and the AFD will close as keep. Unfortunately these sources only exist for the artists who show there, and not the gallery. AND, before you port another long reply, can we just agree to disagree, and let others contribute? Someone should actually hat all this back and forth as it contributes nothing to the AfD.104.163.157.79 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You keep on saying that we need sources for the gallery when we already have sources for the gallery. A review of an art show at a gallery is a source for the gallery. The art show is not being held on the street. The art show is not being held in a vacant lot. The art show is not being held in the artist's studio. You refuse to understand that the art show is being held in the art gallery and that the gallerist chose the artist whose work is being shown. The gallery does many other things too but it is the gallerist's taste in art that defines the art gallery. Art is not a commodity. If the gallery were exhibiting sugar there might not be much choice involved—any artist that produces sugar would be as good a choice as any other artist that produces sugar. But art is greatly varied. If 100 artists would like to have an exhibition of their work in a given gallery, the gallery might only choose one of them. But it is that choice that will make the difference between a financially successful gallery and one that loses money. You don't seem to recognize that an exhibition is not just an artist's exhibition but a gallery's exhibition too. There is just as much if not more at stake for the art gallery as there is for the artist. You are not giving credit to the gallery. A substantial review of an exhibition is a credit to the gallery. For our purposes a substantial review or critique of an art exhibition in an art gallery contributes to the notability of the gallery in addition to the notability of the artist. What would you like to hear reviewed—that the gallery has nice restrooms? An art gallery could be held in some cases on derelict property. The taste in art of the gallerist is important. An art gallery could probably be held on a garbage dump. A reviewer of that art show would evaluate the art and such a review would help to establish notability for the "Garbage Dump Art Gallery". Bus stop (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Messen de Clerq has put on a show of Catalonian conceptual artist Ignasi Aballi, whose works were the subject of Madrid’s Reina Sofía retrospective in 2015-16. On view in the exhibition, titled ‘Translations’, are a number of works on paper, some of which are reminiscent of Josef Albers’s colour studies: grids of different tones marked with phrases such as ‘Peacock Blue’ and ‘Raw Sienna’. Aballi’s ‘Translations of a Japanese dictionary of colour combinations (Part II)’ (2018) is an intriguing series in which colour and language are transposed – and transposed again. One highlight is the 90-minute video Repaint Miró (2016), in which we see a restorer cover a bronze sculpture by Joan Miró in white, then re-paint it in its original colours." This is a review of an art exhibition presented by Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Belgian artist Fabrice Samyn, who is briefly mentioned in our article Ariane de Rothschild Art Prize. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Jonathan Monk. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

All this review says about the AFD subject is "Jonathan Monk “Without” at Meessen De Clercq, Brussels". Stop posting garbage sources please, and read WP:N.104.163.157.79 (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The name of the show is "Without" and it does not contain the work of Jonathan Monk. I stand corrected. It instead shows the work of other artists whose work somehow relates to the work of Jonathan Monk. That is the theme. I am not going to try to defend the concocted themes that art galleries come up with for shows. This is a business and they are promoters and salesmen. But this review is in "Mousse magazine", which may be a reliable source, and such a review would tend to support the notability of the gallery. I am not arguing that the notability of the artists shown in the reviewed exhibition is indicative of notability for the art gallery, but the artists in this exhibition include the following notable names: Robert Barry (artist), Alighiero Boetti, Chris Burden, Dan Graham, Sol LeWitt, Bruce Nauman, and Allen Ruppersberg. Bus stop (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the number of Knowledge (XXG) articles mentioning "Mousse magazine" it is probably a reliable source. We have 66 articles mentioning "Mousse magazine". Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Here is a review of a show at Meessen De Clercq of the work of Japanese photographer Rinko Kawauchi. "The exhibition presents a collection of forty photographs portraying everyday life in the vicinity of Kumamoto, a town in southern Japan. The artwork is based on real incidents and experiences of the locals, with each photograph capturing the right moment at the right place to showcase the related stories. Kawauchi's generous work borrows phrases from the local people and embodies the Japanese aesthetic and conceptual notion of ‘the moving intimacy of things.’ In her second solo show at the gallery, the artist pushes the stereotypical boundaries of ‘good photograph’ and attempts to reveal the impermanence of the world and lifecycles along with showcasing natural phenomena as metaphors of human emotions." Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Bus stop, you're bludgeoning the discussion now. everyone knows what you think here. Let some ohters contribute.104.163.157.79 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Meessen De Clercq is an art gallery in Brussels, one of the most important art capitals of the world. "Brussels Leads The European Contemporary Art Scene In 2017" Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop. The arguments you are giving are very poor. Being a "hot capital" is not a notability criteria. I tend to agree with you that galleries should be notable by the artists they show, but this is NOT the Wiki policy here. So please just stop. 104.163.157.79 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You cannot possibly "agree" with me on a position that I did not take. I did not say that "galleries should be notable by the artists they show". I did not say anything remotely like that. You also say "Being a "hot capital" is not a notability criteria." Why introduce new terminology? What is a "hot capital"? And I never said that the status of the city in which a gallery was located was a notability criteria for art galleries. I was merely observing the fact that Brussels at this time is a vital center of the worldwide contemporary art market. I found that interesting and I hoped others would as well. Bus stop (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You are just arguing for the sake of argument. Please stop.198.58.156.206 (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment to 104.163.157.79—Our WP:GNG policy says the following "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I would add that reviews of art shows are reviews of galleries provided the art show takes place in the art gallery or is under the auspices of the art gallery but taking place on other premises. This is the work of art galleries being taken note of by reliable sources. Many other factors would apply in ultimately determining notability but they tend to be more minor factors. But your basic argument that commentary in reliable sources of the art shows mounted by art galleries does not confer notability on art galleries is incorrect. How can you possibly argue that the work of an art gallery is INHERITED from artists? Doesn't the gallery play a role in bringing the exhibition into existence? Bus stop (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment to 104.163.157.79—Don't you realize that your argument is wrong? We have an article on Mike the Headless Chicken. Yet we are not going to have an article on an active and involved art gallery in one of the most important art cities in the world? The notability is in the reviews of the shows mounted by the art galleries. It is by design that art galleries themselves do not promote their physical plant. A museum would be written about in terms of its physical structure and the infrastructure that supports it or led to its creation. But an art gallery is a much more fly-by-night operation. There are actually "popup" art galleries. They rent a space for three months and hold an exhibition. But even those in long-term operation are not stable entities like museums. It should be noted that our coverage is presently problematic. Art gallery presently redirects to "Art museum". In significant ways these are two different types of institutions. Consequently notability requirements are different. But you seem to want a one-size-fits-all guideline for notability. It does not work. If on the other hand a museum had no sources reporting on the museum itself, you would be correct—it would likely be a candidate for deletion. I think greater sourcing requirements should be expected of museums than of art galleries. Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Your IP friend here again, my IP reset. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Time to put a sock in it and have the good grace to allow others to contribute. 198.58.156.206 (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP friend. You have the wrong idea about WP:INHERIT concerning this article and unfortunately you aren't willing to discuss that. You seem to think that a review of an art show is solely a review of artwork and of an artist. But an art exhibition is the culmination of many steps that an art gallery is instrumental in bringing about. These steps are too numerous to list but the very existence of an art gallery is a prerequisite to an art show. Reliable sources write reviews of artwork and artists but this should be understood as evidence of a gallery's notability. You do not have to dogmatically stick to a policy that is inapplicable in a given instance. Though a source is addressing an art show at an art gallery, such a source is tending to confer notability on an art gallery. This is not rocket science. It is common sense. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, this is getting out of hand. I understand that you're a painter, and might feel passionate about the gallery but you are overtaking the whole AfD process! And using unacceptable arguments to boot, such as WP:OSE ("We have an article on Mike the Headless Chicken," etc). The IP contributor makes a valid point: Notability is not inherited. If Edith Piaf stayed in the Grand Hôtel de Clermon, this by itself does not make the hotel notable. Independent notability requires reliable sources testifying to the subject's own, independent notability.

