Delete per previous AfD. Not notable. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom and previous discussion. This is not notable software. Hog Farm (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete: An article describing a piece of software, its deployment and the reaction of the sys admin within an institution, without evidence of notability. No reason to overturn the November 2005 AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep The nom's characterization of the sources is highly selective and misleading. What the in-depth reliable sources have to say:
Claire Sykes of the magazine Edplay (an independent magazine in print and online - this article appeared in the print edition) did an in-depth profile of the company in 2019. She states "S.W. Randall is the city’s largest specialty toy store."
Bob Batz in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said "the store has been a local landmark since 1970". The nom's claim that it "is not a landmark" is funnily enough directly contradicted by a reliable source which is directly asserting the notability of the company. We rarely see these kinds of strong statements of notability from such a high level of reliable sourcing.
Joyce Gannon again in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a lengthy piece about the store and its history. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is the largest/leading newspaper in Pittsburgh it is the city equivalent to LA Times, New York Times and Washington Post.
Tim Schooley in Pittsburgh Business Times asserts "SW Randall Toyes & Giftes has become a Pittsburgh tradition", another strong assertion of notability from a reliable source.
Notability is what sets a topic apart from its peers, there are many toy stores, why is this one special (notable)? Audrey Guskey, an associate professor of marketing at Duquesne University, noted how different this store is from others and "To find a store like this that’s thriving is truly a gift to the local community" (same Business Times link, emphases added).
Keep per WP:HEY. The first AfD, which closed less than 24 hours before this one opened, was withdrawn by Meatsgains with the comment, "Woah! This article has improved tenfold. I will withdraw my nomination. Great work folks." Levivich's nomination saying that "this is just a toy store in Pittsburgh" sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources provided show that this is a well-known and popular store. For example, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article isn't "churnalism", it's a reliable source spotlighting a prominent local store. The article has been greatly improved with many references, and deserves to stand. -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Keep I took part in improving the article and adding RSs to reveal the history of the company. Green C has done a great job of revealing misleading characterizations of the RS by the nominator. The nomination is vexatious WP:DELAFD: Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.. The AfD was an overwhelming keep a WP:HEY candidate and it was nominated for DYK. FYI: This is a second nomination and this AfD should reflect that. Here is the first. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Snow keep for reasons already decided at the first AFD. YGBSM! This is just serial disruption, akin to WP:Vandalism. Indeed, this nominator User:Levivich chose not to participate in the last AFD. He slept in the weeds and now uses an ambush. Instead he wants a do-over.
The alleged sock made one edit amounting to a short paragraph. Essentially, this is an argumentum ad hominem and is irrelevant. There is no "guilt by association" recognized in Wikipedia. And there is nothing other than coincidental editing of the same article; and no proof of anything beyond that.
Moreover, he ignores the WP:RSsourcing of this article, including the books.7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
KEEP based on the massive improvements made to this article. That's what I said last time, and its only been a very short period of time, so nothing has changed. I learned recently you can ask someone to reopen an AFD that closed in KEEP if you want to arguing the results. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incineroar. DreamFocus 03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete, not that I think it has any chance to be deleted at this point with all the keep votes, but I'm voting delete in light of GreenC transparently extreme hyperbolic reason for voting keep that goes against WP:GNG in pretty much every way a vote can and plus I semi agree with the original nominator about its dubious notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment - this article was created yesterday, less than 24 hours ago. Perhaps it needs a little more time for the article creator to develop it or for a WP:BEFORE. Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This malformed nomination has already been reported to the nominator at User_talk:Meatsgains#Christine_Morrissey(Just to save anyone else going round the loop I've just done, finding that someone else got there first)PamD 10:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why this page was suggested for deletion. Morrissey is of significance as she played an role in influencing Canada's immigration laws to be inclusive of LGBT families and has continued to be of significance since this legal action, in leadership roles with organizations within the country. Further, her achievements have been recognized by the Canadian government, which in 2019 awarded her with an Officer of the Order of Canada. The sources for the information on this page are from mainstream news sites and academic journals. She has been the source of significant media coverage since the 1990s.
Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:ANYBIO states a person is warranted of a Wikipedia page if:
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.[8]"
Morrissey has received a significant award and plays a role in the history of LGBT rights within Canada. For these reasons, I would strongly urge this page not to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnonkes (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
A non-notable local newsreader with no evidence of reliable sources. I initially nominated for PROD last month and the tag was removed, without discussion, by someone who appears to have major COI issues. No sources have been located since that point. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment there appears to be a different person with the same name who has worked in BBC Radio 1 and Entertainment TV - they appear to be unconnected. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The subject fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The references found in the article are all WP:PRIMARY, either from Rampid's website or on website of the engine's manufacturer (and the game isn't mentioned). I found , but that alone isn't enough. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This list is very out of date and seems to duplicate a lot of content on other lists. I can’t see a reason for this separate list to exist. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This article has been essentially unsourced original research for over a decade. The content is written in a game guide style that would require a complete blanking and rewrite to meet basic style standards, assuming even that the subject is notable and encyclopedic. My searches suggest it isn't. ReykYO! 18:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the article's rules are too detailed, and the variations between Northwestern University's rules and Penn State's rules are unsourced and probably not relevant. However, WP:ARTN says that the way that the article is currently written doesn't affect the notability of the subject. If it's written badly, then the article should be improved, not deleted. I added the references to the article in a Further reading section so that people who want to improve the article can use these sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
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 by nominator. (non-admin closure)buidhe 17:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
If one looks at the sources in the article, it's very clear that he does NOT fail WP:NFOOTY. He has played a game in Svenska Cupen between Allsvenskan teams IFK Göteborg and IK Sirius. And, because "players who have played in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable", this article should not be deleted. // Mattias321(talk) 17:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL. 16 year old at the start if his career - we afford him the time to meet GNG. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I messed up, remove this nomination. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am the article subject's representative. I regard my client as a non-notable, private person, and that I want the article to be deleted. Tbetzold (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Procedural Close: The article is poorly and inadequately sourced, no error, but this isn't the proper venue for the request. The nom needs to go to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects, where among other things the volunteers will ascertain whether the nom indeed speaks for the subject. Ravenswing 19:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I suggest we keep this discussion open and judge whether the subject is notable enough for an article, which would be what we would do anyways after the subject contacts a volunteer. – Thjarkur(talk) 00:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete – Several very short quotes from him appear in a handful of third party sources but there's no significant coverage of him or his books that I could find. – Thjarkur(talk) 00:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't pass WP:JOURNALIST and almost all sources are passing mentions. Note: it was created by a single purpose account. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Another isolated rail siding, now removed and with nothing around it. Evidence suggests it was nothing more than a water stop. I did what searching I could but between names and trucks it was hard to get anything even vaguely relevant. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This artist is not notable. Doesn't appear to make a claim of significance apart from having streams on Soundcloud. All of the sources cited are the paid-for-spam thing influencers use to prop themselves up for Wikipedia articles (three of the cited sources are the same "Kidd is an upcoming artist in Boynton Beach"). Also a bit funny/jarring to read the other cookie-cutter interviews in this source. No coverage in reliable independant sources. – Thjarkur(talk) 15:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This bio has been around since 2006, with no sources, in various forms. Redirected a few years ago but redirect ended recently. Attempt to restore redirect rejected, so here we are. Mccapra (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Delete°. As written, sounds like a cut and paste from promo material. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is a copyright violation. And the overwhelming majority of the article is about Train, not Underwood specifically. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The individual does not appear to be notable at all outside of his association with the band. It could probably be useful as a Redirect to Train (band), but it should probably be deleted first, to prevent any more attempts at restoring it to an article. Additionally, there is absolutely no sourced content here needed to preserver or merge. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Delete via G11 for blatant promotional material. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree that "out of date" is a valid reason for deletion. Another way of saying that is "historical information" and historical information is exactly what should be in an encyclopaedia. Note that the rationale for deleting the 1998 article was not that we should not have this information, but that the article data was wildly wrong due to the faulty way the page had been created. However, I don't think it is helpful to have an individual article on each year's UN report. Far more encyclopaedic would be trending information over the years. The Human Development Index already contains summaries of each report going back to 2013 and that is probably what should happen here. SpinningSpark 17:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Reviewed as new page reviewer. IMO there is no topic here suitable for a Wikipedia article. This is basically a dictionary type entry on the word "Hitakami" with two short unrelated definitions given for it, and no real coverage of any topic. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep and expand, most likely. There are a variety of sources available on this, some of which are available on the Japanese page. The article falls under the same sort of pattern seen at Fusang, Nakoku, Wa (Japan), etc.; I disagree that it is in the class of a dictionary definition. Dekimasuよ! 15:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep IMO the changes done since I nominated it have clarified it was a specific topic. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Reviewed as new page reviewer. IMO the album separately does not satisfy wp:notablility. Sources is a brief mention in an article and an on-line review, plus a cite which doesn't seem to verifiably define a source. 98% of this article is a massively expanded track listing, including a separate listing of every performer for each track. The rest is just two sentences. The SNG specificly describes this situation and recommends merge into the artist's article. If so-decided and nobody else will I'd be happy to handle that if the closer would ping me. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the head's up. I've expanded this article somewhat. When I wrote it, I was like you, new to a unique situation. Since then, I've expanded my knowledge on writing articles a bit. As for the "massively expanded track listing." It's my opinion that an article should include as many facts as possible. For example, if I want to read about this album, I think it's important to know who the musicians were, just like I would read them in the liner notes. Without that information, the article is incomplete. I know brevity in an article is usually preferable. Maybe I could have condensed it some, but I like to follow the original notation as much as possible. that being said, if my current improvements still don't merit a separate article, merging it would be the lesser of two evils, I suppose. I'd rather keep it as is though.HowlinMadMan (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
After further thought, I'd like to expand on the inclusion of the musicians. When mentioning a song in casual conversation, you wouldn't expect someone to rattle off the names of every contributor to that song's existence. That would just be silly. I believe that in print, however, that premise is entirely different. One can choose whether or not to read the list of credits. If you include those credits, the reader can make a choice. Don't include them and you've taken that choice away. It's like telling the reader what they should be allowed to know on the subject. Credit is an operative word here. When writing a permanent article about a subject which is available for the whole, wide world to view, I believe it is important, if not imperative, to give credit where credit is due. Some of my music album articles will name Discogs and AllMusic as being a source of where I find information. This is true only in the sense that I do some copying and pasting of information to save myself the time it would take to type it. I then take the liner notes and modify that information to match those liner notes more exactly. I find that those two original sources are often inaccurate and incomplete, but I still feel they should get credit for helping me obtain my goal in a more efficient way. I still appreciate them, even though they're not totally reliable. I contribute to Wikipedia to give others like myself a chance to read a more reliable, more detailed article. You can take this article and merge the basics, doing away with all the credits and other things you don't find necessary or important, and you're left with something at least… just not enough something to paint a whole picture.HowlinMadMan (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep as has reviews in reliable sources such as AllMusic and CrossRythyms which have been added to the article, passes WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep IMO the addition of the reference and content moves it close enough on the issues which I nominated it for to stay. BTW the unusual degree of expansion of the track listing was not an AFD reason, it was just discussing that the non-context content was 98% an unusually expanded track listing. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Despite being a pretty well known and common D&D race, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of notability or passing WP:GNG here. While there is the 1912 "gnole", this article is clearly about the D&D version, and the former isn't notable either. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect to The Gnoll. Surprisingly few sources on the creature, and what there is just falls into the usual array of game material. There is a one-sentence mention in the The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters that merely states that their names were taken from the 1912 story mentioned in the article, which is not significant coverage. The "Other Appearances" section in this article is also rather strange, as it is claiming that a completely unrelated creature, that was very likely just named after the same source that D&D Gnolls were named after, is somehow connected to the D&D creatures with absolutely no sources to back that up. After deletion, though, a redirect to the article on the more notable subject of The Gnoll should probably be created in its stead. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak delete. Shame we can't find enough sources to have a generic (not just DnD-specific) article on the entire race, which does have recurring presence in various media. But I can't find any in-depth coverage that is not pure niche PLOT, either. The best I could find is one sentence of literary analysis here. Perhaps a mention of gnolls in literature would therefore belong in The Book of Wonder? Do ping me if better sources are found, but I don't think this can be rescued with one sentence of good quality content (reminder: GNG requires in-depth analysis). PS. Mention added. If we had an article about the short story in question, a disambig could be considered, but since we don't, I think redirect as suggested above is best, with a hat note that 'for gnolls, see Book of Wonder anthology'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable creature that fails WP:GNG and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Lacks notability in secondary sources and entirely sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. It could be all ogre for this article now. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete - "Ogre" is an extremely common word that has been used as a type of monster in a wide array of fiction for centuries. There is absolutely nothing to indicate why their usage in Dungeons and Dragons is at all independently notable. The only non-gamebook being used currently is the "For Dummies" book, which was just a game guide written by, then, current employees of Wizards. Searching for additional sources turns up nothing better. As there is no information here that is not just in-game information, there is nothing worth preserving or merging elsewhere. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
A story line in a UK soap opera is not inherently notable and this subject lacks reliable independent sources. Does not pass WP:NTV. Mccapra (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Fictional concept appearing in a single comic storyline (Batman: The Long Halloween). The topic fails to establish notability, and all relevant context can be handled by the main article. TTN (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete Comic book character-cruft. Fails WP:GNG as non-notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Redirect to Batman: The Long Halloween. While the "character" is not independently notable from the storyline they appeared in, that series is notable, and Redirecting to there would probably not hurt. As this article is nothing but a summary of that storyline, which is already covered in the target article, there shouldn't be anything that needs Merging. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
He is one of the many stand up comedians in the country. There is no significant coverage or important works to mark WP:ENTERTAINER
or consider general notability. The9Man| (talk) 09:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
comment, It seems it was very recently deleted as well. The9Man| (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment Leaning towards a weak ke3p, but interested in others' comments. Creator of Amazon India comedy show; there's a lot of promo/churnalism, but non-trivial, independent RS coverage is also available (2 of the references are interviews).[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Two trivial mentions from international RS sources; but the BBC one adds an important part to the notability of the subject (ie the new class of comedians emerging via streaming services and not Bollywood).[1][2]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
promotional and nonnotable. Even at the height of accepting school articles, we very rarely accepted articles on schools below the secondary level. This is such a school, and the contents indicates why that was and remains a good practice.
There are only two alumni with Wikipedia article, the list of "top colleges attended by Benchmark Graduates" is promotional , and the list of school clubs & other school assemblies suchas their Ice Cream Social of no interest to anyone not a student or prospective student.
