Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:56, 9 January 2020

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 January	3 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Pastor Theologians

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

Fails WP:NORG. Cannot find any SIGCOV - all the hits I see on Google are generated by the subject. The text states that the organization has a three-person staff. Rogermx (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see this book review: [1], this journal article: [2], this book review: [3], this book: [4], this book: [5], and this magazine article: [6].--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I am afraid that these sources are about their books, not the center itself. I don't see anything other than passing mention to the center itself in any of these references. However, I appreciate your research on this. Rogermx (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine article is in-depth coverage from a third party source. It is not about advertising their books, either. As for the journal article, it goes over their last conference in some detail. It is also a third party journal. Another source that I did not mention before, is this one from tiu.edu, it goes into the history of the center's operation in some detail.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it has been toned down considerably, it still comes off as WP:PROMO due to the multiple WP:COI editors. While that in itself is not a reason for deletion, I do agree that the stringent requirements of WP:NORG have not been met. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the reasoning of Jmertel23. The promotionalism is undesirable but, even were it written in a strictly NPOV way, it wouldn't really seem to pass the basic requirements of WP:NORG. Wolfson5 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - dubious of merits -- This seems to be a learned society with a journal, and holding an annual conference, but we have no article on the journal and no indication of how many attend the conference. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 03:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ispat High School, Purnapani

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

Found as an expired PROD, but had been previously PROD'd in 2017 and retained. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a description of how to reach the school, but no proof of notability from what I can see. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 03:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hanshi Premjit Sen

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

Non-notable individual who owns a Karate academy. Only 6 sources I could find, and they all mention him in passing as being somebody's teacher. PK650 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this article was created by an SPA who previously created this article under Premjit Sen twice and was speedy deleted both times and Draft:Premjit Sen was rejected in AfC back in September. Pretty clear gaming of the system. Additionally, there is no indication of a GNG pass as he is not the focal point of the references used in this article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination, and GPL93. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - he's coached a couple of kids who won local tournaments. If this were 2012, I'd excuse the spam, but this is 2020 and everyone -- even in India -- knows we are not about this nonsense. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Númenóreans

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

All of the notable Númenóreans are listed elsewhere. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my inexpert opinion, the only figures on the list who pass WP:GNG are Isildur and probably Elendil, and they are already listed at List of Middle-earth characters. Hog Farm (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I don't buy the nominator's rational. Per WP:LISTN: it is not a question of whether the individual list items are notable, but rather if the subject itself is notable (i.e. if the subject has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources). However, this topic shows no evidence of meeting this lower bar since there are no reliable independent sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should not be creating lists of fictional people when half or more of the list are never proper characters at all and some come from abandoned first drafts that an overly found of publishing son made available to the world.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Material is better suited for a fan Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article fails notability as figures in the list are either fictional or are already in other lists Alex-h (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Every figure on this list is fictional. Although they have the draw back of not appearing in many works of fiction as actual characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly non-notable fictional characters Dartslilly (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Númenór is part of the backstory of The Lord of the Rings, though the land has long since disappeared. It appears more prominently in The Silmarillion and other minor, posthumous works that never received the same popular or critical acclaim. Númenóreans are simply not notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Except Numenor post dates the main action of the Silmarillion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Tolkiencruft pursuant to WP:LISTN. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Middle-earth Elves

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

Why do we have several different lists of Tolkienian characters? All of the important characters are already discussed in the main list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all of the important figures seem to be listed at List of Middle-earth characters. I would be fine with a very, very selective merge if an editor found somebody important I missed, but I think the list of Middle-earth characters hits all the important highlights. Hog Farm (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These lists should be limited to actual characters, not people who have their name dropped once, somewhere, in some cases only in first drafts of stories that were never even close to publication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This material would find a better home on a fan Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a good list, and I'd hate to see it go, but it may be listcruft as discussed above. Which fan wiki could we migrate this list to? Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Many of these characters were actually published in major works like The Silmarillion, Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. As to migrating the page, Tolkien Gateway is the most comprehensive topical wiki I know of, but unfortunately it comes only with a GFDL licence. So importing CC-by-licensed material over there may not work. De728631 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alternatively we may redirect to List of Middle-earth characters which includes those characters with a standalone article. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Two points: The Silmarillion is only major in the sense of its vast length (the concept was nowhere near completion when Tolkien died), and we need mentions in secondary sources in addition to the primary sources in order to demonstrate notability. Hog Farm (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with De728631.Halbared (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Middle-earth characters. This list is sourced entirely to primary sources, and any navigational purpose is better served by the main character list. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, List of Middle-earth characters, no reason at all to have a separate list by race. ValarianB (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This topic is non-notable per the requirements of WP:LISTN. I don't think a merger to List of Middle-earth characters is appropriate. The entries of this list are either (a) non-notable, so ineligible for inclusion on List of Middle-earth characters, or (b) already included on List of Middle-earth characters. Further, I don't think a redirect would be useful. Deleting the page and simply removing the incoming wikilinks to List of Middle-earth Elves (most of which are section links to non-notable individuals) is a better solution. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. List of trivial characters that most likely don't need to be merged, but redirecting on the off-chance there are some would be fine as well. TTN (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrary to what was said above The Silmarillion is not a major work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Tolkiencruft pursuant to WP:LISTN. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even if more articles need to be added to the List of Middle-earth characters, I do not think that would justify making this list itself a redirect there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Reynolds

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

This man has not been meaningfully discussed by any reliable publications. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as more sources have been found, otherwise move to draft so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is based on a single source. A search found no others.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can only find fan forum type threads. Curiocurio (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All I could find online was social media and a kickstarter. I concur with BOZ that if more sources can be found, then draftify it. Netherzone (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a number of sources that should establish this artist's notability. I would ask those who have already voted Delete to re-examine the article.Guinness323 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The three new sources I can see appear to be either blogs or self published items. The Delta force one is just plain weird.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources I added are:
  - 1. Review of The Unspeakable Oath in Issue 201 of Dragon by Allen Varney, in which he specifically references the important role of Reynolds' illustrations.
  - 2. Acknowledgement by John Tynes, co-founder of Pagan Press and The Unspeakable Oath, on his website, of the quality of Reynolds' artwork.
  - 3. The foreword to Reynolds' short story "Operation LOOKING GLASS" in the anthology Delta Green: Intelligence: "A member of the original play test group that spawned Pagan Publishing, thirty-five-year-old artist/writer Blair Reynolds is known in the game industry for his excellent, meticulous, and unnerving paintings and illustrations. Blair has done work on Mega Traveller for Game Designers' Workshop and Digest Group Publications, as well as on Call of Cthulhu for Chaosium and Pagan Publishing. Recently, he established Room 308 Publishing, which has produced one ('Yeah," he says, "okay, one, shuddup!") horror graphic novel entitled Black Sands. He recently illustrated the entirety of The Realm of Shadows for Pagan. More than any other piece in this anthology, this effective story emphasizes the hazards of being a warrior against the entities of the Mythos. Be advised that this is a very explicit story."
  - 4. In Issue 232 of Dragon, Allen Varney confirmed that Reynolds was once again providing artwork for The Unspeakable Oath with the comment that "Of Reynolds' latest artwork [editor John] Tynes commented, 'My eyeballs bled.'"
  - 5. In Issue 249 of Dragon, Ray Winninger spends the first three paragraphs of his review of The Realm of Shadows specifically talking, not about the book, but about Reynolds' artwork.

Number 1, & Numbers 3–5 are RS. Since John Tynes is notable, I assume therefore that his personal website is also RS. I used a French role-playing games site, Le Grog, to confirm that Reynolds, through Games 308, published The Mysteries of Mesoamerica in 2008. It might not be RS, but I was not looking to confirm notability from that site, only confirmation of a stated fact.Guinness323 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're making a good faith effort here, but the cover of "Delta Green Intelligence" sort of sinks any argument you might have for it being a reliable source when it says "As a training text for young mutants, I cannot recommend it too highly-- Lucius Sheperd". It also makes me doubt your other sources, which are already scraping the barrel of something or other.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I make no claims about the quality of the writing in the anthology Delta Green: Intelligence. It was written to satisfy a certain audience, mainly players of Call of Cthulhu, of which I am not one. I was more interested in the comments of the editors about Blair Reynolds. Nevertheless, perhaps not RS, but Dragon was the top-rated gaming magazine of its time, winner of numerous industry awards, using writers who are notable in their own right (Allen Varney, Ray Winninger, Rick Swan, Jim Bambra, Roger Moore, Chris Pramas, Bill Fawcett, to name a few); so the magazine is clearly notable, and clearly RS. I'm not certain how that qualifies as "scraping the barrel".Guinness323 (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are all sources in niche or sketchy publications I have never heard of. I think the "training text for young mutants" quote sort of says it all. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"publications I have never heard of" has little or no bearing on whether a source is reliable. I have never heard of thousands of sources that are probably still reliable, and I imagine just about everyone could say the same. BOZ (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but we will have to disagree on the quality of these meagre sources. Have a nice evening.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the two non-blog publishers are Mongoose Publishing and TSR. Mongoose Publishing is an obscure gaming company. Meanwhile, TSR was the original publisher of Dungeons & Dragons. Neither of these two publishers are particularly reliable. We should not be using questionable sources in our biographies of living persons. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And their lack of reliability is determined in what way? BOZ (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid to say I think the comment that "Mongoose Publishing is an obscure gaming company" says it all about Susmuffin's knowledge (or lack of) of the subject! Mongoose is one of the largest RPG publishers in the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Notable figure in the RPG industry. Whether non-RPGers have heard of him or the publications that mention him or not or deride the reliability of the latter is completely irrelevant. Most people are only experts in a handful of fields and wouldn't be expected to know much about other fields. That doesn't make the figures in them non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources offered don't look good enough quality to source a BLP and don't indicate that this person is of any particular note. b uidhe 07:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Designers & Dragons is a critical history of role-playing games; this is exactly the kind of independent secondary source that we're supposed to be using to determine notability. I believe that the people in this discussion who are questioning the quality of this source have probably never read it, and are judging it based on their personal opinions of the topic. Dragon was an extremely well-respected specialty magazine, and doesn't become unreliable just because someone hasn't heard of it before. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark William Shaw

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

Non-notable author, fails both the basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. There is a dearth of persistent coverage in third party, independent reliable sources—in both the literature and news outlets—and there is no evidence (hence the unsourced tag that has sat on the page for 18 months) that he has has either been regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors. Nor is he known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. He has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and his books have not won significant critical attention. All of which is necessary to pass the SNG, and all of which the article fails to do. ——SN 54129 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ——SN 54129 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ——SN 54129 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom. The subject is an author and conspiracy theorist who seems to have gained little notice or critical reviews from reputable sources. As far as I am able to tell none of their works are independently notable. The page has been unsourced pretty much since its creation, and prior to my stubbing it appears to have been a promotional vehicle for the subject, who also edited the article at various times. Article fails WP:BASIC, WP:V and WP:NOPROMO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a concern in that the article was essentially blanked and then less than an hour later was nominated for AFD. The AFD header states "the article must not be blanked." I believed the AFD process would look better if the article content was restored plus hatted with the AFD header and went ahead with that. I e-mailed the subject about the AFD and explained what he needs to show to establish notability (citing WP:AUTHOR, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:BASIC, and WP:N). While he does not seem to be technically versed in Wikipedia I suspect he understands the general process of citations as he has a law degree and has written biographies of other people which I used to show how he is part of making those people notable. Hopefully he either knows of citations we can use or is agreeable to that he's not a notable subject. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this coverage of the subject based on the aftermath from this incident.
- He's had jobs and projects that put his name in the public eye, such as appearing as "Mr. Science" on fifty-two episodes of the Disney Channel program The Scheme of Things but I could not see that it lead to direct notability coverage. There are things such as this poster for sale on Amazon but they are promotional material connected to the subject. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc Kupper: Claims of concern at the article's so-called blanking (it wasn't) are unfounded as the material was removed with a comprehensive edit summary, viz Stubbing completely unsourced article per WP:V and CITE. Article has been tagged for more 18 months. Also removing list consisting entirely of non-notable books per WP:NOPROMO. At least two of those are direct policy-based concerns, and that is not including any potential BLP issues from uncited material in a biography. ——SN 54129 13:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I have restored the reveted reversion. ——SN 54129 13:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see reveted reversions restored that way very often. E Eng 13:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I would agree with removing unsupported material that does not fit in with the overall narrative of the subject. This person's career has been far more than being an author. In this case, the article was blanked, or stubbed if you want to wikilawyer it, from 528 words covering much of his career to 15 words only mentioning the subject "is the author of more than 20 books."

Less an hour later the article was nominated for AFD. That seems in violation of the spirit of AFD which lets people see an article about a subject, despite how poorly it was sourced, while researching/debating the subject's notability. That's why I restored the more complete article and still advocate that it be restored. Should it be sourced? Absolutely, but that's not grounds for AFD much less deletion.

It'll hurt your eyes and brain to read but this version of the article from 2009 is nearly 2000 words long and shows several times in his life where he may have attracted verifiable WP:N coverage. I'm not advocating keep because we need to show that the subject is notable. The non-stubbed article gave areas of where people can look for evidence of WP:N. The hard to read 2009 version has more, including the subject's involvement in an incident that lead to Bob Knight finally being fired. Google then easily found one piece of possibly WP:N qualifying coverage here. Google also found that he did indeed seem to be the host of a television show though we need a better source than a poster for sale on Amazon. Being the host of a television show is not in itself WP:N worthy but it shows that the guy was in the public eye enough that there may well be WP:N qualifying coverage. If it's a "keep" it's likely going to be because of multiple incidents of non-substantial coverage, which WP:BASIC allows for. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article borders on promotionalism except when we do the needed limit to reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal keep Besides the earlier cited WP:GNG qualifying August 2011 article in the The Star-Ledger I have found this which was published in the September 2001 Indianapolis Monthly and both covers the subject and his opinions/thought about an event.

Both articles are WP:GNG qualifying for WP:BASIC with the August 2011 article tilting per WP:N as was written it's nine years later, and updated another eight years later, and thus meeting the "and over a period of time" part of WP:N. It's a marginal-keep in my mind as just two sources have been found and the coverage largely sprung from a WP:1E that the subject was not directly involved with.

I have asked the subject if there's more coverage but so far he's not willing to be specific in citing sources we can use. He's frustrated with Wikpedia due to his earlier run-ins with Ad Orientem who is also participating in this AFD.^{[See Kilgallen, sockpuppet, disruptive, and complaint on the help desk]} --Marc Kupper|talk 20:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to off on a tangent as it doesn't directly bear on whether or not the article should be kept. However, I do sadly have to admit that I and multiple other editors have had some bumps with Mr. Shaw over his use of the encyclopedia to promote his books as well as various fringe theories mostly relating to the death of Dorothy Kilgallen. (A handful of others have also been involved in the WP:PROFRINGE pushing there.) The latter issue in particular has been the subject of seemingly endless discussion/drama at WP:FTN and Kilgallen's article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation Street sets

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

Aligns with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Information on the set of Coronation Street can and should be included on the main article. WP:NOTEVERYTHING needs a separate article. DarkGlow (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From the references, it looks like the history and evolution of the sets are of particular interest. There are three books referenced (Coronation Street; A fully illustrated record, Coronation Street: The Inside Story and 40 Years of Coronation Street) with multiple page numbers, indicating that the sets are discussed in detail and not simply mentioned. News articles from the Guardian and BBC News indicate public interest from reliable sources. The four examples given on WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- plot summary, song lyrics, list of statistics and log of software updates -- bear no similarity to this fairly in-depth article with connection to real-world events. Toughpigs (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It can be considered a legitimate WP:SPINOUT for a TV show spanning decades, the sourcing is fine, it's got no problems with WP:INUNIVERSE. This is what I'd want to see in en.wiki's fiction coverage. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, which were convincing enough. Quahog (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coronation Street actors

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

Highly similar to List of Coronation Street characters and List of past Coronation Street characters, just a slightly different format. DarkGlow (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bad Girls cast members just ended with delete for several cast lists (although, to be fair, they were linked actor names only). – sgeureka ^t•c 22:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list criteria is "actors who began their career on show X and later had success on show/film Y". There may be a link for the success, or it's just what normal people would call "career". – sgeureka ^t•c 08:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coronation Street home video releases

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

Per my nomination of Coronation Street sets, WP:NOTEVERYTHING needs to be included on Wikipedia needs to be given an article. I suggest a merge being made onto Coronation Street under a "Video releases" section. DarkGlow (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Odedra

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

Lacks notability, fails WP:BIO. The nettv4u site is a wiki, not a reliable source; and there seem to be no indepth sources about him otherwise, just some passing mentions. Fram (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep: This article should not be deleted at all as it is about a writer of a famous national Hindi entertainment drama serial Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah and also nominated for a national award.Kitaab Ka Kida (talk)
- Do you have some good sources for this? I note on our article for that show that he is one of 10 writers of that show. Google News only show some passing mentions[7], and Google only has 32 hits, so it seems as if very little has been written about him in sources I can access (note that sources I can't access are equally acceptable, but I can only judge his notability on what is available to me). Fram (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources constitute significant coverage from reliable sources. Fails GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he may be a writer, but the sourcing is terrible ad thus fails WP:ANYBIO. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Opinions are tending towards a consensus that the article can (and should) be improved instead of deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Linhardt

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

Subject of article is a singer that fails WP:SINGER an actor, but fails WP:NACTOR & a director that fails WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources are 3rd party, reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unfortunately as does not yet have any prominent roles in notable productions with only minor roles or short films credits so does not pass WP:NACTOR at this stage and being a member of an orchestra is not sufficient for the music inclusion guidelines but may be notable in the future if better roles are secured, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Changed to neutral as explained in later comment Atlantic306 (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep John Pack Lambert , isn't the question supposed to be, "Do such sources exist?", not "Are there such sources within the article?" (did you do a Google search on her? What did you find?). And Atlantic306: Passing WP:NACTOR or any other guideline is only a measure of inclusion, not exclusion, and NOT meeting a guideline is not usually grounds for deletion. The question, as I understand it, is this: is the subject covered non-trivially in multiple reliable independent published sources (whether or not included in the actual article)? Did either of you check this? If you did, I think you might be surprised! Also: isn't the Hollywood FAME award evidence of her notability? Also, consider this article on her. A loose necktie (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @A loose necktie: I see that you created this article. If you are aware of other reliable sources with coverage about this person, it would be useful if you could add them to the article, or at least add links here, rather than saying we might be surprised if we checked. I have been trying to check, and so far I have not found a great deal. In 1997, the Los Angeles Times said that she "made a valiant reading of the difficult Menotti aria" in a performance called "Haunted Cabaret" [8]; in 2004, she was a member of a satirical anti-Bush group Billionaires for Bush [9]. Neither of those contributes to notability. This article [10] in International Musician is the most significant coverage I've found. I am not sure that it would count as independent, though, as the article is a "Member Profile", indicating that Linhardt is a member of the association of which this is the official journal. However, it gives some information about her education ("graduated in music and vocal arts from the University of Southern California", though with no dates), and some of the groups she has performed in, places she has appeared, etc, which could be (1) added to the article and (2) used in searches to find additional information. She has performed in Germany, so there may well be more German sources. It's not clear that Skope magazine, which has the article you linked to above, is a reliable source, and the article seems rather promotional and makes rather exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims (eg "Her “Classics To Cabaret” show is a favorite among European Royalty and diplomats"). Some of the info in it could be used to search for additional sources, though. As notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, it is not relevant to her notability to mention that she met famous people. So far I am not seeing enough coverage or enough notable performances for her to meet notability guidelines - it would be helpful if you could add more independent, reliable sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what about this, this, and the multiple newspaper clippings shown here? A loose necktie (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, those two links seem to be a members profile addition and a university aluminus report but the press clippings look more independent so I' m changing to neutral, but the Hollywood Fame awards don't seem to have an article assuming they are not Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which they are not, of course! They are part of the LA Music Awards as the Hollywood Film, Art, Music, and Entertainment awards. Thank you for changing your vote. A loose necktie (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, A loose necktie. The International Musician profile I had already linked to above - it's a member profile, so not independent. The University of Southern California notice is not independent either, as she studied there. The Hollywood FAME award does not seem to be notable itself, so is not an indication of notability for her. The articles in the Press page of the Circus Sanctuary website do appear to be independent and reliable, and should be added as individual references to the article, with the information they contain. They may be enough for her either to meet WP:GNG, or to show that she meets one or more criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, but at the moment, it's not enough to show that sources exist, as there is no clear claim of notability as recognised by Wikipedia notability guidelines. If this AfD is not relisted, I would suggest that this article be draftified, so that the information and sources can be included. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added some German language sources. Along with those in English, I believe I have now met the minimum requirements for article sourcing. I would rather not have the article moved to draft space, and would rather it simply be deleted if others do not agree that the subject meets the WP:GNG by virtue of having been the subject of non-trivial discussion in multiple reliable independent published sources (whether in the article yet or not). A loose necktie (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now WP:NORUSH and NEXIST (reliable sources exist even if not in the article) Here is one that a loose necktie found. Subject of a documentary. WP:ATD Wm335td (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~appearingly early(ish) career.~~ But not enough sources at present.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC). Removing a remark that appears to be inaccurate, she seems to have been performing since at least 1997 when she was damned with faint praise "Among the other performers... Christina Linhardt made a valiant reading of the difficult Menotti aria." May have been a career killer.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your honest opinion? Okay... Then how many sources ARE enough, NotButtigieg? Also, what is "appearingly early(ish)"? If you mean you don't think she's had a long enough career yet, isn't that basically WP:ITSTOONEW argumentation? And quickly, for Sandstein: I see you have relisted this for further discussion. Given that it had already been listed once and that a decision to delete did not appear to have community consensus while a clear decision to keep was also not there, couldn't you have called it a no-consensus keep and saved the community further discussion time? Just a thought. Thanks! A loose necktie (talk)

In response, I made a more thorough search and can see very little indication of notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There definitely seem to be enough independent sources to qualify as notable under GNG. I don't agree that "International Musician" is not an independent source, the profile is a news article in the official journal of an 80,000 member union, this does not constitute a "close affiliation". I'll try to incorporate some of the additional sources into the article in the next day or so.

Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 03:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ActOne Group

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

Non notable organization that falls short of WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The test for notability for companies/organizations (and not the founder or any connected persons) as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources passes the test, most are interviews with the founder Janice Bryant Howroyd who already has an article and the information about the company is already contained therein. As such, this topic fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 03:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuni Wa

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

Was a previous A7, but now reappeared from an WP:SPA who "dropped" this BLP in one go on their 2nd edit to Wikipedia (e.g. WP:SPI and/or WP:UPE issues here). Lots of Instagram/youtube/blogs on this subject, but nothing in the main music RS like Rolling Stone; zero SIGCOV. Instead of going A7 (again), I decided to bring to the AfD community. Britishfinance (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted. The artist that it’s about has 11.5 million listens globally and is a legitimate globally known artist. All links show proof that they are an active artist and have been releasing music for years with songs that have as much as 100,000 views to over 1 million views. They are housed under one of biggest distribution companies in the country (Symphonic Distribution) and everything on all grounds is confirmable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Princetoncole (talk • contribs) 12:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain to your client that existence is not sufficient to be notable on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's criteria for notability does not include "youtube hits", as they are misleading (and potentially made-up), statistics; hence why your client needs Wikipedia to improve their actual notability. Britishfinance (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to my client? I’m sorry I’am Princeton Coleman aka yuni wa. Here is a major problem you are not understand. The definition of no·ta·bil·i·ty is the fact or quality of being notable or being known. You are calling my very real YouTube statistics fake and you are ignoring that I’ve been featured on one of the biggest music media companies to date (Elevator Mag) I’ve been nominated for best electronic producer/Dj by the Arkansas times. Named one of the top visionary Arkansans for the year of 2017 by the Arkansas times. I was literally even on the vice website for production credits that I have with someone that is signed to mass appeal records. Who are you and why are you out right disregarding the proof that is right there. The fact you are saying I have “YouTube hits” and fake statistics is extremely disrespectful and you are mishandling your job greatly and you are treating this situation poorly. Notability is being well known, you are disregarding the well known songs I have on YouTube, SoundCloud, and Spotify. Actually since you think my YouTube stats are fake you know I’m doing 42k monthly on Spotify right? If you keep disregarding the information I will simply go out my way to inquire further and possibly see to it that you lose your job doing this because this is disrespectful to everything I’ve worked for specially since I actually do meet the notability requirements. You need to do your research. Also I never said my existence was sufficient for a page I’m literally a well known music producer and you are ignorant to that. Read the references, look at my history online as a Music producer. None of this is made up.user talk • contribs) 12:17, 18 December 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princetoncole (talk • contribs)

"If you keep disregarding the information I will simply go out my way to inquire further and possibly see to it that you lose your job doing this" is a WP:THREAT and should be withdrawn. Narky Blert (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have a prodigious talent for Wikipedia producing an article of that quality on your 2nd edit; if the music business does not work out, you have a future here, although creating your own BLP is a WP:COI. However, if your story about being the author is not true, then we are probably in WP:SPI and WP:UPE territory (concepts you are probably familiar with from other accounts). In any event, we shall let the community decide the outcome. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The above discussion has revealed that the article was created by the musician himself, and while conflict of interest is certainly relevant, the gentleman simply does not understand that Wikipedia is not a promotional service but instead provides information on people, things, and events that have become items of general knowledge. This requires evidence of significant media coverage in reliable sources, and quantities of YouTube views and Instagram shares won't cut it. The musician has self-released a lot music that has been largely ignored by the media and has produced some other people who are themselves non-notable. Sorry, but come back after you get noticed by reliable critics and people outside of your own social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absent very good coverage about the person, articles about record producers are almost always deleted, because they are plainly run of the mill. Any person over the age of seven can post a video on the Internet or spin a record, and get millions of followers. We could excuse noobies in 2009, but not in 2019; everyone has known for years that Wikipedia is not for self-promotion and that as a charity governed by New York laws, we and Letitia James enforce notability standards and punish self-dealing. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine units of measurement

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

Another article based almost entirely on the very bad Cardarelli source and the equally bad Washburn and Clarke books. Furthermore, all these supposedly "national" units of measurement were actually imported from Spain when Argentina was a Spanish colony. Thus, I am unconvinced that this is an actual topic. Units of measurement used by the native inhabitants of the area would be a different matter but I can't find any good sources on that topic. Reyk _YO! 12:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The sources aren't reliable, and even supposing we could turn up better references describing specifically Argentine variants of units used much more widely, that would hardly merit a dedicated article. Such hypothetical variants could be fit more usefully in Spanish customary units, for example. Pre-colonial systems of measurement would be more interesting, but I'm not sure they should be called Argentine (that's a bit like calling the Haudenosaunee Confederacy part of the United States). XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When this was last discussed the evidence that the Cardelli reference was bad turned out simply to be some issues over Japanese units, and in fact Cardelli is supported as a good source by numerous other reliable sources. The same goes for Washburn and Clark. The deletion rational here appears to be that all the references are bad, but this is not substantiated. The article itself gives reasons as to why these units are not the same as Spanish customary units (because they varied regionally - similarly to the way in which US gallons are not the same as Imperial ones). Hence units are given here used in Buenos Aires that differ from the customary units of Spain. And here also. And also here. And here as well. Wow here too. Double Wow - here's an entire 1939 research paper on Argentine and other South American customary units. As with the previous discussion about the unit Stueck, I think there is an argument that perhaps these units should all be merged at a particular level (e.g., into a wider list), but in this case this has already happened (they are merged at the country-level), and I think this avoids WP:DICDEF issues.

EDIT: given the number of references there are in this case findable via a simple GBooks search I'm also going to say this is a pretty obvious WP:BEFORE failure. FOARP (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NIST "endorsement" of Cardarelli was one line in an FAQ webpage from 2004, hardly the in-depth evaluation that the previous AfD sold it as. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas the "evidence" that Cardelli (and Washburn, and Clarke, and...) is bad is basically editor chit-chat. Meanwhile one of the main claims made by the nom (no such thing as Argentine units) turns out to be demonstrably untrue based on the above sources, and people have been talking about Argentine units for decades before Cardelli was published. FOARP (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I resent that claim. I have spent quite a lot of time looking at various bits of the Cardarelli book, using reason, intelligence, and, yes, your precious "sources" (I have checked against standard reference works, in other words). Your view appears to be that the mindless copying of confusion, inaccuracy, and plain nonsense from "proper printed books" is to be regarded as superior to actually critically looking at claims. Of course Cardarelli's book is WP:RE-"LIE"-ABLE, but it, or rather, the part of it (not endorsed at all by NIST, or anyone else) relating to historical units is by and large an uncritical and careless scraping of much older books (by Clarke and others) many of whose confusions might be forgiven at that time. Even so, I have pointed out that Basil Hall Chamberlain managed a vastly more competent treatment of Japanese unit after Clarke but a long time before Washburn. Again, I have to point out that many careless errors and confusions have been found in Cardarelli which have nothing to do with Japanese units in particular. (Stupping tons, Pittsburgh=Petersburg confusion, etc etc). Imaginatorium (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, before simply saying that Cardelli is bad the nom might have looked to see whether Argentinian units actually exist - and the evidence seems pretty conclusive that they did. FOARP (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen Cardarelli's later book but his earlier one is a mess. I've found Koizumi Kesakatsu to be much more reliable, and not only for Japanese units. I don't have immediate access to Koizumi's Zukan: Tan'i no rekishi-jiten (i.e. "An illustrated historical dictionary of units") but I do have on my lap my copy of the 4th edition (1981) of his Tan'i no jiten (i.e. "Dictionary of units"). Koizumi writes in the latter (for the three units I bothered to look up), that the frasco was specifically Argentinian, that the vara was multinational, and that the Mass was Austrian. So the content of this article isn't all wrong, or even all misleading. But it's unreliable, as any article on obsolete units must be if based on Cardarelli. An additional problem is that -- to me, at least -- it's intermittently incomprehensible. For example, Even in 1920 (after the adoption of metric system), units like vara (0.866 m), pie (0.289 m) libra (0.4595 kg) and tonelada (918.8 kg) were still used by mixing the values of the Spanish terms of metric and English units (e.g. vara for meter) by showing the requirement to avoid mixing of terms in old system and metric system and English system. This led to a mixed system of units after adoption of the metric system. I've now read this four times but I can only start to guess at what it means. Delete it; don't rush to delete a replacement by somebody who demonstrably (i) knows something about metrology, (ii) reads Spanish, (iii) has access to an academic library that's strong in Spanish, (iv) has the regular editorial superpowers -- though I'd guess that a redirect to something like "Non-metric units in South America" or "Obsolete units in South America" would be better. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, old chap, I think you must be looking at a historical version. The incoherent bit was written by now-gone user Shevonsilva, and the Austrian units were where the same Shevonsilva accidentally copied Cardarelli's list of the next entry to Argentina in alphabetical order. Both have gone now. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie, I really must be careful when browsing the interwebs with PrecatastropheZilla (select names of charlatans/narcissists; view the world as it was before they assumed power). I'll have to think about this, and pontificate afresh. Meanwhile, do we have reason to doubt Koizumi's indication that the frasco was specifically Argentinian? -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: according to wiktionary "frasco" is a Spanish (as well as the more obvious Portuguese) term for "bottle". It's not really a unit, just a word for a container that might have had a specific connotation in Argentina (but might not). Imaginatorium (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Koizumi writes フラスコ frasco (種)体積　アルゼンチン固有の単位、2.51米クォート、2.09英クォートまたは2.375l. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems similar,again, to the discussion over "Stuck". The mere fact that something means something in a particular language does not prevent it also being a unit of measurement. FOARP (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are "genuine" units, like feet or picometres, then there are "containers-used-as-units", whether sacks, bottles, or words like "load". These may have conventional sizes associated with them, but anything written in ignorance of the fact that they are also containers should not really be accepted on its own. I really wonder if Koizumi, for example, realises that frasco is another Spanish word for bottle. And, FWIW, this really is not comparable to stuck, which is an abbreviation of an Anglicisation of a German word, Stückfaß", which is a type of wine barrel. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enogu hgoodsources. Whether we will need one for every possible country isa separate question, bu there is enoughdistinctivecontnet here to make an article. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Wikipedia would be very slightly better without this "article". I can imagine a real article on the use of Spanish units in South America, but it would include reference to at least one work of scholarship (probably in Spanish) on the topic. The problem with all the references cited is that while they are PPBs ("proper printed books"), they are all collections of anecdotes, of varying levels of reliability. Going back to the earlier historical sources, people like Washburn were obviously not actually experts in the culture of almost all of the countries they were listing units for; they did their best with what they could find on the Internet. Oh, wait a minute, whatever people used before the Internet. And the proposer is right that there are not any Argentinian units; these are (Spanish) units which were used in Argentina (and I think this is actually what all of the sources say). The current title is either inaccurate if it is using "Argentine" as an adjective, or ungrammatical if using it as a noun. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. Narayanan (film editor)

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

Non notable film editor who won a non notable award & fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm struggling to assess all of the sources, even with Google translate, but I'm not seeing evidence of passing GNG. And simply on the basis of the content of the article, there doesn't seem to be anything that would amount to notability. No major films or TV series, and a relatively minor award. Hug^syrup 17:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to WP:Notability, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Submitted sources of the article are genuine and all from printed media in malayalam language. 'The award' was presented to K. Narayanan about 12 years ago. Now, it is not possible to obtain its original links or sources. Because, the online editions started in Malayalam printed media (Daily & Other) before just 5 or 6 years ago. But, the detail of the award achievement is mentioned in the sources which are included the article. Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article created with WP:Identifying and using independent sources and there are mainly 5 or more independent sources here. These sources are strongly discussing and indicating about Mr. Narayanan and his personal life and his film career. And, WP:Notability (people) says that,if the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors is considerable for the notability of Wikipedia. Here, Narayanan has enough notability through with many reliable and independent sources. As per this, keep this article here. Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 08:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as per nom. Abishe (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,Per above, fails notability Alex-h (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - claims of notability can not be verified in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability underlined that, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity..." This article follows Basic criteria with WP:Notability (people). Basic criteria says that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." And, Basic criteria also says that, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below."Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If follows Basic criteria about an article For people, doesn't matter Additional criteria of WP:Notability (people) for a biographical article. So, this criteria, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" in Additional criteria, Any biography section is not relevant here. Because, this article is not related with Any biography section. It comes in Creative professionals section. In Creative professionals section, this article follows one criteria, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability says that "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" and in Notability is not temporary section of WP:Notability says that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Here, Mr. Narayanan has got enough significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These links, [11] (Malayala Manorama English language), [12] (Malayala Manorama-Malayalam language), [13] (Deshabhimani-Malayalam language), [14] (Mathrubhumi-Malayalam language), [15] (Mathrubhumi-Malayalam language) are from reliable sources-List of Malayalam-language newspapers- which are published from Malayalam. . This link, [16] from a leading Malayalam periodical, Vanitha. See also these links:- [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest living former members of the Australian House of Representatives

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

The basis of this list appears to be original to Wikipedia, and it appears that no one has made such a list before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The basic structure of this article was partly modeled on similar articles like Earliest serving United States senator. These articles contain very similar information and have not been nominated for deletion. Again, with the respect, as I said in deletion discussion of the inverse of this page, obviously not enough research was done to establish the sources of information I used to create this page; of course it didn't fully originate on wikipedia. Using the automatically generated find sources template that searches for the title of the page is obviously not going to find anything useful; this information is rare, and if it did exist in this form, it is highly likely that the title would not be the exact same. I'm sure you used other sources, but simply searching from the title is not enough to assert that it fully originated on wikipedia. I used hansard lists, the individual pages of MPs listed, the trove archive, and 'https://australianpolitics.com/parliament/house/surviving-members'. I agree, this information is hard to find elsewhere. I was honoured to be thanked by Ivar the Boneful (talk) after creating this page. This user has been contributing countless useful contributions to Australian politics articles for several years, and has become a well-established authority on Australian politics pages. Although I don't want to speak on his behalf, I believe his thank was a sign of approval from another Australian politics editor. I put lots of work into this article and its twin Senators article; I humbly ask that if deletion does take place, the information is moved elsewhere, I do believe that some researchers or people who need to find related information can quickly use this reliable source. SpaceFox99 (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I honestly can't make head or tail of how to interpret what's in this article, and the explanation by the creator above isn't very helpful. Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Nick-D (talk), I see this may be another issue with the article. The articles nominated for deletion list surviving MPs with the earliest date of election

(eg if there were two former MPs living in Australia, one MP [A] elected in 1950, and another [B] elected in 1960, A would be listed in the pages, because she was elected earlier than any other living former MP. I did find it difficult to find the right wording for these pages)

The second table is much simpler and lists living former MPs by date of election.

The third table is also simple and lists the last members of government ministries who were alive.

This article is useful for determining the oldest living former MPs and is hard to find anywhere else.SpaceFox99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question SpaceFox99. Before I !vote, what is this information ever actually used for and who uses it? I find the first "definition" out right confusing, and in any case most of these people are not living, they are dead. Aoziwe (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Aoziwe. I tried to simplify this page in my earlier comment. If you wish, I can try again. The page's concept is nearly identical to this one Earliest serving United States senator. SpaceFox99 (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I just do not get it at all. What are the pages trying to achieve apart from convolution? Who will read and use the content and for what purpose? Aoziwe (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Aoziwe. The page is obviously not trying to “achieve convolution”. The page lists the living MP with the earliest date of election.This enables people who are trying to find:

•tenure records for politicians,
•historical information on Australian politics,
•the oldest living Australian politicians (eg in one source rather than individually checking each page of elected MPs.
•who is living from particular governments
•who is living from particular ministries
•who is living from particular elections
•former MPs who are living

This data can be used by researchers, casual readers, political researchers, publishers (in conjunction with other sources). It could be repurposed for key information (eg XX was the last surviving member of the XX parliament) or transformed into another data source (eg similar table)
The second and third tables are very simple to understand and far from convolute. I can see the difficulty behind the first table; however, other pages have this list for their respective countries. I believe the first table has justification for deletion, however I believe the last two tables (especially the second one) should be moved if this occurs. SpaceFox99 (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but sorry again, but what do they do with knowing who is the last surviving member of a ministry? Why is the last surviving member any more important or interesting than any other member of a given ministry? This still looks like random statistical trivia to me? Also, what is so special about the "40" in 'who were elected over 40 years ago'? Why not 30 or 50? Also, what is so special about "50" in 'ministries up to 50 years ago'? Why not 40 or 60? This all seems rather arbitrary? Aoziwe (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoziwe, they are all fair points. Im sorry to keep relying on the American article, but is that article justified if this one isn’t? It seems that the US and UK have vast arrays of political and tenure data that are considered ‘trivial’ by Australian editors; there is a much lower (I won’t use the word lack) amount of data about MPs, classifications and tenures in Australian pages. If you are the last living member of something (especially political), you are notable (Wikipedia has a whole page dedicated to the last living members of events). Also, if the individual pages of these MPs state they were the last living member of X, why are those statements not trivial and deleted?
The reason for the particular number of people listed is not very strong; it’s simply because the closer you get to the current date, the more MPs there are to list. This being a new article, I expected some time in the future that some user would help me expand on it and possibly bring the list closer to a closer date if not the present; this article isn’t even a week old. The amount of MPs elected at the 1969 election is far less than those who were elected in 1980, for example. SpaceFox99 (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Sorry but I have gone for delete below. Aoziwe (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If making the list requires you to set up and code a spreadsheet on your own, because the list hasn't already been compiled by outside sources, then by definition you're doing original research — and the US list should most likely be deleted as well on the same grounds, but per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the fact that it hasn't already been deleted does not justify this list in and of itself. The reason such information tends to be hard to find is because it has no inherent value in the first place — identifying who was the first holder of any given political role to still be alive today is not a thing people need at all, because "earliest living" confers no special status on former politicians over and above other former politicians. If the information had any value at all, then the list would have already existed somewhere, and could have just been copied wholesale without having to fire up Excel to figure it out yourself — the fact that such outside sources don't exist is because people don't need the information at all. Speaking as a Canadian, we've ended up with a lot of pointless content that had to be deleted, solely because somebody decided that Canada has to comprehensively replicate every "List of X" that the United States has, even if the topic has no actual meaning or relevance or applicability in Canada at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Bearcat, the data exists, already compiled, here: ‘ https://australianpolitics.com/parliament/house/surviving-members’. Being the most senior or oldest does matter; nearly all major Prime Minister/leader pages list ‘former XXs’. I believe the data does have relevance , as I was thanked by another Australian user, but that seems to be one part of the crux of the issue of deletion of this article. SpaceFox99 (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per wp:indiscriminate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN and because WP:NOR. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as there has been some effort put into this article, I just do not see how it is not essentially arbitrary statistical synthesis. So fails LIST, borders on OR, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an argument for deleting that too. Aoziwe (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, I think the title and the presentation of the article could use some work, but the content is relevant and notable. Wikipedia has long kept records for the length of political careers and length of political retirements, both for heads of government and elected parliamentarians. I thank SpaceFox99 for their work on this article, and I hope that much of this can be preserved. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Onetwothreeip and WP:SOFIXIT. Merge can be done if it's pruned enough to allow one. ミラ P 01:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many ways to tabulate representatives, but it is unclear what makes this one notable. The only way this could meet WP:LISTN is by demonstrating RSes that discuss this metric in particular. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I highly doubt that LISTN is met here. (and no sources have been produced to that effect). More longevitycruft. b uidhe 08:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sister page for this, Earliest living former members of the Australian Senate has been deleted. So think this should alos be removed.Hard to see the value in this type of data sorting. Teraplane (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft. If the closing admin can also find a way to remove the "honorary titles" that have been added to all the MPs' individual pages (linked to this one), that would be great too. Frickeg (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a tabulation that goes far beyond what the sources would tell us, this is as clear synthesis as could be created in a list. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 03:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabvest Limited

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

Non notable company failing WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Plus, the nature of the creator's edits give the impression he has a close relationship with the subjects he writes about. ZXVZ (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a publicly traded company in South Africa. It has significant media coverage. I have no relationship to the subject whatsoever. I disclosed all conflicts of interest on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Machetazic (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Six independent sources is sufficient. Rathfelder (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The test is not merely for "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Also, although the company is listed on the JSE, as per WP:LISTED this does not automatically confer notability. We need sources.
- This from Business Live is based on "commentary" released by the CEO. Other comments are attributed to anonymous "market watchers". This article is neither significant not contains Independent Content, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- This from IOL has no attributed journalist and is entirely based on an announcement from the company containing no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- This is a standard info sheet from the stock exchange and is not significant coverage, in-depth or containing Independent Content, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND
- This from Moneyweb] is behind a moneywall but can also be seen here is a good article but is written by an employee of Cannon Asset Managers who have a long-standing holding in Sabvest in their Cannon Asset Managers’ Hummingbird Fund, and have also included the share in certain equity mandates. Is from a connected source and is therefore not Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from BusinessTech is entirely based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
- This also from BusinessTech is a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- This also from BusinessLive is also a mere mention-in-passing and does not contain and Independent Content, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
I am unable to locate and sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTED is not enough. Sources are routine press releases and their rewrites. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No substantiated "keep" opinions. Sandstein 06:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australasian boxing champions

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

Firstly, the Australasian title isn’t a very notable regional title; as the lead of this article says, it’s not even listed on BoxRec. Secondly, the list is unverifiable and is incomplete. The only hopes of a list of champions I could find was this from the ANBF website, however, the list in question is only current champions...and the page is "under construction". ².O.^Boxing 06:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 06:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 06:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My mistake, BoxRec does have the title listed, but it’s majorly incomplete. – ².O.^Boxing 07:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is notable in Australia and New Zealand maybe not the rest of the world but it's here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.68.2 (talk • contribs)

It's not even a notable title in Australia and NZ. You look at the biggest names coming out of that part of the world at the moment – the Moloney brothers, Jeff Horn, Michael Zerafa, Joseph Parker, Junior Fa – all opt for regional titles from the four major organisations. Regardless, the list is terribly inaccurate and there isn't much hope of updating it, which isn't very encyclopaedic. – ².O.^Boxing 03:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. By about 2 to 1, people here think that this theory should not be covered in its own article. As concerns the strength of the arguments made, I think that it is not very high on both sides. The "keep" side rather perfunctorily asserts that sufficient sources exist, but mostly without discussing them or their merits. The "delete" side mostly argues that the theory has no merit, which may well be the case, but is not relevant for its notability: we have many articles about notable pseudoscience or fringe theories. This seems to be a bit of a borderline case. But I'm most persuaded by the comments by Buidhe, who it seems has been one of few editors to examine the sources in some detail. They first advocated keeping this article, and then, after some reflection, advocated deleting it, concluding - without being rebutted - that "sources discussing this aren't even talking about the same thing, making it very difficult to write an article". On that basis, I think we can find consensus to delete both on grounds of numbers and strength of argument. Sandstein 09:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Jesus

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

Fringe theory with no support among scholars. Might be worthy of a line or two in the main article on Jesus. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From WP:NFRINGE:
The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The subject meets GNG considering only independent sources that do not support the theory. In addition to the sources cited in the article, see also [23], [24] , [25] (non-opinion news article), [26] (column by the leader of Facts and Logic About the Middle East). Hen Mazzig claims that "Every year, in the days leading up to Christmas, the “Jesus was a Palestinian” talking point surfaces off- and online." b uidhe 22:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added content from three academic sources that have significant coverage of the topic:^[1]^[2]^[3]
  On the other hand, I'm not seeing a good merge target. I don't think Race and appearance of Jesus would be a good fit because the debate is not about Jesus' race or appearance, but his nationality and religion. And this is a fringe theory confined to a small part of the Christian world, so it wouldn't be suitable to cover it much at all in the main article on Jesus.
  b uidhe 06:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about merging it into Pallywood, as an example of anti-Israel propaganda? Scaleshombre (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Pallywood refers to something different, photoshopping images to make it look like Israel has committed war crimes. I don't think any of the sources I've read on Palestinian Jesus even mention "Pallywood". Temple denial is closer, but I don't see how this could be merged there either. b uidhe 07:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All editorials have been removed except for Al-Jazeera's which is cited to prove that the newspaper published an article supporting the theory. b uidhe 12:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be covered elsewhere without its own article. Srnec (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irreparable rubbish. The whole article and many of its "sources" rely on the false assumption that one can't be both Jewish and Palestinian at the same time. This is not the view of any major Palestinian organization past or present. Actually the claim "Jesus was a Palestinian" means "Palestinians have deep roots here", which is exactly why the claim is upsetting to people who deny that Palestinians exist and have a past. As it stands, this article is just an attack on Palestinians sourced to their enemies, without any sign of balance. A lot of the sources are unreliable opinion pieces presented as facts. Zero^talk 08:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Buidhe has added some decent sources. Merge would probably be better if someone can find a good target. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like it but Keep -- If this is the propaganda that prominent Palestinian politicians are propunding, it needs an article, which should end off with a rebuttal explaining the orthodox Christian response.

Galilee is part of the area claimed by the Palestinians as Palestine and was so called for many centuries. Some of the Galileans may not have been ethnic Hebrews, but converted under the Maccabees. However the testimony of the New Testament is that Jesus was a Jew and descended from King David. In saying anything else, those Muslims claiming otherwise are propounding an unhistorical view.