You disagree, obviously. It's understood. No need to bludgeon the discussion and fill up space with more and more links about shows, artists, and so on. It's time to allow others to contribute here. -The Gnome (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no problem with the Notability is not inherited policy—where it is applicable. But it is not applicable here. A source which reviews an art show at an art gallery tends to provide support for the notability of the art gallery hosting that show. There are other factors to be taken into consideration. But this is our point of contention. I would appreciate having a civil discussion in which you address that point instead of dismissing it out of hand. WP:INHERIT is generally applicable. It is not applicable here and we are not required to degrade the encyclopedia in order to hew to the letter of policy. And you should not be telling me not to "fill up space with more and more links about shows" because those links to shows tell us that this is an active art gallery that is involved in the contemporary art world in a city with a very vital art scene. I welcome constructive dialogue, The Gnome. Bear in mind that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Knowledge (XXG), ignore it. Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about notability anymore. It's about you intentionally bludgeoning and ruining the Afd process, after multiple requests to step back.198.58.156.206 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

At this point I've given up all hope of you engaging in conversation. All you are doing is complaining. You have one and only one argument. It is simplistic and it is incorrect. That argument is that notability is not inherited, enshrined in our policy of WP:INHERIT. Just because an art gallery is not mentioned (actually it always is mentioned, but only minimally) in a review of an exhibition, that is not an indication that the source is not referencing the gallery. It need not be referenced directly, in order to be referenced. If you want to engage in this deletion discussion you can address that point. We have policies and guidelines for everything. A great one here that you should be citing is WP:SATISFY. Why stop at WP:BLUDGEON? I'm not opposed to our policies and guidelines but they can be misused. Reviews of exhibitions logically reference art galleries even if they don't literally reference art galleries. That is my argument. That is the point that I am making. Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I think everyone reading this understood your point the first time you replied with the repeating sentences. At this point it would be very CIVIL of you to put a sock in it and let others reply. You have, sadly, bludgeoned your view mercilessly here. Grow up and let others have a say. 198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I understood your main point as soon as you made it, Bus stop. And accepted it as legitimate, though erroneous IMVHO. The avalanche of sources only support the legitimacy of your point, i.e. it exists and it's out there. Nothing is added by piling up more links and text. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

If it is "erroneous" then you should be able to articulate why it is erroneous. That is what is conspicuously missing from your input into the above discussion, The Gnome. Bus stop (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem—as you probably know there isn't specific language in WP:PAG pertaining to the notability of art galleries (or at least none that I'm aware of) therefore the adaptation of existing PAG may be called for. I think that prompts the unusual amount of discussion seen above and the high volume of input from me. Bus stop (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The nomination (and supporting delete) are flawed because galleries do indeed gain notability from the artists they exhibit - just as football player gain notability from the teams they play on. Galleries are just rooms that are periodically filled with artworks, but the most important can have a great effect on the local art scene or even the global art world. This one has exhibited enough notable artists to narrowly make the cut imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Saying that galleries are just rooms that are periodically filled with artwork is like saying Warren Buffett is just a stock-picker. This is especially true of cutting edge, contemporary artwork, which is another point I neglected to mention, applicable to Meessen De Clercq. Bus stop (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I note that the creator of the article has a username, User:Absens2008 that is taken from the title and year of first exhibition of the gallery. If there is undisclosed paid editing, I'd like to see any conflict of interest resolved before closing this AfD. I have the impression that the gallery was involved in creating an article about itself. The article was previously deleted as unambiguous advertising nominated for G11 again after recreation, but that speedy was declined then declined by blocked sockpuppet. Another contributor who appears to have a CoI is User:Anthropocene2015 See for example Vexations (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The gallery seems notable...Modernist (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The sources that would make it possible to write a factual, neutral article are simply not there. The online ones we have are mostly useless:

is the gallery itself, and cannot be used to establish notability

is an interview with the owners

is an interview with the owners

is a dead link

is a list of participating galleries in the Frieze art fair. It's worth noting that German Knowledge (XXG) considers galleries participating in such art fairs for a number of years notable. But other than Meessen De Clercq particpated in The 2012 edition of the Frieze Art Fair, it doesn't tell us anything.

is a mention, and again it doesn't really tell us anything other than Ignasi Aballí has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq.

is a commercial gallery that mentions thtaone of their artists has aso exhibited at Meessen De Clercq. The only statement that we can get from that would be, again, Susan Collins has exhibited at Meessen De Clercq.

is a listing, not editorial content. This kind of material is submitted by the gallery.

is a little better; it has byline, Heini Lehtinen, a contributor. It can't be a review though, since it's dated Jan 20, 2016 and the exhibition it describes took place from 23–31 January 2016. An actual review, albeit very brief is in .

"Starting November 8th, the gallery Meessen De Clercq is pleased to present...". That's a press release.

Still looking into the other sources that are listed, but not linked that were added by the IP address 91.183.239.198 that only ever contributed to articles about or related to the subject and (surprise?) geolocates to Brussels. Vexations (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

IMVHO, the succinct and trenchant forensics by Vexations above carry the day. Dear Bus stop tries to create a mountain out of a molehill. Effort understood on account of Bus stop being a painter; but WP is not a gallery of indiscriminate exhibits. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