And there does not appear to be a single third party reference. I considered draftifying, but there's really no prospect of an article. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep Benchmark School goes up to 8th grade, so that is secondary education. Plenty of precedent from schools that include middle school. This wikipedia page has existed for 3+ years without any notability concerns. Already outside sources included. More could be added, but it's not just from the school.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
8th grade in the US is normally considered junior high school, not high school, and we have almost never accepted an article on them. Nor should we, based upon the material and references in this article. The outside sources to which you refer are local suburban newspapers from the area of the school. That's exactly he sort of local sources that do not prove notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete To be even maybe default notable a school must be a high school. That means for the US it must cover 10-12 grades, often 9th, but a school that covers 9th without 10th we will rule as needing to pass extraordinary notability guidelines. This clearly does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete Promotional article on a non-notable K-8 school. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep - while the current article is a mess, therearepossiblesources from books. There's a lot of work to do on this mess, though, and I'm not up to rescuing it. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Bearian I don't think it affects your argument but just as a heads up your third source doesn't mention the Benchmark School, but the concept of "benchmark schools". Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep Seems like enough sources. I just read an article about the school in Philadelphia magazine. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 16:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GNG. Falk is considered an analytics guru in NBA circles and his work is regularly cited in the media. However, this article should be kept because of the extensiveness of the outside sourcing. There are multiple, independent sources which cover Falk as the subject of their coverage.--TM 12:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep Falk is more than just a high school basketball coach. He was in the NBA for 5+ years and spent time as an executive. Sports Illustrated did an extensive profile on him. Clearly notable. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Comments: he never played footballbasketball" in high school or college or professionally. He never was a coach in college or a professional team. He was the 76ers " vice president of basketball strategy, " for 2 years. He is now coach of a highschool footballbasketball" team in a Philadelphia suburb. The articles are PR and the headlines show it. eg., , "Ben Falk Brings NBA Experience to Barrack" If the GNG was meant to cover this, we're not an encyclopedia/ Even the best papers publish PR if they want to make a point, and in this case the point is that he's an Orthodox Jew. I have no idea how common or uncommon this may be in his profesion. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Comments: He's known for basketball. Best to know the sport you're talking about before commenting on it. Regardless, he was the #2 man in the Sixer's organization and was an executive for 5+ years in the NBA. Clearly, notable. Also, Sam Hinkie and Howie Roseman did not play sports professionally, but are clearly notable as executives. Same with Falk.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennsylvania2 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep NBA executives are usually notable, and Falk is no exception. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 17:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete he was never a coach or major player above the high school level, he is non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment I am currently on the fence regarding notability but I would like to point out that Falk worked in NBA front offices for five years, but was only an executive with the 76ers for a little under two seasons. Even then NBA executives in positions similar to his are not considered to be default notable. Finally Falk wasn't Hinkie's number 2 guy, the best I can find is the Inquirer article which refers to him as one of Hinkie's right hand men. Sachin Gupta, who doesn't have an article, likely holds that distinction if anyone does (per The Athletic, Philadelphia Magazine). Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Many of the above arguments do not address the key question: does he pass WP:GNG as the subject of multiple, non-trivial independent sources? If you examine the links on the article itself, you will see that this is clearly the case. Whatever his role with a particular team, this is the metric with which we need to judge all articles.--TM 14:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep Falk's titles as a lower-level NBA executive and high school head coach don't by themselves suggest notability, but substantive coverage of him in the The Philadelphia Inquirer, Sports Illustrated, and The Times of Israel puts the subject over the hump to establish GNG. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep See the references. I think these are enough for notebility. — Note to closing admin: Virenderthind2019 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
You need to look at sources yourself along with WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS. None of the sources you cited discusses the subject in detail, they're all passing mention (not significant coverage) and most of them are not even reliable. GSS💬 02:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Check 1st and 2nd refs. on the Article. Are those not reliable? 3rd and 4th are Interview on youtube. and some of refs are secondary reliable sources.