The view ultimately depends on how you identify someone as a Palestinian in the period when there were still Jewish states in the region. This is perhaps derived from an ancient Muslim equivalent of WP:OR. I may add in passing that Palestine is cognate with (and perhaps derived) from Philistine, a pagan nation occupying the southern coastal plain of Palestine/Israel, including Gaza. The expansion of the scope of the name is probably a result of the removal of the Jewish population after the last Jewish rebellion in about AD 135. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've checked all the sources that had links, but only one source actually had the term "Palestinian Jesus". It was Will Stalder's source from Google books. I need special access to Fishman-Duker, Rivkah source (I think it was written by Susannah Heschel), so I can't verify it. The article seems to be built mainly upon a compilation of different news sources that basically argue the ideal Jesus was a Palestinian, but it never discusses the term itself, history or its use etc. Rather, some of the sources are supporting different events under the "Proponents" section of the article, but Wikipedia is not the news per WP:NOTNEWS violation. And WP:HEY is neither policy or guideline. Jerm (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about the term, it is about the theory or idea about Jesus' nationality. b uidhe 00:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a theory, then it would have been supported with reliable sources. Or even better, mentioned @Jesus. Not some stand-alone article being supported by a bunch of news articles. It still violates WP:NOTNEWS and now WP:NFRINGE for not using reliable sources from mainstream views. Jerm (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, not fringe. Even if scholars don't support this, other notable people do. And don't worry, soon enough some Islamic "scholar" will come along. Some names come to mind. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Litvak, Meir (2009). "Constructing a national past: the Palestinian case". In Litvak, Meir (ed.). Palestinian Collective Memory and National Identity. Springer. pp. 118–119. ISBN 978-0-230-62163-3.
^ Stalder, Will (2015). Palestinian Christians and the Old Testament: History, Hermeneutics, and Ideology. Augsburg Fortress. pp. 235–237. ISBN 978-1-4514-8214-0. Based on a 2012 PhD dissertation at the University of Aberdeen.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ Fishman-Duker, Rivkah (2009). "Nazis for Jesus/Jesus for Nazis". Jewish Political Studies Review. 21 (3/4): 208. ISSN 0792-335X.

Comment I am undecided here, as I have always enjoyed the rather absurd debate around this question. I suggest we decide on the basis of the WP:THREE criteria. If we look past all the POV sources here, what are the three high quality sources that the proposers intend this article to be based upon? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, they're listed right above your comment. b uidhe 22:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But these are two books on modern Anti-Zionism (Meir Litvak and Gershon Nerel [the latter is being quoted by Stalder]), and one junior lecturer in a book review? For this to be a credible article, we need to use scholars of Jesus (e.g. Jesus#Bibliography) and scholars of the name Palestine (e.g. Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Bibliography). Onceinawhile (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that the topic isn't a notable facet of biblical scholarship. The debate is whether it's a sufficiently notable part of modern Anti-Zionism. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RaiderAspect: agreed. Per footnote 1, it's entirely normal course to use the term Palestinian for Jesus in biblical scholarship. This article however appears to be entirely focused on attacking Anti-Zionism, as are the proposed three key sources, such that all three neglect to mention the normal course nature of the term in biblical scholarship. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: you're right about the usage of Palestinian in biblical scholarship as shorthand for "First-century Levant". But that's not a difficult problem to fix; we can hatnote it, or footnote it, or mention it in the test, or rename this article. The question is whether the underlying topic discussed in the article is notable. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough support for this fringe theory to justify an article. I also have to bang my head at lines like "Some Galileans may have been converts under the Maccabees". Besides the fact that this would contradict the Davidic descent of Jesus documented in the New Testament, it also strikes me as confusing ethnicity with a much more modern idea of race. Jesus may well have had some ancestors who only coverted to Judaism at the time of the Maccabees, he does have documented convert to Judaism ancestresses (Ruth and Rahab). However even if 90% of his ancestry converted to Judaism under the Maccabees that would not change him from being a Jew. This is a new variation of antisemitism, and while it might be a documentable phenomenon, it is clearly not one that merits an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a Fringe theory. In the time of Jesus, residents of historic Israel were described as Galileans, Samaritans, Romans, Jews, Greeks and so forth - but there was no evidence of anyone being called a "Palestinian" in that era. Occassionaly, FRINGE political activists and anti-Israel politician do use this phrase. But I agree with User:Johnpacklambert that There is not enough support for this fringe theory to justify an article. NotButtigieg (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NotButtigieg: see Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Roman_Jerusalem_period. Many of Jesus's contemporaries, including Jews (Philo and Josephus) used the term. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have demonstrated only that Romans used Palestine and Palestinian to refer to a geographical region. This is NOT the same as using it as an ethnonym, as is done in the term "Palestinian Jesus."NotButtigieg (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid is recorded using it more than once as an ethnonym around 8 AD. Later Greek authors did too (e.g. Zosimus, and the great Suda encyclopedia). None of this changes the underlying debate here; I am setting this out just for the record. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid, like other writes in the Roman period, used Palestinian to identify the geographical region of origin , not the ethnicity of individuals.NotButtigieg (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid, Metamorphoses: "Latin: occidit et Celadon Mendesius, occidit Astreus matre Palaestina dubio genitore creatus" (translation: "There fell also Mendesian Celadon; :::::::::No, because there was no Palestinian ethnie; all that Ovid states here is that , too, whose mother was a Palestinian, and his father unknown") in Book V, 144-145

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there was no Palestinian ethnie; all that Ovid states here is that is that Astreus' mother was form Palestine. It is as though I stated that your mother was European. Such information would accurately tell us where your mother is from, but not whether she is Pomak, Fleming or Catalan, Roman Catholic or Lutheran.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are off topic, but for the record, the language and grammar used by Ovid is exactly the same as that used by classical authors to describe all ethies. And ethnies (modern or classical) are imagined communities; to use your example, some people do consider themselves to be of "European ethnicity", just as members of the same family could reasonably choose to consider themselves "Yoruba" or "Nigerian" or "African". You seem to be applying double standards to Palestine. And we have strayed well into WP:OR. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly novel or original to state that a Palestinian ethnie first came into existence in the 20th century. And that there is zero evidence of such an ethnie in the 1st century, when the Roman province of Palestine had Samaritans, Jews, Greeks, Romans - but no Palestinian ethnie.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion specifically about whether the proposed sources are sufficient for notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NotButtigieg (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors to this discussion have mistaken the geographical descriptor "Palestinian" for an ethnic descriptor.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian Jesus" is an incoherent term that has been used intermittantly by activists and politicians to claim that "Jesus was an Islamic martyr" [27], that Jesus was a Muslim Palestinian [28], or that he was in some sense an ethnic Palestinian (although "Palestinian" is an ethnonym and ethnic identity created in the 20th century.) These claims are ill-defined, contradictory, and lack historical support. Scholars of early Christianty regularly use phrases like "the Palestinian Jesus movement." This sort of reference dominates wearches for "Palestinian Jesus". NotButtigieg (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palwatch is a racist website that can't be trusted for the time of day. Zero^talk 01:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, it confirms my assertion that sources for "Palestinian Jesus" are very low quality.07:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotButtigieg (talk • contribs)

The topic barely even exists. I'll take the topic as defined by the first sentence: "Palestinian Jesus is the idea that Jesus was not a Jew, but instead a Palestinian Arab." The first thing to make clear is that neither the article as it stands, nor any of sources given in the article, actually quote anyone claiming that Jesus wasn't Jewish. In other words, the article hasn't even established that it is about a topic that exists. The actual story is that some people deny that Palestinians can be Jewish, so when Jesus is called Palestinian they claim that his Jewishness is being denied (even when he is explicitly called a Palestinian Jew). Of course there probably have been people making the stupid claim that Jesus wasn't Jewish, but by now someone ought to have found at least one example significant enough to support notability. Zero^talk 01:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFRINGE, even though I strongly disagree with this nonsensical theory. It looks balanced enough with both proponents and criticism sections too. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section called "proponents", but no proponents are given there. Zero^talk 03:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the problem is that sources discussing this aren't even talking about the same thing, making it very difficult to write an article. b uidhe 10:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True. Also, in source #2 ( Litvak, Meir (2009). "Constructing a national past: the Palestinian case". In Litvak, Meir (ed.). Palestinian Collective Memory and National Identity. Springer. pp. 118–119. ISBN 978-0-230-62163-3.), leading source for this page, "Palestinian Jesus" as a phrase, "Palestinian Jesus" does not even come up in a word search on this book or in the pages that I am able to accessonline. What does come up is a discussion of the several ways in which various political actors and activists have produces unsupported historical narratives involving Jesus and the inhabitants of the area in the 1st century in and attempt to deny "the present Jewish-Zionist claim of descent" from the ancient Judean people, efforts that include assertions tha tJeesus was a Palestinian. A page about a WP:NEOLOGISM requires sources that actually use the NEOLOGISM at issue.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're filled with strange articles and fringe theories, but all articles must have reliable sources, which this lacks. This little more than an anti-Zionist soap box. Palestine didn't even exist 2,000 years ago as a concept, and modern Palestinians didn't exist until the late Ottoman Empire. As noted in Palestinian law, such is an anachronism. I got a lot of crap for creating Palestinian law 11 years ago, and have shown my bona fides on the topic. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Race and appearance of Jesus. We have managed to find a balancing scholarly source, and had some healthy discussion on the talk page. The question that this article addresses is not going away any time soon. But I do not think, at the moment, there is quite enough to pass all the WP:GNG tests. I suggest a redirect, so that we maintain the page history and talk discussion, and if the subsection on the Race and Appearance article is built out over time, it can then be considered again for a separate article. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounded plausible so I gave that page a careful read. Race and appearance of Jesus is a pretty rational discussion of race and appearance, focused on things like skin color, beards, and depictions that show East Asian features. It is not about claims of ethnic identity as this mess of a page is, and it is well sourced, not a farrago of inchoate assertions, as this mess of a page is. I just do not see material on this page that belongs on page Race and appearance of Jesus.NotButtigieg (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article would need to be cut down in order to fit there, but it seems a waste to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at al clear what you are agreeing with. My point is that nothing here belongs on a page about Race and appearance of Jesus, which is a rational page whereas all that we have here is an array of unsupported assertions.NotButtigieg (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Football broadcast teams

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

Fails WP:LISTN, broadcast teams are not notable enough to stand apart from a list of broadcasters (which has an article already: List of ESPN College Football personalities). Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The List of ESPN College Football personalities is a different list that does not contain the Basketball broadcast teams. Teams on ESPN meet the General notability guideline.--23mason (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Its a valid list. You can also merge the other list to this one. The way this one is arranged is far more useful for sorting information. Dream Focus 20:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft and the entire topic (broadcaster teams through history) isn't discussed significantly be reliable sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a database. Due to its size, this grouping of articles is better handled as a category.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid and useful list which does contain some independent references although the variety of reference sources could be expanded. Also the list is starting to become rather long so a good improvement would be to find a way to shorten the article whilst retaining the information provided. Rillington (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and form into a category, as I believe would work better than such a lengthy list. – DarkGlow (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How so? Wouldn't doing that remove all of the information contained in the article? Rillington (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to admit that the comment "form into a category" sounded a lot smarter to me when I wrote it than now when I read it, but my position on the article hasn't changed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Matthews (journalist)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Also possible COI issue (per main contributor's user name JamesMatthews01). Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British Sports Journalism Awards winners for Young Sports Writer, literally the only claim to any sort of fame. (An article of dubious standalone notability itself too.) See also Adam Crafton - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sharing of surnames is purely coincidental. In any case, even though this chap might only have received one award, it is not insignificant: the SJA awards are the closest thing to a Pulitzer/George Polk for sports journalism in the UK. Perhaps the only award series which prompts scores of entries from all national newspapers. Winning an award at the SJAs is considered the gold standard in the industry. Thus contend that both the bio page and the awards page are notable enough, even if only for a stub class article. JamesMatthews01 (talk)
Delete Fails WP:BASIC. The award isn't sufficient on its own to overcome the lack of coverage in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus 06:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 08:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, subject to re-creation when and if he becomes notable. This is a classic cases of WP:UPANDCOMING; his award was for Young sports writer. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naik Alam

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

Fails WP:NOTA as there is only one reference site for these citations. Bryce M (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the only website for this article is not reliable, and this person is not known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tornadosurvivor2011 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Reckoning

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

Non-notable book. this Hollywood Reporter article is the only sort-of good source to support it. His other book, The Fire Chronicle also doesn't seem notable. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK criterion 1. I added a few reviews that I found of the book and its audiobook to the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fearstreetsaga's additions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It certainly passes WP:GNG and it is a well notable novel. Abishe (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK. Props to Fearstreetsaga for their improvements. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Since participation was minimal and it doesn't appear that anyone engaged to look for foreign-language sources, but also no one specifically favored keeping, I'm treating this one as a soft deletion. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raza Jaunpuri

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

An article about a "noted poet of the Urdu language". However, a quick search online doesn't come up with any sources in English. The article only links to a results page on worldcat, from which it's apparent that there are four publications by him, each held by at most a dozen libraries. This user review mentions an award (one that I haven't been able to verify). It's quite possible there might be more substantial sources in Urdu. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note no English sources being available is not a criteria for deletion per WP:NOENG, which states "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia."--Kbabej (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page has been here since 2008 with no sources in any language.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#Tournament of Champions. RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions

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

While Jeopardy! is a widely notable television show and part of pop culture, an largely unreferenced article about a two-week-long tournament every season does not meet WP:N. Google search produces links back to this article, the production website, news stories about the most-recent winner James Holzhauer (who on his own meets WP:N), and external Wiki fandom sites. The list of contestants, which makes up an overwhelming portion of the article, is essentially WP:LISTCRUFT. Subject is adequately covered in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events.

Of the nine footnotes linked within the article, seven fail WP:SIGCOV:

1—barelink to hollywoodreporter.com and not news article in markup data

3—local news story about 1969 tournament

4—death announcement of former contestant

5—promotional video announcing 2019 tournament by production company

6—notation of how tournament format was developed

8—notation of four former contestants who attended Swarthmore College

9—dead link

Two fail WP:V:

2—selfpub fansite content.

7—notation that where possible paper records of contestants could exist

AldezD (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#Tournament of Champions. Use of fan sites and bare URLs for citations are not sufficiently notable for its own Wikipedia article. Eye snore 02:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Eyesnore. - Brojam (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE. This article is by all rights a mere extension of what's already covered in this section. Furthermore, 80% of the article is made up of just lists of mostly non-notable people which makes the article even cruftier. The subject of this AFD is in its entirety just a bunch of fancruft that has no business being an encyclopedia article. There's absolutely nothing in this article that's stated that's anymore noteworthy than if a local news station reported "Hey, someone from Paducah appeared on Wheel of Fortune". The AFD wolves target pages like these for a reason and that's because pages like these are the ones that tend to get the most out of control as far as getting ballooned with a monstrosity of useless and unnecessary content. The pack of AFD wolves have definitely made their case here ;)—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#Tournament of Champions per nom. A simple description of the tournament's format and the typical pool of entrants is sufficient (and this is provided on the intended redirect target). The rest of the page is a list of contestants who have appeared on the tournament since it began. This violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTCRITERIA as the majority of these contestants are not notable (with some obvious exceptions, such as Ken Jennings, but these contestants have their own articles that include their performances in Jeopardy! tournaments). Frank Anchor^Talk 16:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but shorten and improve references for years not recently covered. Given the amount of sourcing we have for this article (which I disagree with the original nominee regarding whether it establishes notability), I think there's not enough sourcing to support most of the article. Whether there is a redirect or maintenance as a standalone article, a list of the grand champions for each year would be worth keeping, as there's generally been enough independent news coverage of Tournament of Champions events each year to qualify. That's seen in some of the more recent tournaments but could be expanded upon for the earlier ones. Beyond that would likely constitute excessive detail and WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Dunn

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

Fails WP:BIO, his achievements are what you would expect from a lawyer. Most of the press coverage are trivial mentions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is created by an obvious WP:SPA. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I completely agree. I had actually considered nominating this for AfD a couple days ago, and just hadn't had the time to do a full WP:BEFORE. As mentioned above, the independent and reliable sources are not significant coverage - they only mention him in relation to the cases. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty heavy WP:REFBOMBing but upon closer look Dunn isn't really ever the (or even a) focal point in the reliable sources used. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Minor coverage does not meet notability guidelines. Reads like a resumé for a typical attorney. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG He is just like any other attorney no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability of attorneys. I note that ATLA is a fairly small organization, about the size or a medium-sized state's bar association. While he's done great work, many lawyers have done similar court work. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brown (City Year)

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

Contested PROD. Subject does not meet the general notability guideline, nor any other subject based notability guideline. The vast majority of this article is about City Year, not the supposed subject of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed a ton of copyvios and the rest is just crufty nonsense that belongs on linkedin or in a cover letter. Praxidicae (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's essentially just an article about City Year, even before the copyvios were removed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to School corporal punishment in the United States. Content can be merged from history if sourced (which it currently isn't). Sandstein 06:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corporal punishment in Florida

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

There are several reasons for this article's deletion, including: Multiple issues were tagged in 2016. Nothing links to it. There is no analogous article for any other U.S. state. The subject matter is covered in elsewhere, e.g., School corporal punishment in the United States and Education in Florida. Stylistically, it’s terrible. And t only receives about 4 hits a day, which discourages me from spending time fixing it. Helen4780 (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School corporal punishment in the United States, adding the link. No need for a separate page just to quote the code. Reywas92^Talk 21:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively as suggested. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively as suggested. Thus opine I who initiated this matter. Helen4780 (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'n Schot in de Roos

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

Non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 20:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, non-notable film per WP:NFILM. Had a search for Dutch sources, all I could come up with was this review (which incidentally says the film is 'not a classic'), which would count towards coverage, but as the only source is not enough. Achaea (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, after much-extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 15:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennison, Arizona

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

It's just a name on a map. It "was merely a siding with no gas, motels or services for the tourists." The GNIS was wrong in calling it a populated place, the National Gazetteer properly classifies it as a locale [29]. Nothing remains there and the mass-production of the microstub with the falsehood "is a populated place" was negligent. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, not a populated place. GNIS picked it up from the Tucker Mesa Topo Map, which clearly shows this is a rail siding, probably named after the nearby hill. Absolutely no indication of GNG required under GEOLAND#2. MB 21:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to have been a railroad station as listed here. In this place name book it's listed as "DENNISON (Coconino) — For an assistant roadmaster named Denny who had charge of Santa Fe Railroad track gangs.". I find a mention in newspaper archives "the Court held both Mexicans to the May term of the Superior Court. The check was given by the Santa Fe in payment of wages. It was given at camp Dennison, in Coconino County, about 6 miles from Winslow, for $1.93 and raised to $11.90. The Mexicans took the check to Winslow and tried to get it cashed" (The Coconino Sun 20 Feb 1914, Fri) and in this court testimony "Question: Where do you reside? Answer: Have been residing at Dennison. Question: You are employed as section foreman of the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company at Dennison? Answer: Yes, sir, at Dennison." which is supported by a contemporary article about the same incident stating "Thomas McSweeny, section foreman at Dennison A. T., who was bought to the city on belated No.2 yesterday" (Arizona Republic 03 Apr 1899).----Pontificalibus 14:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This area fails to meet the guidelines of WP:GEOLAND. Not a legally recognized place and no RS to support GNG. Lightburst (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because I couldn't find a redirect target, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway doesn't list stations etc ----Pontificalibus 07:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC) changing to keep see below[reply]
Keep I went from delete to weak delete to weak keep to keep as I've continued to search through 19th century newspapers. Though [30] which was a legal resolution to change the name of the road at exit 239 on Interstate 40, which is where the point on the map is found. "WHEREAS: It appears that Dennison, from which the road name was derived, is a phone station on the Santa Fe Railroad and does not have an association with the traveling public, also, the designation of Meteor City Road would help the traveling public get on the correct ramp for Meteor City, which now has gasoline and food for sale." We could, in theory, keep this information if we wanted to. It is referred to as a point in other newspapers such as [31] [32] [33] [34]. This [35] suggests there was a station there in 1894. It was included [36] here as a place that would fall within Coconino County in 1889. The Dennison section foreman died in 1899. It's called a "small station" [37] here from 1891. Listed here as a description of property from 1910. [38]. We are a gazetteer, this is historical, and there's a stub in here somewhere if someone'll let me. SportingFlyer T·C 13:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, SportingFlyer, WP is not a gazetteer, WP:5P1 says WP has many features of a gazetteer. The specifics required at WP:GEOLAND always apply. A flag stop is not a populated place. As a train station, it certainly could be notable if there were enough sources for GNG but I don't see that here. Mentioning in another article seems more appropriate, but as stated above there isn't even an article covering stops and stations of the ATSF. I would support adding a sentence to Coconino County, Arizona#Communities in a new subsection (perhaps called "Other named places"), Dennison is a former flag stop on the ATSF, as a redirect target. MB 00:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's pretty clear this will be deleted, but I don't think that's the correct result. Pontificalibus has a source which shows the place was populated, even if barely so, at one point, and as I've noted there appears to have been a station there in the late 19th century. WP:GEOLAND is typically read to be less strict than WP:GNG for places such as these, since our goal with GEOLAND is to properly document places past and present. We've had a recent problem with the GNIS as the sole provider of information about places, and there are a number of places we've deleted as not notable, but I don't think this is one of those in the slightest. Most of those had no secondary sources whatsoever. As I've shown above, there's definitely enough sources to create a stub article about this abandoned place, and it's listed as a valid place name in place name books (not gazetteers). The fact it's a railroad stop doesn't make it much different than say Harker, Florida, except Dennison actually has some pretty clear available sources and there was (allegedly) a farm at Harker. I would have gone ahead and updated the article myself if not for the fact everyone before me !voted delete - if kept, I can definitely make this into a valuable place stub. SportingFlyer T·C 01:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, I don't think that one source is convincing evidence that this was ever any kind of populated place. As a foreman on the railroad, it may well have been a tent at a work camp for a few months. This is nothing like Harker, were the source said there were farms and people lived there and commuted to work from there. I don't see the value in a stub for an abandoned flag stop when all we know about this can be put into a sentence in another article. I support a redirect so if someone reads one of these sources and goes to WP to find out more, we are able to serve them by getting them to that sentence. But we need more than this for an article. MB 19:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got access to newspapers.com finally and I'm sure there's somewhere the content could be listed as a train stop, but I'm not convinced about it as a place. Every one of these is with respect to the rails or an incident with train cars rather than it being a community. I'm not sure what the abbreviation in "Dennison A.T." at [39] stands for, but it's about man named Thomas McSweeney who was a section foreman killed by a job applicant named John Smiley in April 1899. Pontificalibus's source [40] is a fictionalized book of ghost stories that uses a section foreman T.J. McSweeney killed by a George Smiley in October 1899, so I don't think that it's reliable or shows it was a community any more than a work site. I wouldn't think a logging camp, oil rig, mining camp, or whatever should be covered as populated places when all sources are in context of the industry there. Reywas92^Talk 20:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced this should be deleted. Wikipedia does function as a gazetteer, and even though in practice that means we're not a directory of place names, it means that places don't need to make much of a showing of notability to be kept. The GNIS stubs which we have been deleting were mere subdivisions within larger places, or place names without any evidence of any human activity, ie river crossings or windmills, but this place was based around railroad infrastructure and is named repeatedly as such in period papers. I'm now discounting the ghost story, though. Even if this is only a historical train stop, there's still enough sources here to write a blurb about a proper place. The fact the place has been listed in multiple "how Arizona places got their names" book further shows that, at some point, this was treated as an officially named place with a train station, even if there's no sources that support any sort of population finding. There's nothing really to draftify, but I'm still happy to expand this article if it's kept. (Dennsion A.T. means the Dennison section of the Atchison Topeka line.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. That article contains a list of trains that ran on the line, and there's no reason why it shouldn't contain a list of stations with appropriate descriptions of each. Just because that article doesn't currently discuss stations, doesn't mean this article should be deleted. I would compare this to Dovey Junction railway station as an example of a mainline heavy rail station that didn't end up turning into a populated place, but which is nevertheless notable as some kind of amalgam of an unpopulated place / building / infrastructure feature. A merge might be indicated due to lack of sources, but that would only be because this station fell out of use before railway geeks and travel journalists started publishing stuff.----Pontificalibus 16:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been expanded with references. And Wikipedia serves as a gazetteer. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP does not serve as a gazetteer (without regard to notability). GEOLAND specifically says "WP has features of a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." The article was padded out with trivia and tangential things that do not establish notability. MB 03:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From July 17, 2012, when it was an essay draft, until December 6, 2019, GEOLAND said "Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." This last December, Reywas92 changed it to "has features of," which is a major change. I've reverted it per WP:BRD. It's always been my understanding that Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, and that if a populated place can be verified, historical or not, then it's notable enough for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:SportingFlyer; Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer. Thank you-RFD (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of significant coverage that would meet GNG. Events such as completion of double-tracking and people killed in/near the area merely use Dennison as a placemarker and do not discuss it in depth. –dlthewave ☎ 20:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has plenty of sources, and the standard of significant coverage is met. The delete arguments in this discussion seem to be moving the goalposts. The original argument for deleting this article was that the place wasn't a real place at all, which was disproven. The argument then shifted to a lack of sources, even though sourcing requirements for places like this have traditionally been lower than other articles, in part because of the likely existence of offline sources and in part due to the traditional gazetteer component of encyclopedias. Now that the article has thirteen sources, the argument is that they don't constitute significant coverage. I've seen GAs with less significant coverage in the sources than this article has. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of hobbits