At WP:TPYES I find "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I have The Gnome commenting "Dear Bus stop tries to create a mountain out of a molehill. Effort understood on account of Bus stop being a painter; but..." and "Bus stop, this is getting out of hand. I understand that you're a painter, and might feel passionate about the gallery but..." In my opinion The Gnome should confine their comments to content and not speculate about the motivations of other editors. Bus stop (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course I will. No need to invoke policy; it's a matter of common courtesy. I apologize. I tried to express sympathy but failed. The rest of my remarks (i.e. comparative assessment of sources) remain as they are. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, per Bus Stop's information and adequate defense for the notability of this gallery. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete The gallery is one of the most important galleries in Brussels and a major player in the Belgian and international art world. It is clearly notable in the conventional sense; worthy or deserving of attention on account of excellence, value, or importance. However, it is NOT notable in Wikpedia's very special sense of notable: having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have spent hours trying to fix the sources listed, and have had nothing but difficulties. The list of sources is impossible: The newspapers cited, La Libre Belgique and Le Soir both have extensive archives, and one would expect to find the articles there. Even checking ALL the articles ever published by the authors cited yielded nothing usable. I managed to dig up one source that I can't cite because it uses a blacklisted link, Collect, that quotes the owners on why they participated in the BRAFA art fair. There is a possibility that an article Brusselse topgaleries (deel 5): Galerie Meessen De Clercq by Patrick Auwelaert provides the kind of analysis that would support an article, but I have no access to that source. The article is part of a series that also covers Galerie Jan Mot (part 10), Galerie Rodolphe Janssen (part 9), Galerie Nathalie Obadia (part 8), ( Almine Rech Gallery (part 7), Galerie Greta Meert (part 6), Galerie Daniel Templon (part 4), Galerie Xavier Hufkens (part 3), Albert Baronian (part 2) and Roberto Polo Gallery (part 1). To see who these galleries represent, take a look at User:Vexations/lists/Galleries, it ought to give some idea about their significance. Personally, I wish it wasn't so difficult to source articles like this. I would like to see articles on art galleries, and I think that linking artists to galleries and vice versa helps to build the web, rather than create walled gardens. But ignoring the dearth of sources is not the solution.

Then there is the involvement of the gallery itself in the creation of the article and the creation of the articles on the artists that it represents. The editors Anthropocene2015 and Absens2008 are sockpuppets and undisclosed paid editors and their creations might have been eligible for deletion under G5. Creations by banned or blocked users, had they been caught in a timely manner. Both should have been blocked. An AfD is no place to punish a subject for their efforts to promote themselves, but it is appropriate to make one thing very clear: Unless you provide the sources so that the content can be verified and summarize their content from a neutral POV and have the article scrupulously reviewed for verifiability and neutrality (at AfC), there can be no article. Vexations (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. 👏👏👏 Brava, @Vexations—spot on and kudos for putting in the labor. Can I try to help with the sources you mentioned? Is this Collect? If you could clarify re: the La Libre Belgique and Le Soir refs, by "nothing usable" did you mean that the content was meager or that you weren't able to find some of the citations? I'll look into getting the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen as it seems @Absens2008 isn't returning with a copy. czar 23:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The Collect referred to here is a Belgian magazine. Their website is http://www.collectaaa.be. The issue is Hiver 2015 Nº 459. I found it through a google cache of the BRAFA website, but couldn't post that here because that google URL is blacklisted. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjoh9nr84fcAhVCbKwKHR-cAWsQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brafa.art%2Fmedia%2FAntiquesFairBeMedia%2FPressClips%2F2016-2-23-14-24-44_BE%2520-%25202015.12-2016.01%2520-%2520COLLECT%2520AAA%2520(fr).pdf&usg=AOvVaw1QBuVvxWXEDHG7iexUDFCF. I'm not sure how to make that URL work. 12:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice—appears to work without the Google cache URL elements (the Google cache isn't a permanent link), but questionable whether BRAFA holds the rights to host this excerpt, no? & could you clarify re: La Libre Belgique and Le Soir? czar 13:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

For La Libre Belgique for example, the article cites Lorent, Claude (2011-10-06). "Tout, de la cave au grenier". La Libre Belgique. So I looked at all the articles by Claude Lorent that La Libre Belgique has in it's archives http://www.lalibre.be/recherche?artefactFilter=article%2Cfolder%2Cgallery%2Cvideo&section=&subsection=&dateFilter=allDates&to=2018-07-05&from=2001-01-01&sort=&query=Claude+Lorent but nothing resembles the title, "Tout, de la cave au grenier", nor do they have any article published by him for the given date, 2011-10-06. I also queried the archive for the search term "Meessen De Clercq", but that yielded nothing http://www.lalibre.be/recherche?query=%22Meessen+de+Clerq%22. I tried the same type of search for matching either an author/date or article title (Legrand, Dominique. "Galeriste, sans chloroforme".) and simply looking for articles about the subject at Le Soir, which gives http://www.lesoir.be/archives/recherche?word=%22Meessen%20de%20Clercq%22&sort=date%20desc&datefilter=lastyear&form_build_id=form-kLAE3Up-EEgL1FZOQsqAdX67H4jFaU4bfcsIcNUVDoI&form_id=dpidamwidgets_damsimplesearch_content_type_search_form I referred to that as "nothing usable". Vexations (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Yes, that's unfortunate. Sometimes newspapers don't put their full archives online, but without volume/issue metadata, there's no reasonable way to follow up on this... if the listed citations were ever even in print? Ulrich's does not list the two papers as being indexed in online databases, so no help there either: WYSIWYG. Anyway, thanks for looking into it. czar 09:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations, sent the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen. It looks solid, but I defer to a native speaker. czar 14:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. I am willing to accept the argument that coverage of an exhibition at an art dealer is coverage of the art dealer. I would also remind everyone that there are many exceptions to GNG in areas where GNG doesn't work well, such as species of living things, high schools and high-performance athletes. We may need another exception for art dealers analogous to "played at least one game in the major leagues", which means that we will have to define "major league" art dealers in the same way that we have a list of fully professional association football leagues. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. In my opinion, Vexations' first sentence summarized my keep argument: The gallery is one of the most important galleries in Brussels and a major player in the Belgian and international art world. It is clearly notable in the conventional sense; worthy or deserving of attention on account of excellence, value, or importance. In my opinion, and as discussed by Eastmain above, there can be exceptions to the WP:GNG, and I believe this subject is one. The article needs cleanup and improvement, but is notable enough to remain. --HunterM267  18:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  It is somewhat disconcerting that a statement from an anonymous nobody on the internet (me) should be used to decide the notability of a subject. I can't just go and write the article based on my personal knowledge and experience, can I? Follow the sources. If they exist, show us where they are. (Note: Auwelaert 2014 goes a long way towards the kind of coverage that would satisfy the GNG) Vexations (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Vexations: Thank you for your response - I agree with your comments, and apologize for the lack of depth of my initial statement. Prior to making my comment, I reviewed the references and their links on the article - however, after a more thorough review of the sources listed, I find that the majority of them are primarily trivial mentions of the gallery as a venue for artists (such as here and here). Given this, along with my original statement above, I find that I could largely see the arguments made for both delete and keep. In my review of AfDs, I prefer to prioritize what the WP:RS say, in accordance with our WP:PAG. I cannot deny that this subject, as important to the international art world as it may be, lacks the verifiable references defined in the WP:GNG. For that reason, I cannot, in good conscious, maintain a keep vote, and I have struck my previous statement. However, I also do understand the rationale presented by Eastmain above (re: that the coverage of an exhibition at an art dealer is coverage of the art dealer), but lack the knowledge of the details of art galleries to be able to properly formulate an opinion. --HunterM267  16:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Nom's comment: I don't believe that there can be exceptions to the WP:GNG is a valid argument in a deletion discussion. The sources either exist or they don't. The entity in question is a private, for-profit company and we need to be mindful of WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• @Vexations, what do you think of the Kunsttijdschrift Vlaanderen article? czar 22:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: I think it goes some way towards establishing notability. It is one of the few sources that is actually about the gallery. It was written in 2014, six years after the gallery was founded, so it discusses a relatively "young" gallery. It is mostly an interview, and contains no independent analysis by the author. I'm not quite sure what it could be used for. It makes very few factual statements. It cites some very broad remarks by the owners about who they like to work with, like "The personality of the artist is important. It has to click. It has to be someone who believes in his future." I have no idea how you would turn such quotes into something encyclopedic. The problem, I think, is that at the time, the gallery had a fairly open concept, wasn't linked to any particular movement or style, tried to function as a platform (publisher, agent) more than a pure sales organization, and didn't really have much of a history. Vexations (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Vexations—you say "at the time, the gallery had a fairly open concept, wasn't linked to any particular movement or style". I don't know how you know this. What "movement or style" is it linked to now? Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I could have phrased hat better. I meant to say that there is nothing in the text of the article by Auwelaert that gives its readers any indication about what kind of work the gallery shows. Their programming is not based on any specific criteria. So you couldn't say, for example, that the gallery specializes in works by artists who have something concrete in common, like Greta Meert, who specializes in minimal and conceptual art, other than "conceptual artists who work with various media". In fact, the only artist from their roster who gets a mention is Fabrice Samyn (Leon Vranken and Ellen Harvey get a photo credit).