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Completely lacking in reliable sources for over 12 years. No sources in any searches. If a source can be found, there may be place for a paragraph in Nitrox, but this should never be a stand-alone article. RexxS (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Membrane gas separation. It is the same technology, probably just a niche terminology problem. (assuming there is anything of value to merge) otherwise just a redirect will do. Finding sources is mainly a matter of using the mainstream terminology, then Bingo, we have a real if rather technical encyclopedic article on Wikipedia already, complete with a fair number of solid looking references. ···Peter Southwood(talk): 05:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Sounds a good alternative, Peter, although Membrane gas separation is a very different article from this one (probably because it has sources!). The Membrane method of gas concentration article seems to have been used over many years simply as a coat-hook for a couple of manufacturers to hang their nitrox concentration products on. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The current content of this article is a description of one type of membrane gas separation system specifically used for oxygen enrichment of breathing air. I am reasonably confident that it is a fairly accurate description given these limitations, and could be referenced by the link you removed as spam. Not the greatest reference, but not the worst by far. Manufacturers of industrial equipment usually describe the working of their products reasonably correctly, and it is not promotional in tone. Also, it is content that the existing Membrane gas separation article lacked, and I have been having a go at expanding it a bit to cover air separation applications. I have found a few potential sources, but it is largely unfamiliar technology, so I am not very efficient processing it. Cheers, ···Peter Southwood(talk): 19:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm quite confident that the current content is an accurate description of the process, but neither your nor my confidence is tantamount to a reliable source (sadly). My objection to the Nuvair source is that it is promotional. The opening sentence of the webpage begins "Nuvair's patented semipermeable membranes ...", and the second begins "Purchase a membrane system as a standalone product for integration into an existing air compressor system ...". That doesn't disqualify it as a reliable source for other parts of its content, but is not the kind of source I'd be prepared to base an entire article on. It's worth noting that the article's first source was Coltri Sub Asia Pacific, before it was switched to Nuvair without explanation. That shows how vulnerable a poorly sourced article becomes to anyone wanting to promote a particular company's offerings, and we shouldn't be leaving ourselves open to that. Putting the content into a well sourced, larger article, as you've already done, is the way to dilute the effect. --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment. I imagine that the title of the article is a nonce translation of Kadın gözüyle fotoğraf or similar. There are a lot of ghits for Kadın gözüyle fotoğraf, but unfortunately I can't read Turkish and therefore am reluctant to evaluate them. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. There are no RS about this subject whatsoever.Comment. No particular judgement, but the sourcing seems to be insufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
So this, for example, is not a reliable source? -- Hoary (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This is probably an OK source, but it only tells this group of women photographers made an exhibition. Please provide in-line citation to several RS on the page, with translation of source names and titles to English, so it will be clear they are good sources and what they say. Otherwise, this page will probably be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep: It is within scope- it is an opening 10+2 school- and it already has children over 11, students studying ISCED#2 which is our definition of a high school We are allowed to include kindergarten if they are notable. As for GNG- Google gives 485 hits] The first hit discusses how this is a first and opens a new direction for Kashmiri education and quotes from ministers. We just need someone to write the article. ClemRutter (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete the sourcing is atrocious and we have come to realize that creating articles on every secondary school in the world is an undoable goal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Entirely unreferenced article about a minor laboratory. Appears to have been created and expanded by editors with a clear COI. Only Google News hits are passing mentions. Most of the first few pages on Google are self-published or are simple mentions of the laboratory in a citation. ST47 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable, largely WP:OR article that is otherwise sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Appears to be written for fans, by fans, without any sort of real world context. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Per WP:GAMEGUIDE. This collection is purely as a gameguide. There is no notability for this matter outside of the game. It could be a useful collection for gamers but there are gamer wikis for that. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete - This is largely just a list of non-notable fictional creatures that fails WP:LISTN. Pretty much all of the blue-linked entries just lead to other D&D monster lists. All current sources are just game books, and searches just bring up the usual array of more game books, game guides, and trivial mentions. There is nothing that would indicate that the D&D usage of the concept of undead creatures is particularly notable. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete - The topic lacks the sources necessary to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, with barely a few passing mentions here and there. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep - I think she passes WP:BIO per criteria one. Having an asteroid named after her sounds like a significant honour. Clovermoss(talk) 00:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Note: I'm looking for signfigiant coverage about her in independent sources, but have not had much luck so far. This is a WP:BLP, so there should be high-quality refs. It's possible that coverage isn't online but offline, but I'm trying to avoid a "sources must exist" argument. Clovermoss(talk) 00:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The criteria for naming an asteroid are pretty loose, so not a significant formal honor. E.g. 99942 Apophis is most likely named after the Stargate SG-1 villain, and 2309 Mr. Spock after the discover's cat, neither of which have articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Please see Talk:Pamela Jones (NASA)#Possible further references. I suspect that one could vet these & come up with enough references for notability. Perhaps this article should be moved into the Draft namespace until the requisite number of citations are in the article. Peaceray (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This was created by User:B.Bhargava Teja via the IP 183.83.79.10, as evading his block. As seen here, the editing style is eerily similar to the edits that Bhargav made before he was blocked. Kailash29792(talk) 08:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep A page being created by a suspected blocked user is not grounds for deletion if it has had significant edits by other editors, particularly if there are no explicit issues with neutrality or notability. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. This just feels like pretty absurd bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake which Wikipedia is not. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I have created a far superior version here, and that should replace this. This should prove Bhargav's guilt. Cyphoidbomb and Cabayi, can you help me here? --Kailash29792(talk) 09:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Kailash29792, Is that what this is all about? You didn't realize a page about the subject had already been created (or just ignored it) so you're now pushing a bureaucratic agenda because you feel your version is "far superior"? Sulfurboy (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Speedy keep, the article is no longer G5 eligible and the argument presented boils down to Kailash having "created a far superior version", which is no argument at all. Kailash's version is A10 eligible. Cabayi (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Looks as if nom just removed everything from the original article and put in his "far superior" page. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Withdraw: forgive me for everything I did. --Kailash29792(talk) 09:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a partial bare copy of powers of 2 with different numbers filled in. As is, there's no encyclopedic content, and it fails WP:IINFO. It was previously a redirect to a dab page, but my attempts to restore that have been reverted without explanation. The previous redirect should stay, with or without an intervening delete. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 07:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep. I know about the powers of 3. Please don't redirect and there are no photos in this page. 176.88.98.46 (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect to the dab page. Little useful information, none referenced. Very little literature on 3^3^n; 3^2^n is much more common. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 11:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep. By the standards of notability for integer sequences, it easily passes: everyone knows it, it is listed as "nice" in OEIS, and it comes up frequently in combinatorial enumeration and other contexts (for instance as the number of faces of all dimensions of the hypercubes); http://oeis.org/A000244 has many more properties. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. No independent sources have been provided, and I can't find any myself. If the article were to be kept, it would need significant revisions to conform to a neutral point of view with regard to the divorce case that this book is about. --Metropolitan90(talk) 06:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Searched and could find no independent coverage. — HunterKahn 15:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per above. Non-notable, seemingly self-published book with no coverage in reliable, secondary sources, written by a non-notable author. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete I am unable to find RS for this one. Per the nominator: Fails our GNG. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete: A CV-type article originally contributed by WP:SPAAkash66. Even if the text was referenced it would do not more than list a series of jobs, without claim of notability, and my searches are finding no better. Fails WP:CREATIVE. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This film shows no evidence of notability - it's only sourced to IMDB, and the description makes it clear this is nothing - half of the cast is given as "unknown role". A Google search brings up this entry and the IMDB entry. Nothing here to support notability of this. Hog Farm (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nothing here suggests notability pursuant to WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90(talk) 06:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Met90; as much as it pains me as someone in the region who knows her local television work, the article written by the same editor regarding Lori Minnetti has to go too per a walled garden attempt to build WP:N and poor writing (I also highly doubt that subject's appearance in a low-budget horror movie 33 years ago is something she'd like portrayed in pictorial form in her article). Nate•(chatter) 07:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
No evidence this company (research institute) passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Deprodded by anon with a suggestion of redirecting this, but Ia m not sure what target would be appropriate. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
As with IBM Research – Zurich, the article's promotionalism obscures its likely notability: being officially opened by Didier Burkhalter, a member of the national government, is an indication of some importance, and there is media coverage about its "quiet room" (, ). I'd keep it if it is cleaned up or redirect to IBM Research otherwise. Sandstein 09:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
No evidence of passing WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. Sources are in passing (such as the NYT one liner ), primary, press releases (PR Newswire) or their reprints (such as the other NYT source which lists the press release as their source at the bottom: ) and anyway all concern routine business operations. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Non-existent place. In 2011, an anon added a fake birthplace to the bio of Robin Singh (cricketer). Subsequent editors fixed the real location, but left part of the fake birthplace, S R ngar. Later, another well-meaning editor changed it to S R Nagar, and created the locality.