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY, much less a fictional one. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have a list of characters in Tolkien's legendarium. Furthermore, we should also delete our list of Elves in Middle-earth. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not find it encyclopedic to keep every minor character of Tolkienesque origin. Wm335td (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Many of these are very minor characters, some of them only mentioned in an Appendix.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the exceptional figures are already listed at List of Middle-earth characters. Hog Farm (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is far too much detail on the subject, we should limit the lists to actual characters, not names appearing on fictional geneology tables and in appendices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a Middle-earth fork twisting a pasta bowl of Elevenses. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better suited to a fandom Wiki, not Wikipedia. The only notable ones are Bilbo and Frodo, which are covered on the list of LOTR characters. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So we can then expect you to nominate Sam Gamgee, Merraduc and Pippin for deletion in the next few days. I am not sure I would oppose such a move, but I know it would cause outrage in some circles the likes of which deletions on Barahir and Eldarion have not yet caused to rise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To continue Peregrin Took is notified as having to few sources. Should it even be under that name per common name rules or Pippin? It has only had notice for about 2 years, far below what has been on the article on Elrond. There is much work to do here, but I am unsure deletion is the work that needs to be done on characters who are given actual dialogue in the books. Although having dialogue in LotR is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Tolkiencruft pursuant to WP:LISTN. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFX Interactive

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

An unnotable company that fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There are some mentions in reliable sources that discuss their games, but there is nothing substantial that would come close to "significant coverage". I find a good indicator of non-notability to be when you cannot verify neither the founding year nor the founder's name through traditional sources. Furthermore, while the company developed some notable games, it does not inherit their notability, per WP:INHERIT. Lordtobi (✉) 20:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 20:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 20:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few brief mentions in reliable sources does not provide significant coverage hence fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here but WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES like content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph Youth Camp, Arizona

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

This is a generic small youth summer camp, not a town or village or "populated place" that would be notable. Notability not established with substantive sources. The camp's website has a Mormon Lake, Arizona address. As another failure of the GNIS site, the National Gazetteer appropriately lists it as a locale. Reywas92^Talk 19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Maps clearly shows this is a youth camp with one or two buildings. There probably hundreds of such camps in Arizona. Nothing notable about this one to warrant an article, certainly not one for a "populated place" under WP:GEOLAND. Another case of a mis-classification in GNIS. MB 21:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND because it's not a populated place or geographic feature. Additionally fails WP:ORG as a youth camp due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus 12:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill camp, possibly seasonally populated by staff. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Academy of Art in Brittany

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. WP:ORG says: "An organization is not notable merely because notable persons are associated with it. An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This page needs to be deleted. Topjur02 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be deleted. Schools are very likely notable, especially those that offer secondary and post-secondary programs. It's a relatively new school, but it combines four schools with long histories. It is rather implausible that no sources would exist that would satisfy WP:NORG. Vexations (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ouest-France is crowding out my search results for news about the subject, but I am very confident that this meets WP:NPOSSIBLE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school seems to be notable, the page just lacked sources. The page has been now improved and is now only four sentences long. Topjur02 (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Topjur02, instructions for withdrawing a nomination are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Withdrawing_a_nomination Vexations (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion above by Rosguill and Vexations. Plety of sources exist. WP:BEFORE is the only failure here. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rosguill Dartslilly (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Academy of Music Theatre

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. WP:ORG says: "An organization is not notable merely because notable persons are associated with it. An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This page needs to be deleted. Topjur02 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Academy of Neurology

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. WP:ORG says: "An organization is not notable merely because notable persons are associated with it. An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This page needs to be deleted. Topjur02 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Like mentioned below, the article does need some work, mostly in the citation area. I’d keep because of the size, reputation, publication history, future research, and importance of the Academy. StreetMath (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Runs the largest conference on neurology in Europe eg [41]. These events will be heavily covered in the specialist press. It is the publisher of the European Journal of Neurology, a peer-reviewed academic journal which is ranked 36th of 199 clinical neurology journals.[42] Also publishes guidelines in peer-reviewed journals eg [43] which will be highly cited over time in the academic literature; for example, a 2008 guideline co-authored by one of the component organisations has ~500 citations.[44] Espresso Addict (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article isn't great right now (mainly needs more third-party sources) and was created by the subject, but per Espresso Addict the subject seems to have a prima facie claim to notability. If this were a new article I'd suggest draftifying, but it's been around for long enough that I don't think draftification is the right choice here. creffett (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organisation is notable, but the coverage is in specialist journals behind paywall. Rathfelder (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rathfelder sources exist even if they are inaccessible Dartslilly (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. WP:ORG says: "An organization is not notable merely because notable persons are associated with it. An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This page needs to be deleted. Topjur02 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A pan-European organisation founded in 1956 that runs multiple large conferences, publishes three well-established academic journals with moderate to high impact factors (including Allergy which has an impact factor of 6.8 & ranks 4th of 27 journals in allergy & 25 of 158 journals in immunology [45]), and also issues guidelines that will be highly cited is so clearly notable that I'm beginning to question the good faith of these bulk nominations of clearly notable organisations at a time of year when many editors are offline. ETA I also note that the nominator essentially blanked the article after nominating it for AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for pointing to relevant sources. It is now clear that it is notable enough. The article still includes mostly unsourced and unreferenced material, and material from the organization's website. This material will be removed or the page will be moved to a draft if someone does not improve the article soon. The article was nominated in good faith: it was totally unreferenced. No editors are offline these days. Nobody is offline in 2019 or 2020. Topjur02 (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else can close this as withdrawn by nominator then I'll undertake to purge the article of some of the promotional tone. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of farms in Cornwall

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

Same reasoning as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of farms in Gausdal, with the exception that this list does not seem to have a goal of being comprehensive. The topic of this list would be better served by a category. Geschichte (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly valid list, no grounds for deletion given. WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply to lists of Wikipedia articles. Lists and categories can co-exist. ----Pontificalibus 19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP, relative to Category:Farms in Cornwall, and the article consists almost entirely of blue links, except for one entry. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand the rationale to keep as a navigational list, but the vast majority of the entries are one-line stubs. WP:NPLACE (which just mentions common outcomes and isn't even a guideline per se) is silent on farms specifically, and I'm somewhat skeptical on notability of these (for the most part; there might be some exceptions). Maybe there's a better solution here? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these farms will have a long history and would have been settlements (e.g. Carnebone), passing WP:GEOLAND. Trevowhan for example was a hamlet. These articles need expansion not merging or deletion. ----Pontificalibus 15:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN as a navigational list. The fact they're stubs matters not. SportingFlyer T·C 14:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I presume the deletion nominator is unaware of wp:CLNT. Please do go read it. Come back and ask questions about it if there's any part of it which you don't understand. --Doncram (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of farms in Gjøvik

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

Same reasoning as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of farms in Gausdal. Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following similar pages:[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. None of the entries has an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per WP:NOTDIR and lists should have at least some notable members.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated above, NOTDIR. MB 02:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They appear to be notable enough for the two Norwegian versions, and I believe the lists should be useful, as mentioned in the second sentence. Could we merge selected farms with Gjøvik? Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simple case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and for the same reason as all the other List of farms in ... articles. Ajf773 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're a free web-host of farms from one district from 70 years ago. That's why we have county clerks. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'd say there is a very weak consensus to keep, or likely a stronger argument that this results in no consensus. However, because its a biography of a living person, I'm going to err on the side of delete until additional sources are available to support an article on a living person. v/r - T P 13:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Arnold

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Cannot find significant coverage, only routine game recaps and minor mentions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable college runningback.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have played pro football, fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played four years at Division I FBS level, and ranks as one of the top players in Arkansas State history (second in school history with 3,933 rushing yards - see here). He gained over 1,000 yards for three consecutive seasons (see here), was a first-team pick on the FWAA's 2006 Freshman All-America team (here), and a Doak Walker Award candidate in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Finding a lot of significant coverage, including (1) "Record within reach for A-State’s Arnold", Jonesboro Sun, 12/3/09 (1,093 words), (2) "Arnold eager to play his type of game again", Jonesboro Sun, 11/5/09 (869 words), (3) "ASU's Arnold Ready and Waiting", Jonesboro Sun, 10/12/09 (926 words), (4) "Arnold hopes to follow father’s example", Jonesboro Sun, 10/1/09 (898 words), (5) "Arnold makes Doak Walker Award list", Jonesboro Sun, 8/5/09, (6) "ASU's Arnold close to career milestone", Jonesboro Sun, 11/20/08, (7) "Arnold added to Doak Walker Award list", Jonesboro Sun, 8/29/08; (8) "Arnold wants more spring in step", Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 8/13/08 (952 words), (9) "Arnold mainstay in ASU backfield", Jonesboro Sun, 8/5/08 (760 words); (10) "Arnold looking to 'roll up' more big numbers in 07", Paragould Daily Press, 8/13/07 (576 words); (11) "Full speed ahead for ASU's Arnold", Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 8/10/07 (632 words); (12) "A-State's Arnold ready to run", Jonesboro Sun, 7/23/07 (771 words); (13) "ASU's Arnold watching, healing", Jonesboro Sun, 4/3/07; (14) "Arnold getting big push, Competition keeps ASU back on toes", Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (852 words), 9/14/07, (15) Reggie Arnold Named SBC's Freshman Of The Year", KAIT, 12/6/06; (16) "Arnold surpasses 1,000-yard mark", Jonesboro Sun, 11/20/06; and (17) "Blue-collar effort has Arnold leading SBC", Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 9/30/06 (945 words). Cbl62 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This season there were about 80 candidates for the Doak Walker Award ([46]), so I don't think that is a notable achievement. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that being a Doak Walker candidate is not in itself enough to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. For me, it's the combination of accomplishments (3x 1,000 yard seasons, 2nd all-time in school history, 1st-team freshman All-American, 3x Doak Walker candidate) and abundant coverage in multiple Arkansas media outlets that tips me to finding him notable. Cbl62 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all of the source coverage above is from the state of Arkansas, which means he fails WP:NCOLLATH, and I'm extremely skeptical of calling amateur players notable who only received local coverage from their hometown, the region surrounding where they played in college, or routine coverage from the team they were drafted from, as local coverage does not necessarily imply notability. In this instance, though, it seems as if he was one of the best players ever to play at this particular program. My difficulty here is that I think best possible scenario is this gets kept and turned into an article which clearly demonstrates his notability, while the worst possible scenario is if this gets kept and it stays as this terrible stub, which barely satisfies the "sourced BLP requirement." I understand notability is a property of the subject and not the article, and I would say Jones is marginally notable, so a very weak keep from me, but please, someone develop this article a little bit and give this kid the credit he deserves. SportingFlyer T·C 01:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep coverage shows a pass of WP:GNG. I agree it needs more development, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Bashani

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

WP:BLP of a lawyer and television host, not referenced to enough reliable source coverage in real media to get him over WP:GNG. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test is the degree to which the person's work has or has not been the subject of journalism about him, written by other people in sources he is not directly affiliated with. But two of the three footnotes here are his own self-published law office website and a Q&A interview in which he's answering questions in the first person, which are not notability-supporting sources -- and the only one that's a real reliable source is also just quoting his opinions on a political issue rather than covering him in the context of being a television host, which means it's not a notability-clinching source all by itself if it's the best you've got. He has to show a lot more quality sources than this in order to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable non trivial coverage in sources. This becomes WP:PROMOTIONAL with mainly primary sources. Wm335td (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many unaffiliated sources have mentioned him, listed a few below. Integrated them into the article.

https://www.sify.com/news/kashmiri-pandits-real-sons-of-soil-hamid-bashani-news-international-sgor0Ocbefagj.html

https://solidarity-us.org/atc/101/p707/

https://freepresskashmir.com/2019/07/02/across-the-loc-and-the-oceans-first-movers-the-mirpuris/

Blogs aren't support for notability, and Q&A interviews in which the person is the speaker aren't support for notability. To support his notability, a source has to represent journalism being done about him in the third person by a real media outlet — but the only one of those three sources that's actually from a real newspaper just briefly mentions Hamid Bashani's name in one sentence in the process of being fundamentally about something else, which means it is not about Hamid Bashani for the purposes of establishing his notability. Bearcat (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources as we'd need for any BLP, but also as failing my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bearcat and Bearian.NotButtigieg (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The primary argument to keep simply does not appear to be based in Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing and notability. Consensus otherwise seems to support the nominator's suggestion that this fails the relevant notability guidelines. ~ mazca ^talk 15:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC) ~ mazca ^talk 15:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TAG TV

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

Article about an online-only "television" channel, referenced only to its own self-published website rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage in unaffiliated media outlets. As always, the bar for getting into Wikipedia is not simply the fact that its own self-created web presence metaverifies its existence -- the notability test is the ability to show that it has been the subject of actual journalism, in unaffiliated media outlets, at a volume and depth and geographic range that are sufficient to get it over WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, fails WP:GNG. WP:PROMOTION Wm335td (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not online only, it is on Cable and IP Boxes. The channel is in association with channels such as BBC, CNN, Fox News, Al Jazeera etc. It also uses non original research sources such as ANI News etc. Over 50 million daily viewership on all platforms, would definitely consider it notable.

http://www.tagtv.info/tv-guide-audience-reach/

I've provided a second link below which has their daily news bulletins. Clearly shows they use multiple unaffiliated and reliable sources.

http://www.tagtv.info/category/news/ Hindian1947 (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test is not whether they do or don't use reliable sources in their work, it is whether they are or aren't the subject of reliable source coverage about them in other media outlets. And I cannot find any evidence that they are distributed by any cable company in Canada, or indeed even that they have a license from the CRTC to operate in that manner in the first place — so you can't just say they're a cable channel and drop the mic, you have to show reliable source coverage, with TAG TV as the subject and not the creator, which verifies that the claim is true. Again, the notability test is not "it has its own self-published website to verify that it exists" — the notability test is "other media outlets have produced content about it". Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said above that TAG TV didn't use original sources. I told him they do. The channel is affiliated with companies such as BBC, CNN, Fox News, Al Jazeera. Listed on multiple IP boxes/IPTV. I've updated the Wikipedia page with multiple sources and information, hope you take a look. The channel is definitely notable. Over 50 million daily viewership, 170k+ subscribers on youtube etc. The sources and information I have added to the article have talked about and expanded on the notability. For example, the mayor of mississauga visiting the TAG TV staff, non related sources mentioning and discussing TAG TV. Hindian1947 (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting it: the comment above is not incorrect, you're misunderstanding what it's about and what we're looking for. The notability test for a media outlet is not what other media outlets it is affiliated with — the notability test for a media outlet is not the extent to which the company has been the creator of coverage about other things, it is the extent to which the company has been the subject of reliable source coverage about the company in other media outlets. Notability is not established by what a company claims about itself, notability is not established by the number of subscribers it has on YouTube, notability is not established by getting an office visit from the mayor of the city — and the list of things you can use as "notability-supporting" sources does not include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Roku, the channel's own self-published website about itself, anything that's a press release from any company's internal PR department, WordPress blogs, user-generated content on Medium.com, the Yellow Pages, or sources which briefly mention TAG TV's existence in the process of not being about TAG TV. What you have to show to establish notability is sources which represent other media outlets doing journalism about TAG TV as a subject, and exactly zero of your new sources are that kind. Bearcat (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, not exactly 0 are about that. Stop cherrypicking linkedin and the primary sources, look at the ones made by non affiliated sources. Linkedin sources have a specific purpose, a very narrow one. 50 million plus daily viewership is very notable i mentioned subscribers as it's a very easy way to gage notability. Also i have given sources in the articles that are other media outlets doing journalism about TAG TV as a subject why are you not mentioning them. Hindian1947 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly zero are that kind. LinkedIn pages may verify facts, but are not evidence of notability. To support notability, a source has to represent journalism, being done by a media outlet, with the topic in question as its subject — a company's own self-published claims about itself are not evidence of notability. Anybody can claim to have 50 million viewers — so the number of viewers that the company claims in its own self-published marketing materials counts for nothing toward notability until it's independently verified by a reliable source independent of the company's own self-published marketing materials. The notability test, again, is not what the company claims about itself — companies can and do lie about things like the number of viewers they have, so translating viewership into notability requires journalism to be done about the company in other media outlets besides itself, independently reverifying that the things it claims about itself are actually true. Bearcat (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the CRTC, it is likely it they are exempt, so that it could potentially be an unfair allegation. https://applications.crtc.gc.ca/radio-tv-cable/eng/broadcasting-services-List?_ga=2.63587436.2121226200.1578272422-895540273.1578272422 Hindian1947 (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so guess what? One of our core criteria for the notability of a broadcast media outlet is the holding of a broadcast license — "license-exempt" services are not "inherently" notable at all. You just cut off your own legs. Congratulations. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're exempt, you don't NEED a license. You still broadcast and it has no bearing on notability. Did you even read the link i sent or are you only trying to win an argument. No need to be patronising.Hindian1947 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability standards for broadcast media operations do require a license. "Exempt" services are not entitled to have articles on here in the absence of really solid media coverage, precisely because the lack of a CRTC license means they also lack the CRTC sourcing that helps to support the notability of a real licensed radio or TV station. Whether it's allowed to operate without a broadcasting license is not the point — it isn't allowed to have a Wikipedia article without a broadcasting license, because having a broadcasting license is one of our core criteria for broadcast media being notable enough for inclusion here. Bearcat (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, until I hear back from Bearcat whether CRTC licensees need multiple, reliable independent sources. This article is in need of some substantial cleanup, expansion, and bare URL reference improvement, but we have a lot of radio and TV stations with little to no sourcing, so I wonder if this is an exception to our WP:GNG, perhaps? Doug Mehus T·C 02:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reread my comments if you think "keep per me" is a thing. Television and radio stations have to have CRTC licenses to be handed a presumption of notability; unlicensed stations are allowed to have articles only if they can be referenced well enough to clear WP:CORPDEPTH, and there can be no special exceptions to that rule. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, No no I got that, that they need a CRTC license - I don't dispute that as you told me that when an unlicensed CKOO-FM had slipped through the cracks, but do they also need to have multiple reliable, independent sources which cover the station in a significant way? Doug Mehus T·C 03:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They do, but the CRTC license itself counts as valid notability-supporting sourcing — which means that there's never any such thing as a CRTC-licensed station that's unsourceable. But again, the core point is that I argued delete, so there's no such thing as "keep per Bearcat" here. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Okay, I wouldn't have thought CRTC decisions would be independent sources as typically government listings (i.e., Elections Canada) count as primary sources, right? But we do need at least two, and ideally three, reliable sources, so are you saying that, potentially, there's some valid CRTC licensees (radio and/or TV) which fail WP:GNG despite having been issued a license? To your latter point, you did say, "Keep It is not online only, it is on Cable and IP Boxes. The channel is in association with channels such as BBC, CNN, Fox News, Al Jazeera etc. It also uses non original research sources such as ANI News etc. Over 50 million daily viewership on all platforms, would definitely consider it notable[,]" no? That's why I said "keep per Bearcat." Doug Mehus T·C 03:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I see you were the nominator. Geez, how did I miss that? But who is the "keep" !vote? Geez, I hate it when extendedconfirmed users forget to sign their comments/posts, which is why I opted in to SineBot. Doug Mehus T·C 03:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CRTC-licensed stations should ideally have additional sources beyond just the CRTC docments alone, but the license documents themselves do count as notability-assisting sources — in part because they're essential to properly verifying that the station even meets the licensing condition in the first place, but also because they're the only possible source for some of the information that a broadcast station's article needs to contain (e.g. the ERP and HAAT statistics of the transmitter). They don't permanently clinch the station's notability all by themselves if other sources turn out to be well and truly non-existent — for example, a station that had a license but then failed for whatever reason to ever actually get onto the air at all before that license expired, such as the Old CKOO example you alluded to, does not get to keep an article in defiance of the "established broadcast history" and "original programming" criteria just because it technically had a license it never actually used. But what the license documents do accomplish is shifting the burden of proof: if you can prove that the station has a CRTC license, then you need to prove that the station really, truly doesn't have any other sources before you can get it deleted.

But for unlicensed operations like this one, it's the opposite: precisely because there isn't a CRTC license to assist in sourcing the article over the notability hump, the people who want it to be in Wikipedia have the burden of showing that the correct kind of reliable sourcing does exist to get the station over WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.

To summarize, CRTC-licensed radio and television stations are presumed notable until shown otherwise, so the burden of proof is on the "show that other sources absolutely don't exist before you can get it deleted" side of the equation — but unlicensed/exempt stations are presumed not notable until shown otherwise, and the burden of proof is on the "show that notability-securing sources do exist before you can get it created" side. This one is in the unlicensed/exempt class, however, and the sources that have been shown are not notability-securing ones. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Thanks for that very helpful summary on our notability tests for licensed/unlicensed stations, but in this case, Tag TV is a licensed station. So, if I've "heard" you correctly, as the nominator, it's incumbent upon you to show us that this station fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Correct? Based on my preliminary review of the sources, WP:GNG may be met here, by virtue of the CRTC licensing documents and/or one or more sources; however, WP:CORPDEPTH may well not be. Is that a fair assessment? Doug Mehus T·C 16:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't a licensed station. Even Hindian1947, in his keep arguments, plainly admitted and demonstrated that it's listed as a license-exempt operation. There aren't any CRTC licensing documents being shown here at all, because there aren't any to show — the only CRTC "source" that's been brought to bear is its presence in the CRTC's list of exempt broadcasters that don't need licenses to operate. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Oh, I wasn't aware that we could have Canadian-based specialty cable television stations that didn't require a CRTC license. Interesting.

Still, I'm wondering about BuyNOW TV...a former, CRTC-licensed station but one which generated no press coverage whatsoever and nothing which would meet our WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines. There is one book, which is about a company which invested in BuyNOW TV but which is not about BuyNOW TV. The rest of the Google web search results are all directory listings, passing mentions, and copies of the Wikipedia page. Seems like a pretty clear WP:CORPDEPTH fail, eh? Doug Mehus T·C 16:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that this is actually a "cable television station" at all — I can't actually find any verifiable evidence that even one cable company in all of Canada actually carries it at all. That's claimed in the article but not adequately referenced as being true, and the only source that's actually been shown to verify anything about its distribution is an entry in a Roku app directory. One of our problems has always been that people have created hoax articles about radio or television stations that didn't actually exist at all, and/or overinflated the notability of streaming services by inaccurately claiming that they were real television or radio broadcasters — so the notability test isn't the fact that the article says the topic has cable distribution, but the quality of the sources that can be shown to verify that the claim is true.

But also, now that we're deep into the digital cable era, the CRTC did reorganize its licensing criteria a few years ago, and did indeed reclassify cable services as exempt from licensing if they (a) have fewer than 200,000 subscribers nationwide, and/or (b) broadcast 90 per cent or more of their content in a foreign language (i.e. not English, French or an indigenous language.) You can see Category B services if you need more information about this.