• Comment I think this effort to delete galleries under a literal interpretation of NCORP misunderstands the ways that galleries and the artworld work. Trying to understand an art gallery purely as a "business concern" misunderstands their purpose. The discussion here is a perfect example of this. Hunting for articles or reviews that talk about the gallery, but not any of the artists, so as to argue that there is coverage about the gallery itself exemplifies the failure of NCORP to handle this situation. This isn't the place to have that conversation, but I think that conversation needs to be had. As Vexations has said, "The gallery is one of the most important galleries in Brussels and a major player in the Belgian and international art world" and yet by the literalist interpretation of NCORP it seems like it will be deleted. This is a failure of the guidelines. --Theredproject (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

? No one is actually arguing NCORP, nevertheless literally. The agreement is that there aren't enough reliable, secondary source coverage to do justice to the topic. That owes more to arts journalism practices than WP guidelines. czar 22:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Czar—you say "That owes more to arts journalism practices than WP guidelines." WP guidelines do not say that reviews of art exhibitions at art galleries do not lend support to notability of art galleries. Arts journalism does not generally review works of art in for instance artists' studios, or even works displayed on the street. It is the public display of art in the institutions called art galleries that prompts the arts journalism to which you refer. Bus stop (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Publications also write about successful business partnerships and the lives of gallerists, and at the very least they review the gallery's shows. This is the type of content you'd need for a decent, authoritative article about a gallery. It follows that we simply cannot write an article that does justice to the topic if the only sources with editorial distance cover the topic in passing. The idea of exempting art gallery articles from sourcing requirements is off-topic (as Theredproject said above) but to the point that other editors are unhappy with the outcome of this AfD, I suggest resolving the core issue elaborated by Vexations above: insufficient sourcing to write an authoritative encyclopedia article, which is not a fault of the guidelines. czar 13:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. A couple of good profiles in respectable publications would solve the notability issue. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON.96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the "galleries are notable because they curate notable material" in a unique way is not a valid argument here. If we adopt that as policy then movie theaters who show films by notable directors, bookstores that have author talks, bars and clubs that present notable musicians and perhaps even restaurants who have have hired notable chefs will all be eligible. (router reset, I'm the original delete vote, 104.163.157.79). 96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

You are failing to address the presence of journalistic reviews of art exhibitions. It is not the presence of notable artists or notable artwork that confers notability on art galleries. It is the presence of journalistic reviews of exhibitions that can confer notability on three entities—artists, artwork, and art galleries. The art exhibition is being held on the premises of the art gallery. The gallery choose both the artist and the art. The gallery scheduled and arranged all aspects of the exhibition. Journalists do not write reviews of artwork in artists' studios. Journalists review exhibitions at art galleries. Some galleries of course have a reputation for stimulating or thought-provoking shows. By the way, don't put within quotation marks that "galleries are notable because they curate notable material" because you are not quoting anyone as no one said that. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'm sympathetic to your point that some galleries are notable in the conventional sense, but what would an article look like that was solely based on exhibition reviews? What could you say about MdC, based on, say, this review? https://www.flashartonline.com/2012/03/fabrice-samyn-review-6-03-2012/ 11:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Vexations—we need not write the article from that review or from any other review but reviews confer notability on art galleries—as well as on artists and artwork. At WP:NNC we find "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of some lists, which restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." At WP:ARTN we find "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Knowledge (XXG) article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Knowledge (XXG), no amount of improvements to the Knowledge (XXG) content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Knowledge (XXG) article will not decrease the subject's notability." You are conflating two different things when you say "What could you say about MdC, based on, say, this review?" That review along with others tends to confer notability on the art gallery, as well as on the artist and the artworks under review in that journalistic piece. We already have an article. The material may or may not derive from reviews of art exhibitions held at the gallery. It is my hope that the material already in the article—whether it comes from reviews of exhibitions or other sources—is based on acceptable-quality sources. But I would argue that a dearth of material is not necessarily a reason to delete an article, especially on an art gallery, if notability is established by reviews of art exhibitions at the gallery. In practice what this can mean for articles on art galleries is a selective list of artist's names and the titles of artworks, with an aim towards providing some commentary, if available. A plus would be the inclusion of images of artworks reliably-sourced to have been exhibited at that gallery. Images convey to the reader a general idea of the kind of art the gallery specializes in. In summation, there are two separate questions: what should the content be? and is the gallery notable? We can "Keep" this article because it already has some content, and notability is established by the many reviews of art exhibitions held there. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'm trying my best to see things from your POV, but if, as you say a dearth of material is not necessarily a reason to delete an article, especially on an art gallery, if notability is established by reviews of art exhibitions at the gallery, then how are you going to write an acceptable article? Are you proposing that we can have articles about subjects whose notability is derived separately, from sources like the review in flash art, and then get the content of the article from other sources that are not themselves independent, reliable, secondary sources? Vexations (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Vexations—don't we have an article already and aren't we considering deleting it? I don't know what you mean by "how are you going to write an acceptable article?" Is the article unacceptable now? "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it." In your previous post you mentioned this review. That review tends to confer notability on three entities—the artist, the artworks mentioned, and the gallery. I'm really not sure what problem you are perceiving. Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