The originally named place, S R ngar, bhilwara might have been real, but this current locality in Princes Town exists because of an incomplete vandalism fix. While I'm inclined to speedy it as a hoax, it has been on Wikipedia for almost a decade, so I'm more comfortable going this route. Guettarda (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Another Prescott subdivision, according to the real estate sites and listings. Everything else either just considers it a neighborhood of Prescott or (in the case of businesses there) doesn't mention it at all. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave☎ 22:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLANDPopulated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Another subdivision around Prescott, as the real estate lsitings and a forum discussion I found confirm. The only claim to notability is that the USGS labelled it on their maps after it was built. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
No significant coverage of the subject found while thoroughly searching the Google News database. There are a few stories that mainly focus on the band he is associated with. Dial911 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Suggest redirect to Sonata Arctica per WP:ATD. You could have WP:BOLDLY implemented this without an AfD, especially since the last one closed as redirect. buidhe 06:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Do we need a discussion for that? Half the sources are self-published and a third one is not relieable. Redirect per WP:MUSICBIO. Victão LopesFala! 19:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Non-notable production company that is only mentioned in passing in the context of specific films. I found no extensive coverage exclusively about the company itself, and coverage is scant at that. Regarding the claims its films received awards, that would be an argument for those particular articles, not this one, unless there was specific quality coverage about the company itself. PK650 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
'Speedy merge both this page and Pop (physics) to Jounce, or that page as well to Jerk (physics), all largely redundant and notional. The quoted source says enough: "The fifth and sixth time derivatives are sometimes somewhat facetiously referred to as crackle and pop" There is no useful physical meaning to this, certainly not enough to support an article. Speedy because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crackle (physics) (3rd nomination) had a clear consensus to merge yet no one ever did so... Reywas92Talk 03:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
But that was only four years ago. Merges need to be done with great care and deliberation to avoid changes that are too sudden. Thincat (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Merge I checked the terminology and merge is correct as suggested by Reywas92. Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment/question. The article tells us: "Elizabeth Etienne, is an American photographer. Etienne's images are part of the permanent collection at the Museum of Modern Photography." The latter museum has a website seemingly last updated in 2011 or perhaps 2010. Etienne's website tells us: "In 2014, she hung up camera and set down her pen trading her former career as an award-winning, pro photographer (who traveled the world shooting lifestyle advertising, retro portraits, interiors, events and travel, and wrote and published 3 books on Amazon) for a PASSIONATE career in Interior Design!!" Captain, would interior design make this AfD a matter for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture? -- Hoary (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak Keep: she seems to have been a probably notable photographer - I've retrieved and added an archived version of one of the sources, and a book review here (but is the New York Journal of Books anything serious or just fed by PR puffery? PamD 15:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
On their submissions page, the New York Journal of Books says that you should not submit a book until it is available on Amazon.com. That is presumably so that they can put in the buy on Amazon button at the top of the review. With regard to the archived article on kodak.com that you found, this is not a good source. Anything Kodak wrote about was meant to sell more Kodak products. The same goes for the Nikon profile on Nikon's web site. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. It just doesn't add up to enough. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