BuyNow TV may also be problematic, but I'll have to look into it a bit more before I can make a judgement either way — and, of course, it can also be listed for deletion if it actually fails the test. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Hindian1947, can you please add your signature to your "keep" !vote above? It's confusing me, and potentially, others as well, as I thought that was Bearcat's !vote. Doug Mehus T·C 03:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion with Bearcat above. CRTC-licensed station fails WP:CORPDEPTH and likely WP:GNG as well. Doug Mehus T·C 16:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Hayes (American football)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having only played professionally for minor league NFL Europe. Unable to find any significant coverage to pass GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ for now but there is some significant coverage available at NewsLibrary.com from Maine newspapers, including: (1) "Old Town's Hayes signs with Bengals Ex-UMaine star plays in World Bowl", Bangor Daily News, 6/16/04 (610 words); (2) "A star for the Galaxy, and beyond?, Former UMaine tight end Chad Hayes hopes his play in today's NFL Europe final leads him back to the NFL", Portland Press Herald, 6/12/04 (702 words); (3) "Hayes fighting to make Chiefs' roster Former UM, Old Town star adjusting to NFL", Bangor Daily News, 8/22/02 (567 words); (4) "NFL draft no dream for Hayes, The UMaine tight end is likely to become the first Maine native picked since 1970", Portland Press Herald 4/19/02 (688 words); (5) "UMaine's Hayes eager for draft day Tight end hopes to be picked by NFL", Bangor Daily News, 4/10/02 (815 words); (6) "Hayes gets national attention UMaine tight end scrutinized by scouts", Bangor Daily News, 1/30/02 (1,040 words); (7) "Hayes selected for all-star contest Rotary Gridiron Classic is Jan. 26", Bangor Daily News, 1/16/02 (1,220 words); (8) "Old Town native Hayes gives Black Bears versatile weapon at tight end", Bangor Daily News, 10/5/01 (760 words); (9) "HAYES BOUNDS INTO SIGHT, Easily overlooked as a UMaine freshman, Chad Hayes expects to be anything but as a senior", Portland Press Herald, 8/12/01 (907 words); and (10) "Old Town's Hayes eager to help Bears; Sophomore tight end projected as starter", Bangor Daily News, 8/16/99 (978 words). Not enough under WP:NCOLLATH, but he also received second-team All-America honors (Division I AA) from "The Sports Network" and Associated Press in 2001 (see here). Cbl62 (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per Cbl62 sources. The problem is that he played largely before the modern internet era but there do seem to be sources for him. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH, and the coverage is routine local coverage of a local sportsperson in a minor collegiate league. SportingFlyer T·C 01:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete A large amount of sources were found but they are mostly local. Fails WP:NCOLLATH. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CBl's sources to me show a pass of WP:GNG, and not just one or two but enough to put together an article. It has been argued that the coverage is mostly local, but the word "local" is no where to be found in WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources referenced above constitute significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. If the coverage were limited to a single smalltown paper, WP:GNG would not be satisfied, but the coverage here is unusually extensive and si found in both the Portland Press Herald and the Bangor Daily News. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, but I have to invoke WP:INDISCRIMINATE here. Hayes has been written about in his local hometown paper (he grew up in Old Town and played college ball in Orono, which are both ten miles down the road from Bangor) and by the Portland, Maine paper (which, looking through their archives, covers all college football in Maine). There's no coverage of him which isn't local coverage of a local player. The sources I can access all interview him heavily, which brings the question of whether these sources are sufficiently independent into play. And apart from being a second-team All-American in a non-top-tier college division, he really didn't accomplish much on the gridiron, never quite making the NFL like so many others. Keeping this would mean our standards for notable college football players are if you get written about in your hometown paper plus one other local paper, and I think that goes against the entire premise of the notability of WP:NSPORTS, as WP:GNG is really just a proxy for "is this person worthy of note?". However, it looks like he did play in NFL Europe, and if he was covered significantly there I might change my mind. SportingFlyer T·C 01:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- response to me the content seems to be very WP:DISCRIMINATE in nature. I don't see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE even applies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The essay at WP:DISCRIMINATE includes the following: 2. An indiscriminate collection of information is one gathered without care or making distinctions or in a thoughtless manner. 3. A discriminate collection of information is one gathered where care and/or distinctions about the information contained in the collection are made--in a thoughtful manner. What the hell did this guy do to actually become a notable football player, worthy of inclusion in our encyclopaedia, apart from getting writeups in the two papers which cover the lower-level team he plays for, one of which is his hometown paper and is likely to cover him regardless? I know I'm not going to convince anyone here, but I used to write feature stories on local amateur athletes for the local paper, and I'm absolutely convinced those stories don't convey lasting notability. We need to be much more discerning with players who fail both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH as opposed to just "there's enough coverage from his hometown paper" and I think this is a classic example. SportingFlyer T·C 02:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While there is nothing in WP:GNG saying local newspapers don't count in assessing notability, I, too, tend to discount the coverage somewhat if the coverage is limited to a small, hometown newspaper. Several things are different here and led to my "keep" vote: (1) the coverage extends to two different newspapers, (2) both are newspapers with statewide coverage, not simply small town newspapers, indeed they are the two largest circulation newspapers in Maine (see here), (3) each paper has run multiple stories on Hayes, (4) the All-America honors (albeit I-A) add some weight to the topic; and (5) the fact that he was signed by four separate NFL teams, and played in NFL Europe, adds further weight. Put those all together, and I tip to "keep". This is not just some low-level player with no meaningful accomplishments who simply had a one-off puff piece written about him in a small town newspaper. Cbl62 (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely appreciate your response. I understand your assessment and you're correct there's some grey involved. I just think on the balance I'm still at a "weak delete" on the basis the two newspapers that were supposed to cover him covered him, along with the fact he didn't play at the highest level of the collegiate game (though this article's likely to be kept.) If there were coverage of him from NFL Europe (I looked and couldn't find any) that might tip me over to a weak keep. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Significant coverage in 2 state-wide sources is a little more meaningful than simply coverage in 1 or 2 small town sources. He also received some relevant coverage I could find in Tennessee. Not great, but specific to him: [47] [48] [49] Rlendog (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple independent sources have covered the subject in detail and thus it passes WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO.--TM 02:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: How exactly does Hayes pass WP:ANYBIO? Receiving second-team I-AA All-America recognition is certainly not a well-known or significant award. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, my mistake. The article does pass WP:GNG though.--TM 18:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:ANYBIO. I don't think coverage in essentially two local papers is enough to meet the GNG. That's a really liberal interpretation of "multiple sources" and I can only how many hundreds of thousands of people around the world would meet it that are not generally considered notable by Wikipedia.Sandals1 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH and agree with Sandals1 that multiple articles in 2 papers is not enough to meet WP:GNG especially with the amount of coverage American football gets in the US, 2 sources seems like very little. Rachoote —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing in GNG that requires more stringent requirements for American football than for any other field.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - GNG asks for "significant coverage". Significance is relative. What constitutes as significant might vary from field to field, and more frequent reporting does not increase significance. For example, scientific discoveries do not get regular press coverage, whereas sports, such as American football do. Rachoote —Preceding undated comment added 04:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the exact same coverage presented here would be sufficient to pass GNG if the subject were a scientist but does not suffice here because the subject is a football player. That approach invites partisan fighting over which professions are more important and is not how GNG works. Cbl62 (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Cbl62 pointed out above, he got significant coverage in the two largest circulation newspapers in the state of Maine. For notability purposes, I'd argue that's probably similar to the type of coverage we would expect members of the Maine state legislature to receive, and those people are all auto-notable, per WP:NPOL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hricha Debraj

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, some success on a game show, but this is mostly a promotional article that lacks sourcing. It keeps getting moved from draft by the creator so this is the next option. There is one somewhat decent source, the indian talent magazine, but that appears to be a very brief overview without much in depth coverage. Another source barely mentions her and the rest are just videos. The sources just aren't there for her. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Bhatia

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

Not seeing much coverage of this individual on their own, what I am seeing is coverage of the company he owns and things related to that. Andise1 (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entire coverage is related with his company. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 12:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of people found companies and are non-executive directors. Coverage is of the company not him. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of items in Once Upon a Time

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

Non-notable grouping of (sometimes notable) magical items in the sense that grouping the bluelinked coconut, broom and Pandora's box appearing on the show doesn't make the grouping notable. From what I can see, the refs just prove the WP:EXISTance of the items as plot devices. As such, this list fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. The section on "Magic" is a bit special in that it might be notable to be written about, but currently it's unsourced and in the WP:OR/WP:TNT territory. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete comes out as an indiscriminate list. No need for this. If they are really important they can be included in plot summaries, otherwise we do not need this at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, except I don't agree that there are any notable magical items listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial list that fails to establish its own notability or justify its existence otherwise. TTN (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sucuriju gigante

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

This is just Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant anaconda with a Portuguese title. Single source has "Indians of the Amazon basin still tell stories of the sucuriju gigante, a giant beast billed to be an anaconda. Tupi would be sukuri-iúwa. Can't find any sources that are not either "i saw a big snake" in Portuguese, or fringe, crypto sources.—eric 17:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY: the current source only has a mention, not coverage to demonstrate notability. —Paleo Neonate – 06:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fork.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Slatersteven and nom. Hog Farm (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless we can find reliable sources showing that it figures prominently in indigenous Amazonian mythology, this is nothing more than cryptozoology that fails WP:NFRINGE. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I think XOR'easter's comment just about sums up the discussion, and in the end only one editor thinks we have enough sources for an article. Sandstein 06:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Academy of Sciences

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

This article should be nominated for deletion. Not notable. The only notability seems to be the article published in Nature, which suggests that this organization was a hoax. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/419865a Topjur02 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:ORG. WP:ORG says: "An organization is not notable merely because notable persons are associated with it. An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This page needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019nomos (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article in Nature, though unflattering, would seem to be in-depth reliable coverage. It's from 2002, but a note at the end makes clear that the "Italian group using the same name" mentioned in our article is the same as this group itself. On the other hand, if kept, the article should focus on what reliable sources say about this group (mostly, its dubious nature) rather than trusting anything the group says about itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources exist. Epstein has found one. Nature. WP:ATD. Wm335td (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Sources should be multiple and coverage should be significant. WP:ORG says: "An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." nomos2019 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless more recent and sufficiently independent sources turn up. This appears to have been a scam at the time of its founding in 1999–2003 (depending on which date you take as the real start), according to the Nature story. More recently this article appears to take them more seriously, but I'm not sure how involved its author is with the academy, and it can't really be called in-depth (it's mostly about a chemist who won an award). I think in a case like this, a larger than borderline amount of coverage is necessary to get a clear picture of how this organization has been received, but instead we have a smaller than borderline amount. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete essentially following David Eppstein's reasoning. More independent sources needed. --Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an awkward case. Sifting mentions of it out from among those of organizations with very similar names is a real pain (and I suspect that some of the inbound links to this article should actually point elsewhere, e.g., the one in Sir Michael Berry's page looks chronologically impossible). The organization looks sketchy in the extreme, and so we would be doing the academic community good by documenting that, but the coverage is so thin it would be very difficult to write a reasonable article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 529

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

Not notable as only sources mentioned it (outside of [50]) are catalogues and tables. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See WP:NASTRO, which specifically lists the NGC catalog as being of sufficient importance that objects in it are considered notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aldebarium (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NASTRO contains many suggestions on how to determine if an object is notable, but doesn't determine notability. See the note at the bottom of the criteria section:
Note 1: These criteria do not supersede WP:NOTABILITY, they merely supplement and clarify it within the context of astronomical objects.
This object fails general notability criteria as there isn't significant coverage of it in any sources (that I could find, at least). Sam-2727 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. unfortunately sourcing is tricky for many astronomical objects and becomes an amalgam of many brief mentions in articles with large numbers of objects. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber:, could you expand on your reasoning for why this article still meets the general notability requirements? I'm not sure I completely understand your point. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

because many many astronomical objects are covered fleetingly in anywhere up to 100 papers each. So they have bene studied in passing to build up a composite picture of them. This is radically different to other items, which are covered in detail in fewer sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Coke bottle styling. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 22:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of cars with Coke bottle styling

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

Whether a car looks like a coke bottle or not is subjective. The number of cars that definitively have coke bottle styling according to multiple reliable sources is tiny, and any such list can be accommodated within the main Coke bottle styling article. --Pontificalibus 16:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Styling is subjective, but the number of cars defining then copying the Coke bottle trend, a times at near comic length, is not. In fact, that number reinforces how influential and durable the motif was in automobile design. And remains well into the 21st century, with some of the most popular "retro" vehicles (such as the Dodge Challenger and Chevrolet Camaro) bringing it back in extreme form.

Rather than delete the list, which is a useful means of finding something one did not know, or scouring for a forgotten name, it is better to comb it for errors and obvious stretches (the latter being by its very nature a dangerously subjective task) and encourage a citation for each entry. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any sourced entries to Coke bottle styling. Neither article is particularly large, so there's no need for two when one will do just fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested, then salt this mess. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are weak: one does not address the issue of sources at all, and another refers to two texts that are clearly barely disguised press releases. Sandstein 21:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autocerfa

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

No evidence of notability. A Google search turns up nothing for news coverage. ZXVZ (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search returns some news coverage in industry specific sources: (e.g. [51] and [52]). It may be notable based on 1700 companies using the software. Given that, and that the software has implications for EU bureaucracy and was promoted by the French government, it may be notable according to WP:PRODUCT rather than WP:COMPANY Machetazic (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not how WP:PRODUCT works, the company must be notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that Google search results aren't the only things indicative of notability and striking the article as not notable because of a Google search doesn't show an accurate scope of notability. Furthermore, American/British companies have a heavy bias on Wikipedia because they are much more represented on localized Google searches. Autocerfa has French government sponsorships, and the specialized nature of the company tailored toward specific enterprises (not the broader consumer market) means that there isn't coverage outside of industry specific sources.BeeTheBestThatYouCanBEE (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure PR. Sources linked above are press releases. 1700 customers? What's special about that? What French government sponsorships (not that that would make it notable)? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you tell they are press releases? There is no contact info for the company and they are not labelled as press releases, so they don't fit the usual format. "Les Pepites Tech," is the official directory for French Tech. See here: [53].Machetazic (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can one tell? From reading them. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. Routine business with no coverage outside press release, their rewrites or worse. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The Decision Atelier source relies entirely on information provided by the company and founder, fails WP:ORGIND and is churnalism. The Blog post fails as a [[WP:UGC|user generated content] and is not considered a reliable source. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greece of Melouna

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

WP:POV WP:COATRACK; the expression exists, but the article does not analyze it, nor does it give a proper context. Melouna has nothing to do with the Arta-Volos line, it is a derogatory expression that emerged as a result of the failure of the Greco-Turkish War of 1897, also known as the "War of Melouna". The references here are either misleading (i.e, the content does not support the statement here) or taken from fringe nationalist websites/blogs; it is telling for the reliability of the author that he does not speak Greek, but has used exclusively Greek sources. I am long past WP:AGF with this author, and ready to wager that he took the brief mention of a "Greece of Melouna" in the article on the Meluna pass in the Bulgarian WP, Googled the Greek term, and simply 'wrote' the article with the top results as bogus references. The POV intent is clear when one notices what the little content there is in the article is about, and how it is phrased: rather than deal with the topic at hand, the author prefers to dwell on Greece's inability to expand its territory ("the Greeks abandon shamefully the fortress", "only the ultimatum of the great powers saved the 19th-century Greek state"). Constantine ✍ 15:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as POV fork and coatrack. Place Clichy (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Place Clichy. Dr. K. 22:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as POV fork and coatrack.Greco22 (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Catlemur (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without English translations of sources to verify the facts, wondering whether it's a fork or not is not even wrong. Bearian (talk)

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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme What I Don't Know (I Want)

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as far from meeting the WP:NM since it hasn't been covered by several notable artists, bands, or groups. It has not ranked on national or significant music or sales charts (despite this not being a main criteria), GAON is not a main one, and hasn't won any significant awards. Most of the sources are based on an albums reviews and includes non-reliable sources such as Manua 411 and PopCrush. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage for notability, enough content to oppose a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorhawkes (talk • contribs) 10:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of hobbit families

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

One of the many trivial Tolkien lists. This is in no way necessary to understand Tolkien's works, so this is not a necessary content split. It doesn't pass WP:LISTN. TTN (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an uncontrolled compilation of trivial details. We would not support this type of total ignoring of importance even if the subjects themselves were real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of WP:OVERLAP with List of hobbits, which is a bit more discriminate, and might as well be ordered by family name. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is a redundant collection of trivia. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I'm going to nominate List of hobbits too. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as anybody important is already listed at List of Middle-earth characters. Hog Farm (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is trivia.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Tolkiencruft pursuant to WP:LISTN. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hirokazu Nema

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

beats me how an assistant coach in a B league sports team is considered a notable individual on a world scale. Are we opening pages for assistant bank branch managers? Sports enthusiasts are perfectly entitled to be enthusiastic in recording every nuance of every sporting activity worldwide but Wikipedia is for recording matters of note, not satisfying all the needs of sports hobbyists 12:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the notability of this, but for what it's worth, B.League is Japan's top basketball league and the team he is the assistant coach of is in its top division. "B.League" here does not mean "below A League". Dekimasuよ! 13:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a rather poorly reasoned AfD. Firstly, the nominator seems to mistake the 'B' in the name of the league for it to be some kind of a second-tier league when in fact the B.League is the top-tier professional basketball league in Japan. Secondly, the nominator focuses on the subjects current job, that of an assistant coach, and overlooks the fact that the person is a former professional player who has worked as a head coach. Now, the article is very poorly sourced and it may very well be that Mr. Nema does not pass WP:GNG but this kind of a shoddily done AfD irks me. On a further note, a proper procedure would be for the nominator to do a WP:BEFORE, including a search in the subjects native language, and then display his findings, or lack of them, in the AfD. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj S.

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

No reliable sources can be found about this individual. The sources given in the article are either personal social media, dead links, or articles that do not mention him at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film music composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails notability criteria for creative professionals, as well as general notability criteria. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Power

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

I undid an IP that described Power in non-neutral terms,[54] but on reviewing the sources in the article I do not think Power is notable as an actress, playwright, or the combination. As an actress, her roles have been minor. As a playwright, she has authored plays that ran mostly in minor venues. Sourcing on Power herself is lacking. Eostrix (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominate to keep this article. Actor in question is listed on Internet Movie Database with recent credits, has online attributed media articles within wiki entry, and venues of productions featured are all venues of note, with their own dedicated pages on Wikipedia. Theatres listed are highly reputable production houses in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.63.251 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC) — 84.93.63.251 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qdx. Cabayi (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone who ever acted in any commercially produced film ever is meant to appear on IMDb, IMDb is not at all a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyone who's ever produced a film, including my boyfriend, has an IMdB listing. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick Google search did not show any major coverage of her, and the article on her play Feathers (play) should certainly be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP: NACTOR & WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: not notable enough yet, in my opinion. Needs more credits under her belt. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the sources are unreliable and/or passing references, but is close to almost notable. The problem I see is: the coverage about her is really just listings or a few words. Please ping me if you find more in depth information. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I check on google didn't find reliable source, some of source are promoter related. -Nocturnal306^talk 23:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1860s in association football. Fenix down (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1862–63 in English football

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

Empty page with little potential for development and we already have 1860s in association football which is more than sufficient for providing coverage of the sport in these early times. The same applies to each of the following and I propose that all are either deleted or redirected to the decade survey:

A couple of lines have been added to one or two of those but they are straight copies from 1860s in association football and the duplication is pointless. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that there was no competitive football in England until 1871–72 so I think these articles also fail the notability criteria. This is similar to failing WP:NSEASONS except that the articles are generic and not about specific clubs. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of these pages, I don't have an overriding objection if other editors want to delete them. There is a lot of interesting and verifiable content that can be added about English football in that decade. I'm trying to add information gradually, but maybe I jumped the gun here. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to 1860s in association football, with no prejudice against recreation with significant content. b uidhe 08:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to 1860s in association football. No need for empty articles, especially when a decade overview will do nicely. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree it would make sense to redirect so I made a change to my nomination above. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, sensible suggestion. Giant Snowman 12:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. User:PaleoNeonate has now fixed the article and added some sources and since the consensus is clear, I'm hereby closing this discussion as keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chuchuna

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

Article is unsourced and a WP:BEFORE search did not return sufficient RS coverage to establish GNG. Most coverage is found in fringe sources. –dlthewave ☎ 13:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to Draft the ru:Чучуна article (google translate) describes the topic within folklore and ethnography. The main source is Gurvich I.S. (1975). Mysterious Chuchun (the story of an ethnographic search). Moscow: Thought. and accepted by editors on that project. The text is available here with a not very confidence inspiring cover photo. The explanation provided in the source is that the sightings were of isolated Chukchi. ~~Isn't WP:TRANSLATETOHERE a better option?~~—eric 14:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some biographical information for the author.—eric 14:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anikin, A.E. (1999). "On the Yakut names of wild people" (PDF). Languages and folklore of the indigenous peoples of Siberia. 5. looks good also, discusses from a linguistic perspective.—eric 15:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation and copyedit to User:EricR/Chuchuna, there's a number of problems with it, not least of which is it needs someone with Russian to look it over.—eric 17:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite WP:AFD's "C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted", without any sources my original suggestion would have been to redirect to Yeti. With some found and the fact a more complete article could eventually be translated, it may merit its entry... —Paleo Neonate – 06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have some sources, needs work is all.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now has sources. More can be added from the Russian Wikipedia article as needed.--Auric talk 21:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, sources available from Russian WP article, this site lists a number of news articles that cover this creature, it was also the subject of a Destination Truth episode (here). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kinu ^t/_c 07:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MRC Global

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

Company potentially fail WP:GNG. Also, there is an info tag that one editor of the article has close ties with the company. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: Hi all, I created this article as part of an effort to add basic pages for very large public corporations (specifically, those appearing on the Fortune 1000) in the United States that lacked Wikipedia pages. In theory, one would expect such large public corporations to meet Wikipedia notability-it looks like I can add a brief history section using sufficient reliable sources to clearly establish that it meets WP:GNG. The ties to the company tag was added due to a brief promotional-style edit that was quickly reverted and is no longer reflected on the page. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:LISTED notes that being listed or such is not enough for WP:NCOMPANY. WP:CORPSPAM based on press releases, their rewrites, and worse. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion on the article now DemocraticLuntz has improved it
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expected to find some analyst reports on this company which would count towards notability but I have been unable to locate any. As such, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Association of Psychoanalysis

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is no CCS other than being a national association. SITH (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asiana Peng

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

Fails WP:NSPORT: No senior results, in particular, no results at all at the international level; compliance with WP:GNG has not been demonstrated. Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 21:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fa11out

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

GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep article because they have some press coverage. There might be some major edits for sure. Obviously they exist and they are active in many thing mentioned in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.234.110 (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of the sources provided are independent, reliable and provide significant coverage. Therefore it's a likely music notability and general notability failure. SITH (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With multiple reliable secondary sources passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient reliable sources appear to exist to warrant an article per WP:NMUSIC. ——SN 54129 18:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of human protein-coding genes 1

Following discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Seppi333Bot, it appears that these huge data tables (#3 has 289,117 bytes of markup, for example) serve no useful purpose for our readers, and possibly fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. They could, perhaps, be moved to user space if the sole user who maintains and claims to use them wishes to keep them, though the data would be better transferred to Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering when someone might try to do this.

These pages are a complete list of all known protein-coding genes in the human exome. This webpage provides a straightforward explanation of what an exome is.

As for whether or not the topic of this list is notable per the WP:GNG: this is a PubMed search. FWIW, whole exome sequencing, which is used to analyze an individual's exome, is a highly utilized technology in the biotech industry [55][56].

Now, as for the list entries compliance with WP:CSC bullet 1, there are entire fields of study centered around human genes and proteins; even the less well understood genes/proteins in that list can be expected to have articles in the future based upon that alone, but for the time being, notability for every single entry in the list is easily determinable by clicking the links to the corresponding entries in the gene database and protein database listed alongside each gene in the list; they cite relevant literature since those organizations provide official names for validated human proteins and protein-coding genes.