We have no decent sources for this article at all, as I pointed out above. Vexations (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The biggest problem here is how Bus stop is bludgeoning the discussion and thereby preventing other voices.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Enough. This AfD has long since moved into the realm of WP:TLDR. There are ample grounds for concern over BLUDGEONING to go around. Bus Stop, 96.127.242.226, 104.163.157.79, 198.58.163.19. I want no more posts from any of you on this discussion unless you are adding something very weighty that has not already been addressed (which is all but impossible to imagine). It is time to drop the stick. This is becoming disruptive. If it persists I may consider taking all of you to ANI and requesting some kind of Topic Bann. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. the r references are essentially mere listing s and indiental mentions and self-published sources. They've been analyzed adequately above. It's true that it is quite difficult to show a gallery notable -- what people write about is the artists. I think it would take spedcific truly 3rdparty sources writing about the school of art or the art scene in the city and devoting considerable discussion to the gallery itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma 19:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

St. Mary's Catholic Church Buttranwali, Gujranwala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing historic, not a cathedral, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMG 06:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMG 06:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMG 06:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable parish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma 19:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

St Paul's Parish, Azam Basti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing historic, not a cathedral, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMG 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMG 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMG 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: @Störm: is there any sort of a notability guideline which applies specifically to religious buildings? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep- due to its social importance to Pakistani Christians which is enough for it to reach notability guidelines.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Keep -- The article certainly needs improvement, but the implication appears to be that this is a mother church from which a number of others ("mass centres") have been planted. Also the murder of Bhatti outside makes him potentially a martyr, so that this article may supply the lack of an article on him. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no guideline. There used to be something at WP:CHURCH, but it has never been accepted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as passes WP:GNG for the news coverage it has attracted Atlantic306 (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Exo-CBX. Can be retargeted to Magic (Exo-CBX album) if someone thinks that's more appropriate (I'm not sure what the conventions on this kind of thing are). Reliably sourced content can be merged from page history. ansh666 08:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

PROD removed without valid reason. Editor seems to think that ticket sales will help this meet WP:NTOUR, but they are mistaken: what is required is significant discussion of the tour as a tour. There is no such discussion--and there really is no sourcing, since all the references are to the official website. Not surprising since this is a small tour. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train 06:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Merge with Exo-CBX. The tour itself is not notable, with no apparent third party references after a Google check. The information contained may improve the band’s article, particularly the “tours” section. iComputerSaysNo 23:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG; significant RS coverage not found. I don't see any content / sources worth merging, and the tour appears to be too insignificant for the name to have become a plausible search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to Magic (Exo-CBX album). This is clearly a notable tour, Japanese-language sources have covered this arena tour. MusicVoice talks about one show quite a bit, Kstyle gives a figure for the audience it drew (80,000). Additional sources: . But there doesn't seem to be enough information to merit its own separate article. ℯxplicit 01:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Selective Merge to Magic (Exo-CBX album) per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete for subject failing WP:NTOUR. This pass valid for no place. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep. Despite numbers, I'm not comfortable enough with the strength of arguments on either side to close as straight keep. It is worth noting that comments in the last relist block mention that there could be more sources out there that are harder to find - not English or not online - which could push it firmly onto the keep side, but without them, it's hard to know for sure. ansh666 08:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Not even close to passing GNG or NAUTHOR. Sources added after BLPPROD are self authored. BEFORE mainly shows clones of book jackets at Amazon and the like. No substantial coverage of the subject or her works. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with nominator. She has a great personal story, but the reliable source coverage just isn't there. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 13:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Curiocurio please look at the sources again; I’m afraid you looked at them too briefly since your comment is contrary whats there. The sources are just fine.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A blurb in a non-RS she will be speaking at an event, a probably self authored profile (one of thousands) at KresySiberia (probably not a RS, but does not matter), book jakcets she wrote or translated, and a few opeds she penned over the years in a local paper... None of the sources in the article count towards notability. For GNG we expect to see high quality INDEPTH and independent sources - not self authored pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I went through the sources one by one and came to much the same conclusion. The KresySiberia profile is based on an interview with the subject. The only possible reliable source is the Google snippet of her co-authored book Zegota, if her profile was written by someone else. Not enough. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 16:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - per my comment above. GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, she doesn't appear to satisfy GNG or AUTHOR, and I was unable to find good sources. In fact, none of the sources cited could be treated as independent, thus precluding any notability-conferring weight. When searching, I did find four mentions in The News-Item, but mostly trivial coverage. BEFORE found nothing else. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment : Unless I miss my mark, there is no article on this subject in the Polish-language Knowledge (XXG). -The Gnome (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Irene Tomaszewski is cited on the Polish Knowledge (XXG) in ":Lista polskich miast zniszczonych podczas II wojny światowej" ("List of Polish cities destroyed in World War II"), "Krystyna Skarbek" ("Krystyna Skarbek"), "Edward Kemnitz" ("Edward Kemnitz"), and "Polish American Historical Association" ("Polish American Historical Association"). Nihil novi (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. The references here are doing nothing to establish her notability at all — they're all either primary sources, or pieces of her own writing. But a person does not get over WP:GNG by being the author of reliable source coverage of other things; she gets over GNG by being the subject of reliable source coverage written by other people. The sources here simply aren't cutting it at all, and nothing claimed in the body text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her sources from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Borderline passes WP:NAUTHOR - has authored several books, including in English, and they are being cited (just click Google Scholar link at the top of the AfD). Few dozen citations in total, according to GScholar. Borderline, yes, but I lean on the inclusionist side here. PS. The article creator has not been notified of this AFD, a technical oversight that should require relisting after the notification. PPS. Since the author is currently topic banned from commenting here, if this is deleted, I will pre-emptively ask on their behalf to userfy it for them in their userspace so they have an option to improve it in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - Notification is not required actually per my understanding of policy, and the creator here is TBANed (with relevant scope to much of this article), however he was notified of the BLPPROD on this article - on 21 June. Notification of the AfD immediately following tag removal two days later would have been superfluous and possibly taunting.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

In terms of citations - it is one book that is cited per scholar refined to author - the one on Zegota (minor variations on the edition and inclusion of subtitle lead to a number of duplication) - the citation count does not rise to significant influence. Other than that, there is a co-authored position paper on gender violence cited 12 times, and another similar topic position paper cited once - so this would be a h-index of 2.Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I am leaning on the inclusionist side here. This is very borderline, hence my 'weak' vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep established author. Passed and WP:NAUTHOR and subsequently WP:BIO. Some author are not that social. scope_creep (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep This author's book on Zegota is extensively cited. For example, Children during the Holocaust by Patricia Heberer, published for the USHMM, series editor Jurgen Matthaus. Tomaszewski edits The Cosmopoltan Review, a respected online journal with contributions from professional historians: http://cosmopolitanreview.com/about-us/Tatzref (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, for the reasons adduced above. Nihil novi (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: does not meet WP:AUTHOR with one book, which did not receive substantive third-party reviews (or at least I could not find any). The book being cited does not help notability, as we'd need discussion of the book, not citations. Cosmopolitan Review appears to be a nn publication, so being an editor does not help either. Bottom line, there's insufficient coverage of the subject to sustain this BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Well established authors of books and articles that are well cited-easily meets WP:AUTHOR. There is ample information about her in reliable sources to make an informative biographical article. Much of her career was well before the internet so her online profile is going to be different that what is commonly seen today. She's doesn't appear to be someone who sought out lifestyle vanity type newspaper pieces. Yet some autobiographic content about her is found in articles that she's written in reliable sources which shows publishes have an interest in her life so also meets GNG. All of these together make it easy for me to say keep. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 03:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: established authors of books and articles that are well cited... is a criteria applied to academics, under WP:PROF. The subject does not meet this guideline, and being cited does not easily meet WP:AUTHOR. For WP:AUTHOR, we'd need substantive third-party reviews, which I missing in this case. If they exist, I would be happy to review them. I was not able to find any. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Following up on K.e.coffman's above comment, I've found at least one review through JSTOR for Tomaszewski's translation of Krystyna Wituska's letters, (I believe the JSTOR number is 25779130), and I see multiple cites in JSTOR that Google Scholar isn't picking up (including Andrew Jakubowicz and John J. Kulczycki), as well as a record here in EBSCO which suggests there are more sources that may not be immediately accessible, but should be enough to pass the notability threshold.Seraphim System 20:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Meets NAuthor. The sources for her are there, with several book reviews among them. ~EDDY ~ 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm not seeing enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Ideally for an author you'd like to have at least one published book with enough notability to have its own article - I don't see that either. Her interesting prison camp backstory suggests that there should be some media interest, like with Irène Némirovsky, and I just don't see that. TimTempleton 20:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 08:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Biography written from promotional sources, previously deleted last year for promotionalism. Different from last incarnation, so as not to qualify for G4 speedy, but the contents remain mostly PR puff pieces when those refs aren't dead, unreliable, or mere mentions. See discussions re: COI on my talk page and subsequently at the noticeboard. czar 17:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 17:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar 17:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep and Rewrite - the guy is known and the article well referenced. The language is NPOV and modest in scope. Some minor tinkering will get it up-to-snuff. Jimmysonoma (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The references are either promotional puff pieces, dead links, unreliable, or mere mentions, as I have already said. The contents matter, not just that the topic was refbombed. It's impossible to build an article that does justice to the topic with the extant sources. czar 04:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

This user also appears to have an undisclosed connection with the subject, having uploaded a photo of the subject credited as a self-portrait with the explanation that image permission can be provided upon request. czar 15:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

What "undisclosed connection"? As you dragged 'em out, and in Jimmysonoma's very own words, they are "good friends and distant relatives." And the subject of the contested article offered money to the editors who previously tried creating "his" page. -The Gnome (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Those are two different accounts: ]'s ] Jimmysonoma and Gernmaniul. The latter disclosed on the linked talk page and the former hasn't. czar 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. There is a "yet" missing somewhere but never mind. -The Gnome (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete this text of unadulterated promotion about a subject distinctly failing WP:NBIO, WP:NMODEL (do not even try), WP:ACADEMIC (I'm going by stated assertions here), and WP:NATHLETE. Will the check clear? -The Gnome (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• To closer: Please SALT at both this title and David Michigan (fitness trainer) czar 03:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the article because he passes GNG criteria. There are enough ghits to verify notability. I put several independent magazine and National TV shows links on the article's talk page which definitely makes him notable. Gernmaniul (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment note that Gernmaniul has (per User_talk:Gernmaniul#June_2018) disclosed they have a personal connection to the article subject. Also, google search results are not an indication of notability, and articles written by Michigan (or shows featuring Michigan) are not independent.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete subject fails WP:NMODEL, WP:ENT, and WP:SIGCOV. The SIGCOV argument is pertinent to WP:GNG arguments, as it is the depth, quality, and independence of the source that matters, not the number of sources cited. Corroborating what Czar said above, the sources cited by the article are all trivial, dead-links, or not independent of the subject; this is in addition to the subject failing the more stringent WP:NMODEL and WP:ENT criteria for inclusion, which also mandates that the coverage surround a subject be in-depth.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete & salt: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Not notable. Self-promotion piece written by an editor with a close connection with the subject. Newslinger (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10 19:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - well referenced with third party independent refs. Passes WP:GNG per Google hits as well as WP:RAPID.BabbaQ (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. WP:RAPID is for breaking news stories, google search results or hits are not an indicator of notability, and the article's sourcing is either 1) trivial mentions or 2) based upon information taken directly from the subject's videos or featuring the subject himself, and thus not independent.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - there's not enough media coverage - fails WP:GNG. The argued social media following and viral nature of his videos only translate to solid notability when also covered by reliable mainstream sources, or through some accepted and notable metric related to influence. I don't see that here. I'm on the fence with the salt - the deletion log for both versions of names should probably be enough. TimTempleton 20:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

A directory-like page an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the company. Created by Special:Contributions/Chrbjelland as part of a walled garden around Hello Alfred. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete sources used do not seem substantial because they are merely publicity sources and nothing reliable. - CHAMPION 06:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus (again). No prejudice to holding a merge discussion. ansh666 08:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

List of housing cooperatives in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Relist following a no-consensus closure the first time out. This is still a list of just six (update: winnowed to three through AFD deletion of entries whose notability was not properly sourced, with two further AFD discussions still open) housing cooperatives across an entire country with tens of thousands of them — but the list is literally just duplicating the content of Category:Housing cooperatives in Canada for no useful reason. While WP:CLN specifies that lists and categories can coexist for the same group of topics in certain circumstances, it also specifies that it is not always necessary or appropriate for a list and a category to always coexist for the same group of topics: there are sometimes reasons why both should exist, and sometimes reasons why one should exist while the other should not.
Very few housing cooperatives across Canada actually have either a strong enough notability claim under our inclusion standards for residential buildings, or enough reliable source coverage about them to clear WP:GNG — even most of the five articles that are here are actually questionable, with Rochdale being literally the only one that's actually standing on solid notability and sourcing ground — but Knowledge (XXG)'s purpose is not to create comprehensive directories of every non-notable thing that exists, so turning this into a "completist" list of cooperatives that mostly don't have Knowledge (XXG) articles to link to would be a WP:NOT violation.
So with just six entries and no viable path toward expanding it, the list isn't actually serving (and can't be made to serve) any useful purpose distinct from what the category is already doing. Even the ability to convert the list into a sortable table, which was the reasoning behind the sole keep rationale in the first discussion, doesn't make a difference — with just six entries, three of which are in the same city as it is, enabling people to resort the list by city wouldn't change the list order enough to be a compelling feature. All resorting them by city would actually do is move Aaron Webster to the bottom and Princess Towers to the top while leaving the other four unchanged. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete no more reason to have this than List of stata corporations in Canada or List of subdivisions in Canada (for the single family home lover) its a massive effort to build out anything reflecting a complete list and nearly everything on such a list would be completely non-notable. I'm going to look at seeking deletion of the entries here. Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 00:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. I've added short descriptions and locations, which puts the list one step above the category, and IMO no real justification for deletion has been provided. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:CLN, which explains that there are some contexts where a list and a category should coexist and some contexts where one should exist while the other should not, is a real justification for deletion. A category of just six buildings, of which five are potentially deletable because their articles don't actually demonstrate them as notable at all, does not need a matching list just because a list can technically add the city each building is located in. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