This list can't be indiscriminate (by definition of that word) given that the list is complete; the selection wasn't random or haphazard, it was systematic.

In any event, keep per above. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

Keep but rename. I was wondering what a "genes 1" was then I realised the list was split apparently for size reasons, and 1 means "page 1" of the list. Perhaps the convention of doing these alphabetically would be best e.g. List of human protein-coding genes A-E or by chromosome List of human protein-coding genes on chromosome 1 would be preferable to arbitrary numbers.----Pontificalibus 13:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Switching it to a letter-based name actually seems like a good idea. Alternatively, I suppose that could also be indicated in the navbox for the list pages; either way, that sounds like a useful improvement for list navigation. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~leaning delete~~ for two reasons. First, frankly this looks like a dump of the HGNC database, which I have to doubt is in the public domain; beyond the copyright issue, I have to question the merits of parallel maintenance of what I presume to be a dynamically expanding list. Second, I don't see the utility as it stands of a list that really doesn't do more than duplicate the corresponding category, except as a housekeeping tool to track uncreated articles. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Three points:
  1. Data release policy
    No restrictions are imposed on access to, or use of, the data provided by the HGNC, which are provided to enhance knowledge and encourage progress in the scientific community. The HGNC provide these data in good faith, but make no warranty, express or implied, nor assume any legal liability or responsibility for any purpose for which they are used.
    Guidelines on use of data in publications (copyright and licensing)
    It is a condition of our funding from NIH and the Wellcome Trust that the nomenclature and information we provide is freely available to all. Anyone may use the HGNC data, but we request that they reference the "HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee at the European Bioinformatics Institute" and the website where possible. per https://www.genenames.org/about/. It'd be rather absurd for the organization that assigns the official name and symbol to all human genes to claim their nomenclature as their intellectual property; it wouldn't even be feasible because no researchers would submit their research and request a gene symbol for the purpose of having an HGNC-copyrighted symbol assigned.
  2. There is no category for human protein-coding genes. Even if there were, if list-category overlap were a valid WP:DEL-REASON for lists, then thousands of list articles would be subject to deletion given how common it is for a category and list article on the same topic to exist.
  3. The scope of the largest gene category on WP - Category:Genes - encompasses all genes in all organisms (hence the Category:Viral genes and Category:Prokaryote genes subcategories), but the sum of all pages in that category and all of its subcategories is still >3000 less than the number of bluelinks in these lists (~11500) and they'll gain another ~2000 bluelinks in the near future to boot; edit: the largest category is Category:Human genes, which is comparable in size; besides protein-coding genes, it includes pseudogenes, non-coding RNAs, multi-protein complexes, and phenotypes. The nonexistent human protein-coding gene category wouldn't serve as a viable alternative to these lists, because article navigation isn't the point of list articles in general or this one in particular. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
leaning keep This is something of a special case. I don't think we have a precedent for "tiny set of pages consisting of a massive data mirror, with their own attendant bot to groom them every few days". But taken on their own merit, I'd say these pages are a useful addition to WP. Having a sortable list of coding human genes where each entry (potentially) has a link to its own WP article: that is something the original database cannot provide. This link function on its own makes them worth having. Automatic bot updates also make a qualitative difference to the manually updated, selective lists at Chromosome 1 etc. The duplication aspect to these does rub me the wrong way, but I'd rather not have such housekeeping concerns prevent the addition of good encyclopedic material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I can see the argument for retaining the tables, but the division into four arbitrary chunks is a still a problem. Really, the best organization is not to break it up at all, because the sort-by-header feature is otherwise broken. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Combining everything into one article would probably yield something too large for comfort. These are ~280k each at the moment; combining them would more than double the currently largest article size on the project (see Special:LongPages) and come with a range of potential problems - mostly, you are screwed if you are on dial-up... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list is reliably sourced to HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee. The list is useful, especially because we have a large number of WP pages linked to entries in the table. Perhaps more human genes need to be processed by User:ProteinBoxBot under someone's supervision (the bot is currently blocked). Yes, I think these four pages should be merged to a single list. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is the sources presented do not demonstrate notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Farooqui

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG and fails WP:JOURNALIST also. Celestina007 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Subject is the host of a tv show on TAG TV, and previously on a show for Rawal TV. Both are linked in his Wikipedia article. He has over 25k followers on twitter, so this isn't some unknown with no following. He is a self described journalist(His twitter, Facebook etc.) and has written multiple articles, below for example:

https://dailytimes.com.pk/writer/anis-farooqui/

Hindian1947 (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Keep~~ (Revote struck) I would suggest simply removing the term "journalist" from the article. Similar articles do not use the term and fit all other conventions. And the subject has plenty of validity in other fields to be removed.

Hindian1947 (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hosting a TV show is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from actually having to have any reliable sources — the notability test is the reception of media coverage about him in sources he is not directly affiliated with, not simply the ability to use his own self-published web presence as technical verification that he exists. The number of followers that a person does or doesn't have on social networking profiles also has exactly nothing to do with our inclusion standards — again, the notability test hinges on journalism being done about him by other people, not on having a Facebook page. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Keep~~ (Revote struck) Yes I agree with you, I'm merely showing it to push the point that people should be careful about doing deletions for people. Here are some links about him, that's not social media.

Daily times, a newspaper in paoistan. Multiple articles written by him: https://dailytimes.com.pk/writer/anis-farooqui/

An article he has written: https://news-communique.com/index.php/2019/09/13/enforced-appearance-of-celebrities-in-pakistan-anis-farooqui/

Hindian1947 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, note that you only get one vote in an AFD discussion — you can comment as many times as you like, but once you've said "keep" or "delete" once, you do not get to preface any of the followup comments with a bolded restatement of the keep or delete you've already expressed. Followup comments must be formatted as comments, not as new votes. Secondly, the notability test is not the number of newspaper articles written by him, it is the number of newspaper articles written by other people about him. Thirdly, "news-communique.com" is not a reliable source, so it's not evidence of his notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my searches fail to turn up any substantive coverage.NotButtigieg (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 03:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak P Shukla

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

No indication of meeting WP:NBIO. Small businessman who has also run some marathons and released some songs on iTunes. Original version of this article consisted of WP:REFBOMB links mainly to copies of press releases from his own small company. Self proclaimed SEO expert whose article seems to be designed to improve the SEO of his own company. References left are routine coverage, interviews, competition entry listings with a couple of nominations for awards - one regional, one national. Nothing found writing independently about him. noq (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. noq (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL - starting a bunch of small business does not make one notable. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Heavily refbombed, fails GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After the extensive work of User:Russ Woodroofe and User:TJMSmith on the article and the consensus reached, I'm hereby closing this discussion as keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam S. Radomsky

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. No clear references either and reads as if written to promote candidate. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The article needs work, but unless I'm mistaken, his editor position is a clear pass of WP:NPROF C8. His citation record also looks like it meets WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:PROF #1, 3, and 8. PROMO is not a reason for deletion. TJMSmith (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lets remove the promotional feel and keep the article. WP:PRESERVE. Subject meets WP:PROF#1. Wm335td (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this such a high-citation field that having five thousand citations listed by Google Scholar is insufficient to pass WP:PROF#C1? I rather doubt it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article wasn't so terrible before, and is looking better after some work by TJMSmith and myself. My main remaining complaint is that the "Obsessive–compulsive disorder" template is huge, overly detailed, contains information that I'm not sure should be there, etc. (But that's a separate deletion proposal or edit.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Spider

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

This article was recreated by Marino73 using bits of the article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jba fofi.
As a counter-argument against deletion under the WP:G4 deletion criterion, it could be argued that this new article adds fresh and new content and references. In my opinion, that is not evidenced here. The "find sources" template that will be added to this AfD will indicate that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name "Great Spider"
(Technically this is WP:COPYWITHIN copyright violation. That can be dealt with.)
Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see the original deleted version, but I probably would have tried WP:G4 anyways. The arguments from the old AfD are still valid, and this AfD is a colossal waste of time because of this spurious recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 12:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original version was cited has having two core problems: 1) It was titled "Jba Fofi", but only had once reference to the Congo spider with that name but had sightings of giant spiders elsewhere. It's a valid criticism (it was my first real attempt at a Wikipedia article) 2) The references were cryptozoological websites, and these were called into question The "Great Spider" article was done to cover the overall - albeit limited - phenomena of giant spider sightings worldwide. And while Jba Fofi is mentioned in the article, it is only in the context of the Congo sighting. In addition, I used book references such as the one by Nick Redfern as opposed to cryptozoological websites, under the belief that these might be considered more valid in at least some cases. Delete it if you must, but it is somewhat confusing as to the standards of what should be deleted when it comes to such supposed animals. The Great Spider with multiple sightings is nominated for deletion, yet a Steller's Sea Ape remains on Wikipedia despite only having two accounts. The Sucuriju gigante (giant anaconda) remains, but it is a stub article with no sightings. I don't want to waste time with this - just trying to understand why one cryptid animal exists with a paucity of evidence and another is nominated for deletion. Thanks. Marino73 (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is too much original research and unsourced claims here. The article is not specific, it is mish mash of ideas thrown together with no apparent criteria. Most of this reads as ficition, we already have a category for movies about spiders. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Glad to see this stuff spotted. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the accounts is referenced in Redfern's book. I also added William Gibbons book reference - someone deleted it - back to deal with the Reginald Lloyd sighting. The sighting is also mentioned in the Season 2 "Giant Spiders" episode of Monsterquest. The original History Channel URL to the episode was no longer valid. I've added the current URL where that episode can be found on The History Channel's website. Marino73 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all fringe proponents. Gibbons is perhaps the best known Young Earth creationist cryptozoologist to date (Loxton and Prothero talk about this) and academics have noted the role that Monsterquest (and thus "History") have played in uncritically disseminating fringe theories cooked up in cryptozoology circles (cf. Cryptozoology#Lack_of_critical_media_coverage). In short, it's all WP:PROFRINGE/all WP:RS fails. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodofox, thanks. I would counter by saying that the fact that Gibbons is a creationist is immaterial to this article. While his book is about his travel to the Congo to find a living dinosaur in support of Young Earth creationism, his reference to the Jba Fofi is basically separate. While looking for the Mokele-mbembe he writes in his book that he was familiar with the Lloyd story and asked natives about it. Whether or not he is a creationist or evolutionist misses the point - he was in the Congo and discussed accounts of giant spider sightings. As for Redfern, he's just reporting the purported sightings. The Monsterquest episode proposes the existence of giant spiders in sensational fashion, but they did not originate the Lloyd story of the Zimbabwe encounter, nor did Gibbons. It predates both of them. Gibbons doesn't say that he encountered them, only that the natives had.

To my original question - what qualifies for allowing a cryptid article to remain? Since there is no real evidence apart from sightings, why have any articles at all? Why should the Lusca not be subject for deletion? Or Bessie, the Gigantic octopus, or the Mongolian death worm? All of them have a paucity of accounts, and their existence is proposed by fringe circles. This article does not propose that these creatures exist, only that they are alleged to and also provides scientific reasoning as to why they can't. Again, thanks to you and Psychologist guy. If you have to delete, then delete. Marino73 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to have a could of OKish sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redfern and Gibbons are fringe and unreliable. What's left over is a couple of marginal sources stating giant spiders don't exist.—eric 13:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/G4 - Recreation of the poorly-sourced "sightings" list from recently-deleted Jba fofi article. Refs, including Redfern, are fringe. –dlthewave ☎ 14:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fringe sources, basically an attempt to recreate the recently deleted Jba fofi article. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use more work, but seems balanced. WP:TNT has already been applied.--Auric talk 21:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/G4/spray with barrel of Raid - as nom points out, there is no primary topic for "Great Spider", which is just a translation of Jba Fofi anyway. Even though there have been cuts, what remains is just a mishmash of a WP:PROFRINGE lead, a non-notable or noteworthy Facebook hoax, and a short piece about how giant spiders cannot exist (thank god). No encyclopedic topic there. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the accounts have been removed - including Gibbons and Redfern - I have added a few website references from Geek.com,medium.com,and a non-believing reference in a Washington Post article for a woman in search of a supposed large spider in Maine who first stops by a cryptozoological museum and sees references to the Congolese Giant Spider. I also added a few additional references in the Arguments Against section. Regarding why Great Spider, as mentioned previously that I wanted to create a page to deal with the overall Giant Spider sightings "phenomena" of which J'ba Fofi is only a part. The previous article had been rewritten to de-emphasize the Congo spider and to source only books for the accounts section. Marino73 (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you've added, most of which are quite low quality and don't mention that cryptozoology is a pseudoscientific subculture, back the claim you've attached them to. No reliable source is making the claim that there might be gigantic spiders running around somewhere. Please don't make it seem as if they do. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "Giant Spider sightings" since there are no giant spiders, for well understood reasons. All that Wikipedia does by having an article is to strengthen nonsensical beliefs. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffster!

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

Non-notable fictional band that is not even mentioned in its series' main article. This band article is a glorified plot summary (WP:NOTPLOT), with some trivial non-independent commentaries by the producers. Note that this band article has two supporting character sections at the end which might be better suited for List of Chuck characters, but it doesn't mean this band article needed. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to List of Chuck characters. Many people have done a lot of work on this article, but it is entirely in-universe fancruft about a topic that has not been noticed outside of the network's promotional materials and fansites. Much of the article is also dependent on sources that are actually about the show overall and not the fictional band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. The redirect option is a good idea, but I am uncertain about how much value it would really add to readers. Aoba47 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selective merge to List of Chuck characters imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Washtenaw County Democratic Primary

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

Non-notable election. Fbdave (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The election almost surely won't rise to our standards anyway, but at the moment there's no content and no implication that there will ever be anything of lasting interest. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uhh this article doesn't even say what position the Democratic primary is nominating a candidate for...definitely not noable regardless, we don't generally have articles for local positions, much less for their individual elections, much less for one party's primary. Reywas92^Talk 21:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County-level ~~(presidential?)~~ primaries don't make the grade; heck the election for a minor office wouldn't either. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider salting - this is a coatrack about a local election that is hiding a BLP violation in plain sight. 23:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. County-level primaries for county prosecutor elections are not "inherently" notable elections for the purposes of an international encyclopedia, and there's no reliable sourcing here to get this one over WP:GNG as a special case. If anybody reads the comment above mine and gets confused by it, I've already yanked the BLP violation — let's just say it involved primary sourcing a criminal claim directly to the sex offender registry, without actually showing any evidence whatsoever that the sex offender is even the same person as the county prosecutor candidate the claim was being attached to, and leave it at that. I can virtually guarantee that trying to coatrack that allegation was the entire idea behind this article existing in the first place, which is precisely why this article should not exist at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Ansari

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

No claim to any notability (see WP:PEOPLE). Possible PR/promo. Кронас (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 10:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 10:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "seemed to excel at all artistic subjects", "was featured amongst international artists", "concerned with the pursuit of excellence", "excelled at creative subjects at all levels of schooling", "won a prestigious award", "earned him a priceless internship", "won a priceless award", "was flown off to Tokyo", "priceless experience", "huge inspiration", " follow his personal creative compulsions" violates WP:NOTPROMOTION alright. Vexations (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable artist. The article is WP:PROMO, written by an editor indefinitely blocked for paid editing. Netherzone (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteinsufficient notability, insufficient sources.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article on a non-notable subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingwood Mighty Mustang Military Marching Band

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

Another non notable highschool band. I'm nominating individually ,because there might perhaps besomething to besaidor notability for one or another of them DGG ( talk ) 10:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/kingwood/schools/article/Kingwood-High-School-band-leaders-mentor-middle-9962140.php and https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/kingwood/news/article/New-trailer-comes-to-fruition-for-Kingwood-9948941.php but little else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to create seperate articles on anything undera high school unless we have crazy high amounts of coverage, way, way more than is here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Eagle Escadrille

AfDs for this article:

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

Np major or national awards of important recordings for thishighschool musical group. DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are virtually no circumstances in which a stand alone article is justified for a high school marching band, this is not one of those very rare exceptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No evidence of notability--Rusf10 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep: per SNOW. (non-admin closure) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 New Taipei helicopter crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Helicopters crash all the time, and so far there's no suggestion that there is anything particular to this crash, such as geopolitical implications. The death of a notable person is adequately covered at Shen Yi-ming#Death. Sandstein 10:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: many people below write that the event is of great political significance in Taiwan and should therefore be covered. That's a reasonable argument if true, but it is not really apparent from the article. The article now says that election campaigns have been suspended for two or three days, which is an indication that this is an event of some perceived importance, but it's still not clear how and why exactly. Is foul play suspected? Does this have a bearing on Taiwan-Mainland China relations? If kept, the article needs to make much more clear why we assume that this is an incident that will still be discussed years or decades later, see WP:LASTING, rather than a routine accident. Sandstein 20:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This crash killed as many as eight people including high-level military officers and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. And it occurred just nine days before the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election and caused candidates Tsai Ing-wen and Han Kuo-yu to stop their campaign activities for three days and two days respectively. In my view, this article meets Wikipedia:Notability and should be kept. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There's a chance this isn't notable and it will need to be revisited, but given the politics and the suspension of campaigns as a result of the crash, there may be more to this story. It's difficult to determine at this point because this could ultimately fail WP:NOTNEWS but it appears there's going to be significant ramifications from this one, and aviation accidents where notable people die can be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 11:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 8 dead plus a military VIP on board, in my opinion both make the accident notable.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chief of staff killed, widespread coverage of this. Not a normal crash. --Hippeus (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. IMO, high-ranking military leader has killed that is not a normal crash.Idolmm (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And the administration of this nominator should be removed as soon as possible because that is an insult to the Republic of China. 🐱💬 13:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, what are you talking about? -- 94rain ^Talk 13:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --LaserLegs (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We are talking about a Chief of the General Staff of ROC not a ordinary military figure. Also there is a ongoing investigation about his topic. We should keep it.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Really strange nomination, imo. St Anselm (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Death of major government figure, adequate coverage, fairly major loss of life. Can be revisited in a few months if there's a question. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neo, et al. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All above make good points. WP:RAPID is also relevant and also weighs in favor of keeping (at least at this time). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
textbook NOTNEWS/TOOSOON delete I'm obviously bucking the wrongly developing consensus but for an operational accident that only happened yesterday, nobody knows whether this is ever going to go beyond a line in the fellow's bio plus a lot of groundless speculation that the PRC was responsible. IF there is sustained interest beyond routine newspaper/TV coverage, THEN there should be an article. One day later and and there cannot be yet. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the incident has had an impact on the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election and resulted in the death of a notable individual (Shen Yi-ming). If the delete !voters are to be belived, we need to wait 5 or more years to write an article of any kind. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - death of a notable person is inclining most if not all people to keeping this article.Super Typhoon Mercedes-Benz^{Talk to me here :)} 15:41 UTC, January 2 2020
Keep per Inter&anthro. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 16:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote what currently (09:28 MST 2 Jan) is Shen Yi-ming#Death, the suitable replacement for this article listed by the nom. I disagree. The section fails to fully contextualize the background of the crash, the notability of those involved, and address the number of casualties. Air crashes involving famous people and fewer than ten fatalities often receive their own articles. We ought to preserve this one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have now been geopolitical ramifications, which removes the main argument in the initial speedy deletion nomination. Further, a crash being military doesn't mean it's non-notable; see e.g. Smolensk air disaster Leondz (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the incident has had an impact on the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election and more. We keep such articles. Wm335td (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mimihitam (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Wm335td. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An important military fugure died in this.Mariogoods (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The chief of the general staff of the Republic of China died because of the accident, this is a very significant event for Taiwan and its military. Chongkian (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The reason for the nomination of deletion is partial in the first place. It's not only the death of a single notable person, a group of high-ranking military officers (other than the Chief of defence himself) deceased because of this, which will cause a significant impact on the national defense system for certain. How on earth can this be described as "there's no suggestion that there is anything particular to this crash"?--Howard61313 (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pequannock Township High School. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pequannock Township Marching Band

AfDs for this article:

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

No major awards or recordings for this high school musical group. DGG ( talk ) 10:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Pequannock Township High School as the marching band is not independently notable. The material in the present article should be selectively merged to the article for the high school that serves as the parent organization. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to high school. No independent notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurban Omarov

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

No claim to any notability (see WP:PEOPLE). No have page on Russian Wikipedia, deleted and blacklisted before. Possible PR/promo: created from account whose articles mostly deleted. Кронас (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - huge notability fail. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdumalik Mirakhmedov

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

No claim to any notability (see WP:PEOPLE). No have page on Russian Wikipedia, deleted before (fails WP:GNC). Possible PR/promo: created from account whose articles mostly deleted. Кронас (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "founders" and investors in ventures, short of $1,000,000,000, are not notable, per WP:GNG ad WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ATK Holdings

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Possible PR/promo: created from account whose articles mostly deleted. Кронас (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on books/scholar. The current Russian references look like press releases or such, Fails NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Perlin

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

No claim to any notability (see WP:PEOPLE). No have page on Russian Wikipedia, deleted before. Possible PR/promo: created from account whose articles mostly deleted. Кронас (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elene Church

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

Fictional religion with no real-world significance. Doesn't seem to be mentioned in reliable, non-primary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ALLPLOT and WP:OR. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, I could not find reliable sources in google, google scholar or google books. JimRenge (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. if kept it needs WP:TNT. Wm335td (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poorly-sourced article about a fictional church.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A decision to restore the redirect can happen outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DWNP

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply does not meet WP:BROADCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote to restore the redirect, except that an internet search suggests that this initialism is used to refer to possibly more notable subjects. Delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's given that the station exists per 2019 NTC Listing. One reference explains about the station's launch and programs. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:BROADCAST. I rest my case. _SUPER ^ASTIG 23:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep city of 41,000 people, we should WP:ATD. I think the station meets the SNG WP:BROADCAST. Wm335td (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although some cleanup is probably warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jon McKenzie

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant third-party coverage. Subject has written two books, but doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. According to his CV, he is a dean's fellow and visiting professor at Cornell, but holds no highly prestigious awards or titles, so likely fails WP:NPROF. If he does meet WP:NPROF#C1 or is notable as an author, the article is still a WP:SOAPBOX as it is based entirely on primary sources (by the subject or his wife). The only secondary source is a book review, and it's not actually supporting anything. The article has been tagged for notability and lack of non-primary references for over 9 years now to no avail. Surachit (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Surachit (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Surachit (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Surachit (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that the article needs to be edited with a chainsaw. But the 1200+ citations on his book would tend to give notability via WP:NPROF C1, unless I'm missing something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NPROF. Wm335td (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After several relists, there is still disagreement as to whether the sources presented are sufficiently independent and detailed to write a comprehensive article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