What part of CLN are you referring to? Also, until entries are deleted, your other point is moot. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The parts which explain the distinctions between situations where a list and a category are both warranted, situations where a list is warranted but a category is not, and situations where a category is warranted but a list is not. All three of those are possible in different circumstances — the rule is very definitely not that every category always needs to be automatically paired with a list of the exact same contents. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

So because it's not mandatory, it should be deleted? That's not a very strong argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I've presented substantive reasons why this is one of those cases where precisely replicating the category as a list isn't adding anything of value. If we're going to play the "boil your opponent's argument down to the most absurdly oversimplified version possible" game, then yours reduces to "we should keep it just because we can" — but the point is not about whether we can or can't, it's about whether there's a substantive reason why we should. A list of just six entries that precisely matches a category of just six entries, where five of the six entries are potentially deletable as failing our notability criteria and there's no viable prospect of either the list or the category gaining any new entries because there are very few exemplars of the topic that would ever actually pass our notability standards in the first place, is simply not useful. It's not about whether it's mandatory or not — it's about whether the list is providing value or not, which it isn't. Bearcat (talk)

• Keep per Clarityfiend and arguments at the previous AFD. This second nomination, like the first, has been a complete waste of time given that the complaint boils down to "this isn't useful" rather than "this violates guidelines or policies". The sole question I see is whether there are enough entries to merit the list, and if as the delete !voters above believe, some or all of these entries are ultimately deleted, well that hasn't happened yet, and when it does they'll just have to start another damn AFD, again making this one a premature waste of time. I'm always puzzled at the volumes of text people will write to go out of their way to get something deleted not because they think it is a policy violation or inappropriate, but just because they don't agree with the utility that obviously others see. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

For starters, you're already wrong about "that hasn't happened yet" — the number of entries on this list has already gone from six to four just within the lifetime of this discussion, because two have already gotten deleted. And of the four that are still here, three have active AFD discussions underway. The best case scenario left is that this becomes a list of just three things, adding nothing to its corresponding category of the same three things that is also already technically CFDable as a WP:SMALLCAT — and the likeliest scenario is that this becomes a list of just one or very maybe two things.

And at any rate, the lack of a specific rule saying that we can't do something is not in and of itself a compelling reason why we should do it. The creator of this list, incidentally, is a person who got blocked from editing Knowledge (XXG) for perennially misunderstanding how this place worked: they routinely thought that every category always had to be paired with a matching list of the same contents, they routinely thought that every category that we have for people always had to be gender-segregated regardless of whether gender was relevant to the grouping or not, they routinely created single-sourced articles of the "X is a thing/person that exists, the end" variety with no thought given to notability standards, and on and so forth — so the fact that they thought this worth creating is not a priori evidence that I'm being unreasonable. The fact that this isn't explicitly violating any content rules is not in and of itself a reason why it needs to be kept — the utility of this list is far from blindingly obvious, so the onus is on you to prove that it's useful because X, Y and Z, rather than just asserting that somebody might think it's useful. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"The fact that this isn't explicitly violating any content rules is not in and of itself a reason why it needs to be kept..." Without a compelling reason for deletion, it is actually. If you're conceding that this content is permissible, then the burden is on you as the deletion advocate to provide a valid reason for deletion and establish/demonstrate consensus for that result. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's an unexpandable list of just four things, of which three are up for AFD as not being properly sourced as notable at all. Four things already isn't enough to need a list at the best of times, even before you take into account that within a matter of days this will be a list of just three, two or one things instead of even the four that isn't enough. That's enough of a reason in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And the list has now gone 4→3 from one more deletion. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The argument deployed by postdlf is not tenable. ("This second nomination...boils down to 'this isn't useful' rather than 'this violates guidelines or policies'.") Well, every Knowledge (XXG) article without exception must have first and foremost encyclopaedic content, per policy. And as Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, should not contain indiscriminate listse. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. That's quoting straight from policy again.

A list is not an end in and unto itself. Every list in Knowledge (XXG) is commonly supposed to be used to organize information. Quoting policy once more. So, what are we organizing exactly with a list of four (4) items? Would a list of one (1) be the limit? This list does not even serve for Knowledge (XXG) development purposes, as policy allows. -The Gnome (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The compelling reason for deletion is that this page is not necessary. Only 1-2 people viewed this page per day (until the AfD spiked that), if any. Many more people just went straight to the cooperative they were looking for. Ultimograph5 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, further to which not much more can be said. Let's be gracious (four items on the list?!) and claim WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete This page was created in January of 2017 and still has very few listings available. Gameinfirmary (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That's just a reason for us to write more articles on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There aren't any significant number of notable housing cooperatives in Canada to write articles about. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Even 6 is enough to justify a category and a list. it has potential for growth. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If there was "more" to the content, interested editors would have added "more." Yet as it appears there is no "more." In fact, since the AfD was tabled, the list got shorter and shorter. You say it might have "potential" for the future but, ahem, you know, WP:CRYSTALBALL. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There aren't six, there are three — and two of those three, further, are up for AFD as improperly sourced, so we're just days away from this being a list of one. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Merge info about individual co-ops, including those that were deleted, to History of cooperatives in Canada#Cooperative housing. There's just not enough to warrant a standalone list. TimTempleton 20:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. North America 14:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Unreleased, apparently fundamentally uncovered animation film, no reviews (well, ahead of release...) or other in-depth coverage to be found; fails WP:NFILM at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination; subject lacks notability. Is this above or below the line? I forget. -The Gnome (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON, it can be recreated either before or after its release if it gets significant coverage in at least 2 reliable sources, preferably more, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep as a valid WP:SPINOUT. ansh666 08:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