125 Group

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

Non notable organization lacking WP:CORPDEPTH and falling short of WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, meets notability threshold, mentioned in four separate external cites. Cerenybid (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cerenybid is the creator of the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cerenybid please by all means do provide us with this WP:RS that shows evidence of notability of the aforementioned organization & I'd be more than happy to withdraw the nomination. Also note that a WP:BEFORE I conducted shows the organization has no notability whatsoever. Celestina007 (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has 'no notability whatsoever' in your opinion, yet it has gained mentions in 5 articles in 4 separate publications. Is also mentioned in numerous other articles from similar sources, but won't bother adding until this AfD has run its course. Cerenybid (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tagging a notability query might have been a better initial step rather than bringing this article to AfD twelve minutes after it was created? A number of sources are available; I have added a couple to the article, and further coverage can be seen, for example in this query though, now that an AfD has commenced, it remains to consider whether that mix of announcement-based industry coverage meets WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AllyD hey, I get the argument for “article was just created so should be left unbothered for a while” but aren’t we supposed to move article to Mainspace when they are ready for Mainspace? Isn’t that why a draftspace & sandbox is available for us? So we could work on articles extensively as we see fit before moving them to Mainspace? Do correct me if I’m wrong though. Celestina007 (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, what would parking in draftspace achieve? Sure there is scope to expand, but having tucked away out of sight in draftspace isn't going to do that. The rules are quite clear; anybody with an auto approved account can create an article in mainspace. If we look at the first article that you wrote, 12 minutes after its creation this is all that existed. Had somebody been as anal as you are being, that uncited stub would have been deleted before you could finish it. Cerenybid (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cerenybid First off, I have never said this to anybody but you would be the first I would say this to, competence is indeed required and right now you do not possess it the article you speak of is not my first article but my 40th and latest article which was in my draftspace until it’s completion (that is, from start to finish, fully cited and sourced) before I moved it to Mainspace. For you to call it my “first article” and also say it was “unsourced when I moved it to Mainspace” shows an overwhelming incompetence from your end. Celestina007 (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, my bad I took your most recent creation, not your first, but the principle remains the same, it another editor had been as trigger-happy as you, it would have been up for deletion before you had even finished it. As inconvenient as you might find it, one mistake does not equate to incompetence. AllyD's advice is a better way of dealing with it. That you elect to write an article in draft space and then make 124 edits over 3 hours to get it finished is your way of editing. Just because I elected to bypass the building in draft space process is irrelevant, the end result was a complete article, (that is, from start to finish, fully cited and sourced). Cerenybid (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cerenybid I see the problem is you don’t understand the imperative difference between draftspace and mainspace. Nonetheless, what I’m saying is it is customary to do all the work in your draftspace/sandbox (this includes sourcing it from start to finish) before moving it to Mainspace (like I do) I have never and would never move an unsourced article to Mainspace like you erroneously claim. I don’t understand this To & fro with you the issue here is I don’t think your article is notable enough to be a stand alone in the encyclopedia that’s the issue at hand every other thing is secondary. Furthermore I’m sorry for calling you Incompetent earlier on, you made false comments against me which got under my skin but now I’m no longer irritated I feel calling you or anyone incompetent is just plain wrong. Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understand perfectly the difference between draftspace and mainspace, but if an article can be fully cited from the beginning, the draftspace route can legitimately be, and dare I say often is, bypassed. Cerenybid (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. there are six independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not only must the sources be independent, but the content must also be independent and not rely on information provided by the organization themselves. Can you point to a source that contains Independent Content? See WP:ORGIND for a definition of Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consider the present state of AFC, with the immense backlog, mostly composed of articles that either are of new editors who cannot create in mainspace or of editors who do have COI, and in very large part consisting of articles that will rightfully never be accepted. I think it is more helpful for any editor with even moderate experience to avoid using it unless there's a good reason. Those who, like myself, who work screening articles there will be grateful. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 2 books published 125: The Enduring Icon ISBN 978-1-4456-7859-7 & Inter-City 125 Haynes Manual ISBN 978-1-78521-266-6 also registered charity Tempest3K (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither of those books are *about* this organization and both books were written *by* this organization so not an independent source and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The test for notability (which can be found at WP:NCORP) is not whether the organization exists or even whether there are "independent sources". The sources must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sources must also contain in-depth information about the company and be significant. Not a single source passes the test for establishing notability and none of the Keep !voters above have argued anything beyond a simplistic argument of "sources exist". Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: unless everyone has back issues of Rail or Heritage Railway at home, I’m not sure we can fully assess how significant the mentions are. From what I’ve seen of the online sources, enough of the sources are independent and notable to pass notability. However, some attempts at adding more notable sources are needed in the future. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Cardiffbear88, which sources are independent and notable to pass notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - HighKing, in my view this, this and this all demonstrate notability and are independent sources - and that's before we count the six references from independently published magazines.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks Cardiffbear88. While I agree the sources are "Independent sources", this is only one part of a number of tests, one of which is that the references must include Independent Content and it is clear that both references fail to meet the requirement for "Independent Content" which is defined as follows in WP:ORGIND: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Since both of those press releases/announcements have been produced by sources connected with this organizations, they both fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the Keep !voters have managed to provide a single reference that meets the criteria for notability and many appear to not grasp the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. The Keep !voters should point to specific references (as is required) so that we can all examine the sources and comment - otherwise this is just a whole lot of vague noise. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others said: "The test for notability (which can be found at WP:NCORP) is not whether the organization exists or even whether there are "independent sources". The sources must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sources must also contain in-depth information about the company and be significant. Not a single source passes the test for establishing notability and none of the Keep !voters above have argued anything beyond a simplistic argument of "sources exist". Topic fails GNG/NCORP." Topjur01 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Angelini

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. New singer. scope_creep^Talk 12:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC) scope_creep^Talk 12:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nominator, does not pass WP:MUSICBIO (nor WP:GNG), just has one single that appeared on Billboard Dance chart and a Google search does not show any coverage. Achaea (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources supporting notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summy Smart Francis

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

Promo article for a non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources hence failing WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE shows he has won no notable awards hence does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO as well. Celestina007 (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. A Google search of the subject doesn't show in-depth coverage. None of the sources cited in the article discuss the subject in detail. As a matter of fact, a few of the sources are WP:SPS. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. This topic fails GNG as not a single reference meets the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Splinemath (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypergiant Industries

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

Highly promotional article, unwisely accepted from AfC. The list of the advisory board is half the article, and is not encyclopedic content. The references are either promotional interviews with the founder, as for the first 3, or mere notices of funding. Neither type of reference meets WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, if it's overly promotional, that can be addressed through the regular/normal editing process.

Silicon Review-- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Submitted a new edit request on 12/23 to improve the article. The request includes new sources detailing a recent partnership and products. Open to additional suggestions to improve the article. Thank you. DISCLOSURE: I proposed the edit for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Hypergiant. I am a paid editor and am aware of the COI guidelines. Justin Goldsborough (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it is promotional (please delete the advisory board section - Wikipedia is not your "pitchbook"), however these good RS are SIGCOV, Popular Mechanics, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle. Per the article, and a google search, there is a lot of other RS on this company - maybe overhyped, but it is getting coverage. Britishfinance (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with the CEO about the company in the 'The Silicon Review'. Britishfinance (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article that relies extensively on an "interview" fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single one of the references mentioned in the article or here meets the criteria for establishing notability.
- This from Dallas News is based on an announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Chron is churnalism and based entirely on an interview with the co-founder/CEO and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from American INNO is based entirely on an interview with the CEO/co-founder. Fails WP:ORGIND
- This from D Magazine is another example of promotional churnalism, based entirely on an interview with ex-colleagues of Lamm, the the co-founder/CEO, or with Lamm himself. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Entrepreneur is based on an interview with an investor. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from VentureBeat] is entirely based on information provided by a co-founder, Copps. Fails WP:ORGIND.s
- This from Adweek is a single line, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
- This from BizJournals is based on an interview with a co-founder, fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Dallas Innovates is based on a company announcement and interview with a co-founder, fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Statesman is based on a company announcements, fails WP:ORGIND
- This next from Dallas Innovates is based on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Fast Company is based on a company announcement and interview, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Chron is based on a company announcement and quotations from the CEO. Fails WP:ORGIND
- This third from Dallas Innovates is based on an interview with an investor, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Popular Mechanics is based on an interview with a company VP and fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Gigabit is based on an company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Silicon Hills is based on a news statement from the CEO and a news release from the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Statesman is based on a company announcement and an interview with the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Houston Chronicle is based on a number of company announcements with quotations from the CEO and from one of their corporate partners, fails WP:ORGIND
- [https://www.inc.com/shama-hyder/how-one-satellite-acquisition-just-changed-future-of-ai.html This from INC is based on an interview with the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Silicon Reviews is entirely based on an interview with the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
It is clear that the company has an active marketing department and is capable of securing interviews for their CEO and of getting press to cover their announcements, but none of that coverage meets the criteria for establishing notability. As an aside, the CEO likely meets the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. Quite a few of the above sources are profiles on the company by an independent and reputable source, but where the RS happens to also speak to the CEO, which you consider to be a failure of WP:ORGIND. But a fail of ORGING is really where the the RS is a company press releases/marketing release repackaged as an article (which many of the above are not). You note that the company CEO could have their own BLP from the above RS, which again, goes to the independance of many of the above RS.

As a company, there is plenty of coverage from good RS like this Bloomberg which do fail ORGIND (e.g. they are from fund raisings); however, to dismiss interviews of the CEO and covereage of the company like this in Popular mechanics or Fast Company or Dallas Morning News (and more) is not correct. On that basis, almost every RS that ever spoke to an CORP's CEO would be deleted from Wikipedia as a fail of ORGIND, which of course makes no sense. Britishfinance (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response Britishfinance, the question is not whether the sources are reliable and independent, but whether the content is independent. Therefore, lets assume that the sources are RS and from publishers that are "functionally" independent. But. From WP:ORGIND, articles in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. "Coverage" that relies entirely on information provided by the CEO, the company, their investors, their partners, their customers, or any other "connected" sources may not be used for the purposes of establishing notability. Please note - the interviews, etc, are not "dismissed" for the purposes of citations supporting information contained within the article. Repackaged company announcements and press releases as well as articles that do not contain any Independent Content are "dismissed" for the purposes of establishing notability. It's all explained in WP:NCORP and the WP:ORGIND section. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Take the Popular Mechanics example, the article quotes from third party experts saying: "It's not just trees that ingest carbon dioxide, however. Most breathable air in the world originates from the ocean, "where high levels of nutrients fertilize large blooms of algae," writes Scott Denning, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.". In the Houston Chronicle piece, they quote third-party experts such as: "Essentially, artificial intelligence and machine learning turn massive amounts of imagery into useful insights, said Chad Brinkley, CEO of Satellite & Extraterrestrial Operations & Procedures, or SEOPS. He said such technologies could enhance the company’s offerings and help it develop new services. “It’s the difference between giving someone a stack of paperwork and asking them to sort through it themselves,” he said in an email, “and taking that paperwork, summarizing the key insights, and giving them concrete actions to follow through on."" These are proper pieces by good RS on the company, that interview both the CEO and other experts on the business; not a fail of WP:ORGIND. The amount of coverage on this company in a general Google news search here is considerable (although much of it would fail ORGIND). Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response What Independent Content is there *about* the company? The comment you've selected from Scott Denning is generic in that it is a comment about CO2 and the air but says nothing about the company. Similarly, the comment selected from "third-party experts" is from the CEO of SEOPS - the company acquired by Hypergiant (the acquisition of SEOPS is the subject of the entire article), therefore is a "connected" source. Again, nobody is saying that these article are not "proper pieces by good RS" - I've explained (at length) that the article fail the criteria for establishing notability because they do not contain any "Independent Content". Finally, pointing me to a Google Search result because of "considerable" coverage is not an acceptable argument at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response I am only trying to show how extreme your reading of ORGIND is (to the point of wikilawyering imho). This interpretation is needed to discount a material number of refs from good RS on this company. The acceptance that this RS would satisfy a BLP of its CEO is also not really consistent that notability is not being met; there are many cases where an article on a company and/or its CEO is acceptable, and splitting hairs over which one it should be is also not productive. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response OK, if you believe my interpretation is "extreme" and/or "wikilawyering", it would be more helpful if you could point to which parts of the WP:NCORP guidelines you believe I am quoting/interpreting in error/incorrectly. WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND are fairly easy to understand. BLPs have different guidelines (apples/pears) but crucially the CEO has a number of notable achievements which is why I believe the CEO might pass. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE by Britishfinance produced reliable sources. SIGCOV, Popular Mechanics, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle. Wm335td (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. [57] is likely the best source, but it is in the end half-rewritten press release, half intereview quotes. What independent, reliable source discusses this company in-depth? No mentions in Scholar/Book, not surprising since this is a 2018 establishment. It can hardly have any impact. Thus, promotional entry, and WP:TOOSOON. Come back in few years when you have some awards, and coverage that wasn't paid for. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company has been able to get a lot of it's publicity echoed various media outlets. However, I'm having difficulty finding much in the way of clearly encyclopedic information about the company. I quickly trimmed back the article, removing what I believe is simply WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good job; I have also re-wrote this (meant to do when I !voted above), and added the references discussed (re Popular Mechanics). Having one of your products listed as a "world-changing idea" in Fast Company and reviewed by Popular Mechanics (who are a very well regarded science magazine - and not fools or an RS that allows itself to be abused for unfounded marketing) is notable. In addition, the partnership that Booz Allen announced with them is also notable given that Booz Allen is one of the world's biggest global consultancies (there is more RS behind this partnership that I am looking at but it is behind a paywall). Britishfinance (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given you and I have now re-written this article, I removed the UPE; I will add this article to my watchlist in case UPE returns. Britishfinance (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As well as the ones above, I have added more sources, including D Magazine (more info on their founding), designboom (their algae HVAC unit was covered in Designbooms top tech predictions for 2020). Britishfinance (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Considering the improvements made by User:LovelyLillith, I'm hereby closing this discussion as keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Chappell

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

Not notable outside of Tom's of Maine. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Tom's of Maine - subject of this article does not meet notability criteria for her own article. May be WP:TOOSOON, as I can't find significant coverage. In addition to being a business person, she is also an artist, but does not meet WP:NARTIST yet either. Netherzone (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Honorary degree meets Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography "1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Deleting standalone biographies like these undermines the project's goal of presenting the sum of human knowledge. Jokestress (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can't believe we have reached the point where a notable female executive and philanthropist who co-founded one of America's most notable personal care brands is considered non-notable and unworthy of a standalone article. Buildings are named after her. I found 20 books and news articles discussing her in 30 seconds. [58] [59] Jokestress (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Absolutely no coverage worth looking at. Fails WP:SIGCOV. There has never been any references since the getgo and if they were available they would have been in.scope_creep^Talk 12:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jokestress. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. to Tom's of Maine. I don't get significant coverage, Fails WP:SIGCOV.-Nahal^(T) 21:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selected significant coverage:

Chappel, Kate, and Tom Chappel. American Environmental Leaders: From Colonial Times to the Present, Volume 1 Anne Becher, Joseph Richey, eds. 2008 ISBN 9781592371198
The World According to Tom's of Maine by Ilana DeBare San Francisco Chronicle, October 9, 2007
Kate Cheney Chappell 83 Center for Book Arts University of Southern Maine
Honorary Doctor of Laws, honoris causa Colby College 2009
Chapter on Kate Cheney Chappell in The Enterprising Woman by Mari Florence ISBN 9780759524873
Many more available if that is not enough to resolve this as keep. Jokestress (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article could be better, but notability is established, as per Jokestress. Lamona (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Searches under her full name, “Kate Cheney Chappell”, give more coverage. Also, in most references, she is jointly mentioned with her husband. If that’s notable enough to keep him standalone, it should apply to her as well. LovelyLillith (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've made improvements on the article using some of the references supplied here, as well as others. Hopefully this will demonstrate her notability. LovelyLillith (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold My Liquor

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as far from meeting the WP:NM since the only notability is being covered by music artist Lorde and should be several notable artists, bands, or groups. It has not ranked on national or significant music or sales charts (despite this not being a main criteria) and hasn't won any significant awards. Most of the sources are based on an album review or were interviews done by the producers who are an interested third party. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it hilarious that this article is at AfD and Good Article Nomination at the same time. Don't see that often. Hog Farm (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – definitely as notable as other West GAs such as "So Appalled", "Dark Fantasy", and every other Yeezus non-single. As User:isento said here, I think you're missing the point of WP:NM, these articles are very much notable in their own right. – zmbro _(talk) 17:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: which point am I missing? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GA, meets GNG, has a Lou Reed quote. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sabom

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

No significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Neutrality^talk 22:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Neutrality^talk 22:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 02:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 02:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 02:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 02:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure about Sabom, but his 1st book appears to be taken seriously. It was published by Harper Collins, has 700+ citations on GS, and has been reviewed [60]. The 2nd book also has almost 300 GS citations. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my earlier comment, in lack of much other response here. Some combination of WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF (via the high citation count) looks to apply. I added the review in the JNDE to the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability as a doctor or an an author.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage, of the doctor and his books, in newspapers from the late 1970s on. A report on Colorado College awards in 1966 names him as the recipient of an award for outstanding scholarship in premed, and in 1972, he was an instructor in the US Army Medical Field Service School - so there is more biographical detail available that can be added to the article. Multiple sources can be added about his studies of near-death experiences. He certainly meets WP:NAUTHOR, appears to meet WP:NPROF, and probably meets WP:GNG as well. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a n academic, an author ,or otherwise. An award for excellence as a premed undergraduate does not contribute to notability-- no undergraduate awards do and this is remakabley trivial even for them. Being an insgtructor in the army , similarly, DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added a review of the 2nd book; also from the Journal of Near-Death Studies (a bit fringe). Added also a 2nd review of 1st book, from NEJM (certainly not fringe), for 3 total reviews so far. Sabom also gets reasonably significant coverage in this NPR piece and in this Salon article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although his books are fringe topic they do have reliable sources reviews and other coverage about him, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 22:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T. Wilson (Middlesex cricketer)

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

Fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. Subject made one first-class appearance, and is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name. Harrias ^talk 10:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 10:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 10:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 10:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is it Middlesex cricketers which were the ones so massively worked on in the early days - especially those from the early eras? I forget. Anyway, hopefully one day new information will come to light regarding this and other players' details. As for "in clear cases where GNG does not apply", I still have no idea what that means. Clear cases? Like where WP:N says "or"? That seems "clear" to me. Anyway. That's by the by these days. Apparently. I'm still frustrated that this is the case in spite of the fact this is explicitly contradicted on WP:N. And "does not mean an article must be kept"? No idea what that means either. Once again, an excuse to flout notability criteria. No worries. I'm not searching for an argument, just frustrated at the contradiction which is clearly present between N and GNG. I wonder if there are any more in Middlesex cricketers which need looking at. Bobo . 11:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please forgive me for a second comment. Sometimes these have been merged these days into List of X cricketers. Is this an acceptable alternative solution? Bobo . 11:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are newspaper reports of the single first-class match in which Wilson appeared in which his bowling is mentioned: essentially, wickets fell after Wilson was taken off, so it's likely he wasn't deemed a success (though he was bowling at the three Grace brothers). He is described as a right-arm fast bowler with "a square action" in other reports of the time and as part of the Middlesex Colts team his bowling success in minor games, which led to his selection for the full county side, was also noted. Cricketarchive has first-class bowling figures for him; these, rather strangely, were removed from the article entirely earlier this year (they needed correcting, not removal). Cricinfo has not just the bowling figures, but also a forename, Thomas. I haven't looked to see if his (non-first-class) Hertfordshire cricket career might produce other references. Johnlp (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that the qualification for sending things to AfD is "doesn't have a forename present", as is so often the case, as long as we can validate that these individuals are definitely the same then this AfD is meaningless. Hopefully one day we will uncover biographical details for Ranji Trophy players and others whose details are currently unknown. One obvious example is RADW Mayantha, who made his debut last season but still does not have forenames listed. (Now that I've searched deeper he appears to be this player - Waruna Mayantha, who previously played for Antonians U23). This is why I ask to make sure that the articles I created ten years ago are looked at before being sent to AfD. The fact that none of the prose text in so many of these articles has been altered in ten years makes me ask, where have all the bored exclusionists been all these years? If these conversations had taken place 10 years ago, this problem wouldn't exist. Bobo . 15:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if ONESOURCE is still a problem after all this time, dare I say that it's fairly obvious to everyone involved in the cricket project where a second reference can be found. Bobo . 15:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probable Redirect to List of Middlesex County Cricket Club players~~ See below. From CricInfo we have a little more information - a first name and information that we was on the MCC staff. So we're not quite in clear redirect territory as we might be in a case such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. James (1814 cricketer). On the whole, though, I rather think that if we have so little to go on that we're unlikely to be able to build anything beyond what CricInfo tells us so a redirect would, probably, be preferable. If anything more detailed could be added from his matches for Herefordshire then the article can be replaced and we'd have something worth keeping hold of. Blue Square Thing (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as the previous one in this list. Nowhere near enough for GNG even if it does meet the SNG. You can't build an article on a statistical record. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've now added as much material as I can easily find: perhaps those who have already commented might care to revisit. My view is that there is now as much, perhaps more, information on Wilson as there is on, say, R. E. Hillebrand, who is the sportsman (from a different sport) I always use as a yardstick by which to judge these things (and which was a snow-keep when challenged). Johnlp (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is no ability to re-assess AfD decisions mid-discussion, which is sad for a case which passes a brightline notability guideline. But sadly this is the way Wikipedia is run these days. No respect for guidelines which are insultingly easy to understand and follow. As noted above, the sole reason Harrias is sending this for deletion is that a first name is not present. Yeah - I know. Perhaps based on this information and others there is alternative recourse that can be taken in time. Note that G4 for "prevoiusly created articles" refers only to "sufficiently identical copies". Once we've pointed out that the article as it stands is nowhere near an "identical copy" of the article which was originally sent to AfD, we can continue our case against rabid exclusionism for the sake of boredom. Bobo . 00:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage seems a bit WP:ROUTINE (and really more about the matches he played it) and I have significant doubts over the actual notability of both Wilson and Hillebrand, but the article is better than we have on many individuals so I doubt it'll be deleted as it stands. The work done by Johnlp is excellent to get it to this stage. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I don't see what we can write in cricketing biography articles other than what happened during players' careers. Apart from his shoe size, his favourite band, and his preference for species of cat. Anything else is just superfluous waffle. Since WP:ROUTINE doesn't talk about what doesn't count as routine, it seems to attempt to qualify half its point while failing to qualify the rest. Bobo . 15:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and keep. With the information we now have present, nobody would take this article to AfD. In fact, this entire conversation is null and void given the fact that every issue as displayed in the AfD nomination is now sorted and/or proven false. Deletion via "GNG" is now meaningless and pointless, as this man's identity and contextual impact has been shown. "Routine statistical listings" is now false and has been brought to attention. "So meagre we don't have a full name" is false. "Nowhere near GNG" is false, let alone meaningless, "Can't build an article on statistics alone" is clearly false. Thank you as always Johnlp for going above and beyond what others have bothered to manage. It's easy to sit around and critique others' work based on meaningless criteria without being willing to do something about it. It's quite different to be able to find, source, and add all the information that was sadly not available to myself at the time. Notably, Johnlp's edits are the only edits which have been made since this article was taken to AfD.