List of The Fairly OddParents characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is a single reliable source to reference a small portion of the article, the rest is just unsourced fancruft that makes this website look like a wikia. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strong keep per previous AfD and per WP:SIZE, since putting character information into the main article would be too unwieldy. ANDROS_TALK 16:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:TNT. Pure fancruft more fit for a Wikia. This information shouldn't be on Knowledge (XXG) in any capacity unless it is rewritten with proper sourcing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Andros 1337. Also, I think if it were really more like Wikia, every major character (and probably a few minor characters) would have their own article. _Hypercube ✎ 16:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO there seems to be a general bias on Knowledge (XXG) against children's TV series in favor of adult TV shows, which is unfortunate. IMO any votes for delete should not count since they are likely to be biased. Yes, I know about WP:AGF. but it is pretty obvious there is a bias on Knowledge (XXG) against children's TV series. ANDROS_TALK 18:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You believe that Delete votes should not count because "they are likely to be biased"?! You do realize that is as biased as it gets, don't you? -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete because (a) the subject fails WP:PURPLIST, (b) Knowledge (XXG) is not Wikia, and (c) it is made up of red hot WP:OR. The lack of sources is not surprising; that's how it should be. Such lists along with the sections about plots of movies are all-you-can-eat opportunities for WP:OR aficionados. -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete TWO sources in TWELVE years (and they might as well not be; one is a creator's ineligible Twitter post, the other in the opening paragraph says ' The excruciating wait is over - last week, Nickelodeon gave in to the demands of the arthouse film community and green-lit a live-action TV movie adaptation of its hit cartoon, The Fairly Oddparents', so it doesn't attempt to be serious). I'm tired of giving good faith and hope that a bunch of editors who can't even maintain a semblance of a WikiProject will actually maintain this article sanely and source their inanity at the most base level. And @Andros 1337:, that 'bias...against children's TV series' is exhaustion with editors who don't want to put effort into any sourcing; if the MMA and pro wrestling communities were able to get their acts together, I still hold out some hope the kid's TV editors who aren't reverting vandalism and cruft regularly eventually will. But in twelve years, we need to take out the trash if we keep piling on; this is literal hoarding in article form. Nate • (chatter) 22:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. This article needs inline citations, and it should be cut down to just the primary and main supporting characters. See List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters as a model. Newslinger (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed all of the characters from the "Other" section, which considerably reduced the article length. I've also added a {{condense}} tag. Newslinger (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• WP:TNT / merge back to main article retaining only the main characters. That can be sourced by press releases, encyclopedia of television shows / cartoons books, website from years ago. I've tagged this article for in-universe/refimprove for years and nothing's really improved especially when most of the edits have been attempts to try to move Vicky off the main character list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Notable shows always have a character list article when all the valid information won't fit in the main article. Dream Focus 19:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep WP:Deletion is not cleanup. JDDJS (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep though I'm sympathetic to the TNT argument. When there are dozens of pages about various media of a show, it's generally reasonable to have a page on the characters; the episodes of the show are an implicit reference for the content. The main article is also better without long character descriptions and minor characters on it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - based on this taking too much room up in the main article. Also, I understand the WP:OR and sourcing arguments, but those seem to be more relevant when we don't have many "informed" eyeballs focused on verifying content. This isn't obscure chemical variations of plant enzymes - it's a show that every fan will be able to quickly spot errors and fix them, with or without proper sourcing. (Heck - I'd just source with the episode name, whether it can be viewed online or not). That's the beauty of crowdsourcing. I know this position isn't supported by any formal policy and the purists will be angry, but if it works and brings enjoyment to some readers, why not just let it go? TimTempleton 19:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

This seems to be a vanity biography created by a single-purpose account with a likely undeclared conflict of interest. The subject has had a career in provincial theatre and the media but I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources to provide notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's very strange. The infobox stated that Peter Kenvyn Jones had a CBE and MC. I sent an email to him to check whether this was correct, and within minutes of listing this AfD and making the email query, these honorifics were removed, not by the article's creator but by another new editor who had previously moved the article out of the creator's draftspace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I can also contribute to the debate, I was the one that move the page. I looked through the whole article before moving it with the taught that it will also be looked at by other editors.

To the issue of editing the article earlier today, I guess the duties of editors is to fix articles.Armyman (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You've been in Knowledge (XXG) "since October 2010," Cwmhiraeth. It should not be "strange." -The Gnome (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I was actually a little surprised at how few reliable source mentions I could find for this individual, given that the article claims he is a CBE. I was able to find only glancing mentions in reliable sources, nothing that would indicate notability under either WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. The Clacton Gazette and The Oxford Student are both reliable sources, although not a national newspaper. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Comprehensively fails the criteria for WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSICBIO. There are no reviews of his compositions. They are all "referenced" by his postings of them at SoundClick. The theatrical career (as actor and/or director) is referenced to theatricalia.com. and uktw.co.uk, both of which are databases with user-generated content or not referenced at all. There are no reviews of his performances or productions and they were all in small provincial theatres. The only review from an independent source was in the Oxford student paper for his theatrical adaptation of Pride and Prejudice performed by the Oxford Theatre Guild, an amateur company. The references from the Clacton Gazette have only passing mentions of him. As an added note, the shenanigans re the phony CBE and Military Cross and the moving of the article out of Draft space strongly suggest undeclared paid editing and quite possibly socking as well. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Followup. The subject used "Peter Kenvyn" (without "Jones") as his professional name until the early 2000s. Under that name, I found one review in The Independent of his 2001 performance in the play The Incarcerator and a mention of his translation in a 1991 review in The Stage of a Pierre de Marivaux play: "Laurels should be heaped on Peter Kenvyn, a comedy writer of considerable TV and radio experience, for coming up with a sparkling translation which has all sorts of contemporary resonance". In my view that's still not enough to pass any of the criteria cited above. Worse, there are several assertions in this article which appear to be untrue, e.g. him having some sort of role in Luther. Or, very misleading. For example, the small part of Prince Albert was in a program produced by the BBC, but it was for the children's TV program Blue Peter, not a mainstream production. The various credits taken for Jacques Brel translations are also dubious. The critic in The Stage wrote "While script associate Peter Kenvyn also takes credit in a programme note for the translations, at least six of the songs, to my reckoning, are delivered in the English versions that were first heard in Mort Shuman and Eric Blau’s celebrated 1966 off-Broadway compilation, Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well and Living in Paris." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Above unsigned commentary by Voceditenore.

• Delete per nomination, for failing WP:CREATIVE. May otherwise be notable, and handsomely too, but not for Knowledge (XXG). -The Gnome (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of significant coverage. Tillerh11 (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Note Both the article's creator, User:Artsmusicfeel, and User:197something aka "Armyman", who moved it from draft to article space and removed the spurious claims to a CBE and Military Cross, have been confirmed by a checkuser as socks of the indefinitely blocked User:Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr, a prolific sockmaster and paid editing operation. The article possibly qualifies for speedy deletion under G5: pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The history of the contested page records 8 June 2018 as the date on which the article was created. The sockmaster was banned on 8 August 2016. The contested article "Peter Kenvyn Jones " should be Speedily Deleted per WP:G5, as stated above by Voceditenore . This AfD has just been rendered redundant. -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, The Gnome, in cases like this it is often better to let the AfD run its course and show a consensus on the subject's non-notability. This can be helpful in the event of future recreation, and this may well happen. The paid editing operation behind this article and dozens of others is relentless. They have re-created deleted articles multiple times using different throw-away sock accounts each time, including the ploy used here where one sock creates the draft and another sock moves it into article space. Alternatively, the subject might choose a different paid editing "service". Voceditenore (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Nolo contendere. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Women at a Secret Meeting: From Wives to Coeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG. Significant RS coverage not found, what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. References in the article are self-published, promotional, or unselective databases. The "9th best film" award is not well-known or significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, since subject does not meet WP:NFILM. "9th place" only? Come on. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as does not pass WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. In any other field, coming in ninth for a competitive award would be described as "losing". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete fails NFILM & GNG. –Davey2010 21:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award listed is not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet our overbroad inclusion criteria for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per PORNBIO & GNG & all that shizz. –Davey2010 21:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 17:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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