Can people please find alternative ways of bringing articles to others' attention in future rather than hauling them through AfDs? Our project has become meaningless because of it. Bobo . 09:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Literally nothing in nom is accurate anymore, as others have pointed out. Not really sure why this was even relisted, but fine, let's waste another week on this. Smartyllama (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article now has three contemporary sources and two modern ones, with useful information about the player's cricket career. Like Bobo, I would point to the word "or" at WP:N. The nom is correct that the subject is long since retired - since he played in the 1880s, I am glad to hear it - but that is not a valid reason for deletion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only noted that he was long since retired as clarity that he would not play again and therefore have a chance to become more notable; I am well aware that it is not itself a reason for deletion. Being non-notable is. Harrias ^talk 15:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although some sterling work has been done to improve this article, and as noted, much of what I said in the nomination is no longer applicable, the coverage given appears to be very WP:ROUTINE. Indeed, if anything, the fact that this is all that can be found supports the nomination. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage", defined as coverage which "addresses the topic directly and in detail" None of the sources provided do that: CricketArchive provides nothing more than a statistical overview. ESPNcricinfo provides a statistical overview and a two-line biography. The following three sources are all match reports in which Wilson is mentioned briefly; clearly none of them address Wilson in detail. WP:N does indeed say "or". So in place of GNG, we can use WP:NSPORT. NSPORT however, requires that GNG is met, so either way, GNG applies. Harrias ^talk 15:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I stand by what I've said over and over. What other information do you expect rather than factual information? And where do you wish for me to cite this information from? You might as well take down 80 percent of my article creations in that case. I'm not going to start mentioning his shoe size or what colour shirt he's wearing. There's a fine balance here between factual information and just writing out a load of unnecessarily padded material. As for "more notable", thankfully there is no such thing. Okay, let's introduce the term "more notable". Say that we have to increase the criteria to five first-class games. You are then completely destroying the point of any clearly definable guidelines. The existence of the word "or" at N means we can work either easily to brightline criteria, or just start deleting everything willy nilly because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I will point out again - although I wish I had saved the links - that there are some of my own article creations which have been deleted on en.wiki which are still present on southern Indian language Wikipedias. Bobo . 17:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does NSPORT override N? Absolutely not - it implies so in "basic criteria", even though it does the worst job in the world in doing so. We might as well destroy almost every competitive team sporting project in that case. As for the word "should" in "applicable policies and guidelines", that immediately nullifies the whole argument. Yes it "should". Of course it does. If it doesn't, then we have about ten thousand cricketing articles which need fixing, let alone the Test cricketers who, in fifteen years, still have zero sources mentioned. I'm surprised these are being picked out at random over trying to improve those. Bobo . 17:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. User:Samuel Wiki has done justice to the article and has provided and added some sources showing that the article passes WP:GNG. I'm hereby closing as keep since consensus is clear and we don't need another week to debate on this. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaello (confection)

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

The product has no third party coverage listed and not much coverage can be found online about the product. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is this allowed? nominating a yummy chocolate for deletion during the festive season? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like there is enough to meet WP:GNG. A Romanian source has the recipe ("Rețeta secretă a cremei din bomboanele Raffaello a fost dezvăluită. Cum se prepară, de fapt, acest deliciu fin", [61]), several sources report on a court case ordering Raffaello packing to state the number, not just the weight, of the chocolates when sold in Germany [62], [63], [64], [65]; a Spanish source describes how Raffaello can be sold all year round, whereas other Ferrero chocolates are seasonal (apparently! though I can't say I've noticed that ;-) ) [66], and is good for Mother's Day [67]; in Ukraine, a Russian company was marketing a lookalike chocolate, and Ferrero lost a legal case that it infringed the Raffaello trademark [68]. These sources, and the information about Raffaello from them, could be included in the article. I'm not sure that the date it was first sold is correct - a Daily Mail article (which I know we can't use, but there may well be other sources) says that it had a 28th anniversary party in 2018 [69]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Notability guidelines. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing as no consensus. Between WP:LISTN and then citations, wiki links, etc. Feel free to work on improving the article and if that doesn't work out, or you see a strong deletion rationale, please revisit AfD or consider discussing options at the appropriate projects and talk page. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of REITs in Canada

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

Unmaintained list of real estate investment trusts (REITs) in Canada with little to no context as to how this list of REITs is significant, what they own, when they were established, or really anything. Most of the list is just a copy+paste dump from the Toronto Stock Exchange indices' lists, including even the section headers. As such, per WP:NOTDIR, this unmaintained list seems rather CRUFTy and, though Wikipedia notionally has "no deadlines," the lack of maintenance in keeping the article up-to-date (or even of an encyclopedic quality) is problematic in that (a) it is dispensing inaccurate information which, in turn, (b) reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. I see no benefit to keeping this unmaintained list and, since consensus can change at any time, any deletion should be without prejudice to re-creating it in the future if someone wants to re-create it, preferably in a wikitable format, with added context, actual and better sourcing, and regular maintenance (at least quarterly).
Friendly pings: SMcCandlish and Piotrus Doug Mehus T·C 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I being pinged to this? It doesn't relate to my editing habits/interests or topical expertise. As for the AfD, I would think we'd keep a list of this sort, but police it for WP:NOT#DIRECTORY entries and inaccurate ones, which might pare this down to a fraction of its size. One of the common (but not required) purposes of stand-alone list articles is providing a place to briefly cover things that are at least marginally encyclopedic (do not fail WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE) but which do not rise to the level of WP:Notabilty (worthy of a separate article). That said, commerce-oriented lists of this sort sometimes do not do well, and either need to be removed, or need to have inclusion criteria that raise the bar, e.g. only notable entries which aren't redlinks (that is, the list would not be serving a place-for-barely-encyclopedic-entries function). I would think we would try the clean-it-up approach first, then the only-notable-entries approach, then deletion as a last resort. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, this fails WP:LISTN, no companies there appear notable, so also WP:GNG issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP 12 are blue links so its a valid list, it aiding in navigation. Any entry without its own article should be deleted unless there is a reference proving it is somehow notable enough to be included. Dream Focus 06:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel putting blue linked articles into Category:Real estate investment trusts of Canada would be sufficient. Not every category needs to have a list. Uhooep (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 9. Can be closed now, but, as per the DRV, only by an administrator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Uhooep: Can you please clarify the meaning of your !vote, above? Its first sentence has a grammar error (at least one missing word), and it's uncertain how the second relates to the first. It's not even clear how either relates to "delete", since as Dream Focus points out, the list already has a dozen blue-linked (notable) entries, and everyone but the nominator appears to agree with reducing the list (if kept) to only notable entries. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Similar to the above, can you also clarify what you mean by your argument above that, "no companies there appear notable, so also WP:GNG issues[,]" since WP:GNG does not apply (so much) with respect to navigational aids like lists, and also clarify or expand on how you feel that this article fails WP:LISTN? Doug Mehus T·C 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm struggling to see a delete rationale above, with the nomination apparently arguing for improvement. We have 12 articles about specific REITs in Canada and there are numerous books on the topic (e.g.[70], [71], [72]).----Pontificalibus 08:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Essentially, nobody except the nominator wants to delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv Specialized School No. 159

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bit of a challenge here. It is almost impossible to run the notability tests if you don't understand the character set. The school exists and a search on Спеціалізована школа №159. We find a competant maintained wordpress page- but also independant reports on the quality of safeguarding (if I have understood google) at https://inspections.gov.ua/inspection/view?id=1709170. In looking for in depth coverage- government information is there, we know it is the 59th most sucessful school in Kiev. We have four similar articles on EN:WP- I am minded that we should merge them into Secondary schools in Kiev until we have discovered the secret of unlocking the information. ClemRutter (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep needs additional citations to pass WP:NORG Georgiamarlins (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is some complexity regarding sourcing references in Russian; existence is accepted (59th most successful school in Kiev), but without GNG, a Redirect/Merge into a General schools in Kiev article is more likely.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Additional citations are required. Some news coverage is available in Ukrainian Language. -Nocturnal306^talk 22:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's Bloody Devils

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

No reliable sourcing found. Sources cited are not WP:RS. Newspapers.com yielded only showtimes at drive-in theaters and no actual reviews. Google Books yielded only passing mentions, interviews, and film directory listings with no substantial coverage in sight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not convinced that the cited book is clearly unreliable. Vadder (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The book, yes. But the Rotten Tomatoes entry is clearly blank, and the other three sources are either personal blogs or fansites, neither of which is a WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 19:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No professional reviews, so WP:NFILM is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Karl Twist. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a B grade biker movie from 1970 directed by another notorious B Grade director, Al Adamson. It got a short review by The New York Times, shown here. Its cult status is recognized by dvddrive-in.com here. And DVD Talk reviewed it back on April 26, 2005. Searching in Google News, a good review by RideApart comes up. The reviewer is Bryan Wood who has done quite a few articles for RideApart. His review of the film can be seen here. There's a bit about it too in Tom Weaver's It Came from Horrorwood. Weaver is a well-referenced author for B grade sci-fi and horror etc.. You can see what he wrote here at Page 310. Also The Grindhouse Cinema Database does a review on it. Normally when The Grindhouse Cinema Database covers something you know it is most likely gonna be B grade exploitation sleaze. And this is just what this film is! And millions of B grade exploitation aficionados around the world love this stuff. Well, it's got cult status and it is easily notable! Karl Twist (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I may be admittedly biased since I created the page, and it's true that the page deserves more (way more) work being put into it, the editions made by Karl Twist show that it has been given enough notability by sources that are both reliable and themselves notable enough, including a New York Times review.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Insufficient discussion for deletion. Sandstein 08:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BigPicture

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

BigPicture and BigGantt are run-of-the-mill software packages by SoftwarePlant that do not satisfy software notability. These articles were created by a single-purpose account who has made the required conflict of interest declaration for BigGantt but not BigPicture. Google search on both packages shows that they exist, and that they are products of SoftwarePlant, which has a draft in review at Draft:SoftwarePlant, and are marketed via Atlassian. The search for in-depth third-party coverage is unsuccessful.

BigPicture, BigGantt, Draft:SoftwarePlant, and Atlassian appear to be a walled garden under construction. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous speedy tagging was explicitly contested, so relisting this rather than handling as soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BigPicture/BigGantt are notable. Yes, there is a number of project management apps out there, but very few PPM apps. There are two PPM apps in Atlassian environment and they are BigPicture/BigGantt. Both are uniqe in the sense that they are built around Gantt chart module, a 'forbidden' thing in the agile times, that have overtaken the project management world since circa 2000. The subject is pretty hermetic, and much of the knowledge gets exchanged during the conferences. These articles were created by multiple-purpose account, see Martin DE (Polish Wikipedia). As for the third-party coverage, see how TechCo Jira review 2019 tells apart BigPicture from "2,000 third-party integrations". Regarding the apparent conflict of interest, I was encouraged to declare it for one article after I wrote it. I happen to know more about the two pieces and the project management world than 99% of the public. Jira links to BigPicture, so I wouldn't call the articles the 'walled garden'. --Martin DE (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added BigGantt and BigPicture to Comparison of project management software to fix the walled garden issue. --Martin DE (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Roker

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Unfortunately, starting three games your junior year for Southern Utah isn't enough for your own standalone Wikipedia article, as it doesn't generate any sort of secondary press coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 12:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. College football player at Southern Utah who tallied two career tackles (see here). My searches did not find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Nor does his Southern Utah bio (here) reveal any notable accomplishments. Cbl62 (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both GNG and NGRIDIRON. Playing a few games at Southern Utah does not warrant a presumption of notability and I did not find significant coverage. Lepricavark (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Looks like discussion has ground to a halt. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond City Council (Richmond, California)

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:NORG. Legislative body of a suburb with a population of only marginally more than 100k. Neither article nor BEFORE shows much in the way of coverage outside the Bay Area, which is exactly what would be expected. Further, other notability discussions on government bodies at a tertiary level such as this have shown that notability hinges on what has been written about the body itself, not on what has been written about what it has done. Sources discussing the legislative process are WP:ROUTINE. Same for elections, unless multiple ones have recieved long lasting, widespread coverage. Not finding any. John from Idegon (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has widespread coverage in multiple reliable sources from she region such as the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury news and outside such as the ny Times.Ndołkah (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to Richmond, California. This is not a newsworthy city council. BTW don’t be fooled by its current enormous size. The article was a modest 7,300 bytes until December 24, 2019, when User:Ndołkah expanded it to 33,390 bytes in a single day, using pretty much all local sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be fooled by MelanieN's spurious comment, the current state of the article is what we are debating not what it looked like before. And I have added a lot more content since, regarding regarding the coal ban, the casino, and I will be adding more about the city manager's firing controversy as well.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear delete, or redirect to the city article. Simple routine coverage of a a local council. Like EVERY other town council in the U.S.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong, and here is why, the council has multiple sources of in depth coverage of its inner workings in reliable sources. OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. This is a major port city with lots of media attention.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG. To the extent sources are available -- as they evidently are here -- Wikipedia should have such an article for every municipal legislative body. The requirements implied above, namely (1) that sources must be not merely independent but non-local (just how far away do they have to be?!), or that (2) sources are acceptable only if they somehow relate to the legislative body in itself and not merely to what it does, are without any foundation in Wikipedia's policy or purpose. -- Visviva (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also there is a category for city council's [73], and articles for the city councils of two other Richmonds in Virginia and British Columbia. I feel like these mass nominations are arbitrary and unproductive to say the least and we should really have a discussion on a more inclusionary Wikipedia that fosters information on our politicians! Also i forgot to state in my earlier comment that I suggest we Keep this page as it clearly meets the GNG particularly the coverage of the councils Corky Boozé years and his constant harassment of lesbian lawmaker Jovanka Beckels. It meets ORG as it clearly has "organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." This article and this council much like those of Berkeley San Francisco San Jose and Sacramento have more than trivial coverage that covers their goings on in depth going back decades! Ndołkah (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want to write Wikipedia-style articles about Richmond's city councillors, then by all means you're free to go start your own local Richmondpedia. Wikipedia, however, is an international project, which needs to consider the national and international significance of our article topics when we're deciding who warrants inclusion here and who does not — we have finite resources and a finite volunteer base of responsible editors, but an infinite number of egress points for bad actors to misuse our articles as a platform for libel or slander or unsourced personal criticism. Our quality control model, which relies on the oversight of other editors after an edit has already been made, works very well on high profile topics like Donald Trump or Justin Trudeau — but below a certain level of nationalized prominence, it fails very quickly, because the article simply does not generate enough traffic to control bad edits that way. So we differentiate between the state and national levels of political office, which are within our mandate because of the roles' wide nationalized importance, and the local level of political office, where we impose a much higher bar for inclusion than just the ability to verify that the person exists.
    Literally every town and city on earth has a city council, with anywhere between five and 50 councillors (depending on location) serving on it at any given time — but keeping an article about every city councillor on the planet is not feasibly maintainable within the limits of Wikipedia's resource and volunteer base, and most city councillors are not of wider than purely local interest anyway. So the notability test for city councillors is not just "s/he exists", it is "s/he has a nationalized profile significantly greater than most other city councillors". Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're wrong, Wikipedia is infinite it has over 5 million articles like ones about obscure animals or some bacterium no one ever reads about but its important to have, per WP:PAPER wikipedia is not paper and does not have limits, if one exists and is verifiable and notable the "Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content." applies. The shortcomings of "quality" editors whatever that means are irrelevant as there is boundless time for people to edit these pages as they see fit, there are also millions of high schools all of them notable not all of them have articles (yet!) having a history of city politics on their own article for city's over 100,000 people which is a large city is worth it for posterity and easily meets the GNG.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I'm not wrong. Plant and animal species are not prone to trying to exploit Wikipedia as a venue for advertorial self-promotion, or controlling the narrative in the event of a controversy — but people (and the companies and organizations that people create) are, so the inclusion standards for human topics have to be much stricter and much more achievement-oriented than the notability standards for non-human topics. Whether you like it or not, the notability standard that city councillors have to clear to qualify for Wikipedia articles is that they have a much more nationalized claim of significance than the norm — and given that every city councillor everywhere can always show some evidence of local coverage in their local media, the existence of such local coverage is not automatically evidence that a city councillor clears the bar that they have to clear. And shooting the messenger is not going to overturn that longstanding consensus all by itself — if you think that should change, you're certainly free to initiate a broader policy discussion on whether our notability standards for city councillors should change, but that would have to be a broad policy discussion in projectspace, not one AFD discussion on one midsized city council. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are wrong because there is no "national standard" for local counselors, regardless the topic is a "local council" and the bar is set at the GNG not your notions of local sources don't matter, your wrong, reliable sources like newspapers matter and this article has a big load of them, do you challenge that?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a national standard for local councillors. We have a long-established consensus that we do not unconditionally accept every city councillor in every city as "inherently" notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia — the inclusion bar for city councillors most certainly is to show that they're significantly more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirecting this is like redirecting United States Congress to United States. Merging this back in would make the area article too big. Being local does not make sources unreliable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC) --[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Ndołkah: Please take care to avoid posting anything which might be seen as a problem per WP:CANVASS like you did here when discussing this or any other article nominated for deletion; this also pertains to off-Wikipedia discussion as well. While it considered acceptable to try and notify others who might be interested in contributing to a particular of the discussion, any arguments in favor or keeping or deleting an article should be made in the relevant AfD discussion because that's where the consensus on what to do is going to be determined. If you feel that the discussion has stagnated or otherwise there's a need for wider input, simply adding a Template:Please see is all that it generally needed, but there are other ways to do so such as WP:DELSORT tags, etc. as explained in WP:APPNOTE. However, anything perceived as either directly or indirectly soliciting support for one side or another that is considered an attempt to try and swing things a particular way can result in a warning or even a block being issued by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete This is not an article about the city council, it's biographical blurbs of its former members, plus a few outdated news items. Richmond,_California#Government can certainly be expanded. If kept it would need a TNT to be about the council's structure, membership, and notable history, not a limited selection of supposed controversies and who the vice mayor dressed up as at a local festival.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Local councils are inherently notable. Rathfelder (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to provide any evidence for this utter falsehood? I only see 10 members of Category:California city councils, not 482 for every municipality there. Local government can be covered in a Government section of the city's article. Richmond is only the 61st-largest city in California and does not need a separate page for its council; if it does, inherent notability is not a valid reason why. Reywas92^Talk 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the Richmond article is too long and sophisticated to include the city council article on it. Just because other articles don't exists doesn't mean this article shouldn't. It's inherently notable because of all the sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle, East Bay Times, San Jose Mercury News, Richmond Confidential, The Berkeley Daily Planet, and other sources as seen in the article that cover the council in depth, as per the GNG which states, "addresses the topic directly and in detail" which many citations do, others provide some coverage and the GNG also states "but it does not need to be the main topic" which means they are still GNG criteria that are met.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rathfelder and WP:SOFIXIT. ミラ P 22:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, excessive biographical information regarding current or former council members who have their own Wikipedia articles should be removed from this article if it is kept as a result of this discussion.--TommyBoy (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree it needs a cleanup though and removal of said excessive biographical info. Casio5309 (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Casio5309 CU blocked[reply]

delete Really, this should be no more than a couple of paragraphs in Richmond, California— which it already is. There's no real need for articles on the councilmembers and then repeating material from them here; as a rule politicians at that level have been held not notable unless they achieved some level of notoriety which went beyond routine local media coverage, which BTW is exactly what the citations look like. I'm also concerned about what looks like a great deal of WP:OR in the portrayal here of the various members: I think you would be hard-pressed to find a genuinely secondary source which is making the kind of analysis which I see in this writing, which BTW is a potential problem in the politics section of the main article. It does not come across as a widely-accepted history of things, but as someone's synthesis of daily news articles from the SF and Berkeley papers. Mangoe (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep city of significant size, seems fair enough to have an article detailing how the municipal government works.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- NotButtigieg, what is the policy basis for your argument? The closing administrator will disregard WP:ILIKEIT arguments such as this. They also will disregard utterly felicitous arguments such as "city councils are inherently notable." John from Idegon (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. reliable sources are available WP:NEXIST We have room for the article WP:NOTPAPER Wm335td (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have articles for pretty well all the local councils in the UK, many with a population only a fraction of Richmond's. Elected local authorities are notable. They control significant resources. They generate significant coverage in independent sources. Richmond is bigger than many independent countries. The issue is the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What this says is that, as usual, UK subjects are not held to as high a standard as American subjects. If you are on a project to collect everything that has ever been written down, then sure, notability isn't ever going to be a problem, and that seems to be the trend of late, except for a distaste for repeating advertising. But really, the level of detail in these articles is uniformly excessive, and one's typical reason to read an encyclopedia— to get a brief overview of a subject— is now being consistently thwarted on the project by inclusion of too much detail and excessive repetition, which this article is in spades. The truth, apparently, is that Green candidates have been unusually successful in this town; but that's something that belongs in the main article in a paragraph or two, not a labored listing of every election result and the repetition of the biographies of a lot of figures which, at one point, we decided did not merit treatment here. I also note in closing that picking a random article on a UK district (Babergh) I'm not seeing a good reason to split out the council elections as a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing thousand year old political groups from Britain to similar groups considerably younger in the states isn't on point at all. It's not some qualitative thing about city councils that make British city councils notable. Our standards for inclusion are based on the volume and quality of things written about the subject. A thousand year old body is far more likely to qualify than a >200 year old body. John from Idegon (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously dont know much about local government in the UK if you think any of our organisations are a thousand years old. Hardly any go back before 1974. But that is not the point. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that an elected local government organisation is not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the problem Mangoe? Wikipedia is not PAPERNdołkah☆ (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia IS paper. The notion that electronic paper frees us from every limit that material paper lays upon us is simply untrue. If nothing else, these political body articles call for (and hardly ever get) a high degree of maintenance; they are routinely dated. Given that there are over three thousand counties alone in the US, the work needed to keep them current is extensive, and when one throws in the various municipalities of all sizes, it simply becomes too much to keep up with, and the utility of the information is dubious at best, especially considering how it is often incorrect anyway. I would also note, for John from Idegon's benefit, that the British district I happened to pick (and this was pure chance, as I assure everyone) only dates back to 1974. British local governmental structure, unlike in the US, is realigned and restructure apparently every several decades, and least in the last century or two. Writing about those structures, at a high level, is worthwhile; the level of detail represented in this article is not, and the fact that in a paper encyclopedia space constraints would force a more reasonable assessment is not a mark in our favor. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe clearly doesnt think much of the article, but has not demonstrated that the subject is not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia really isn't paper it's a policy which you have to follow here seeWP:PAPER and this discussion is only about the Richmond City Council not xy and z council and not about the finer points of UK municipal government either.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There isn't an actual "keep" opinion here, and what Pi314m writes makes little sense. Sandstein 21:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Sirkis

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

Article about a non-notable business man who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is some discussion in two different articles about Mr. Sirkis, and it might meet WP:GNG accordingly - though the article itself sounds like a clipped summary. Poorly built. I'm going weak, here, because I'm honestly not sure if this would meet GNG, though - and should note that my reasoning is not because it needs a cleanup. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author's question: does WP:GNG improve by having found (via the 4th from the right "WP Refs" item => Bloomberg News, and from there a bit more via google)

"He is now CEO of Stradis Inc. a developer of video compression technology." Pi314m (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Author's) Not an opinion: Notability. Got it (I hope)..

His self-developed marketing skills helped him sell the Hayes modem hardware, license the Hayes command set, and decades later, as CEO of Stradis, a company known for hardware that compresses and decompresses video, to promote their equipment to the broadcast industry, which is a major purchaser, using his background of having managed WREK broadcasting 1970/1971. He also took time during the mid/late 1980s from his career to, as a labor of love, not only fund but run and promote the offerings of a major regional theater.

If the above is supported by neutral, second party sources - much of which is within the article's cited sources (even if not in the article), I'd think the lowest score the article would get is draftify, having met notability. (obviously not a neutral opinion- I wrote the article; see Talk page as to why)

- First, I should note that the formatting makes your reply a little hard to read. Second, please make sure your posts to this are signed.

Now then. To answer, finding (and adding) material that meets the general notability guidelines does improve the article, but the material must still meet muster. I recommend checking out our reliable sources guidelines to this end. It's worth noting that a mention or so in an article does not mean that it makes the grade; a better article would have the person as the subject of such an article (such as the one where Mr. Sirkis is running a theater, which is linked). There's a lot to go through in a single AfD post, though, so you're best reading up on the WP:RS link I gave. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Author edit (in support of above item) - added
"Sirkis devoted four years (and money from his years at Hayes) to rennovating a "1940-vintage movie theater" dedicated to "the artier segment of the moviegoing audience in Atlanta." (with citation) Pi314m (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.. another citation: to article with his name in the title "Sirkis is having 'reel' fun running the Ellis Cinema" Pi314m (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chuckles Bites the Dust. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckles the Clown

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

Should wikipedia have a stand-alone article for this "often-mentioned but seldom-seen character" who is "best known for his off-camera death in the episode "Chuckles Bites the Dust"" (a notable episode)? At this point, the character isn't even mentioned in List of The Mary Tyler Moore Show characters, which makes me reluctant to WP:BOLDly merge him there or anywhere. The present refs, as well as the sources I found in my WP:BEFORE, are more about the death of the actor and the death episode, not the character itself. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Chuckles Bites the Dust". The episode was ranked #1 all-time in 1997 and #3 in 2009 by TV Guide, so I'd give the title character a little leeway, and redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chuckles Bites the Dust. There are two paragraphs with interesting information about Chuckles' appearances prior to the notable episode, so I copied those paragraphs to the "Chuckles Bites the Dust" page in a "Background" section. Toughpigs (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fine with that solution. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chuckles Bites the Dust per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Burgess (American football)

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, the only coverage on him specifically fails WP:YOUNGATH. SportingFlyer T·C 12:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Youth player of American football in the UK. My searches do not turn up significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for youth players of sports.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:YOUNGATH. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Unlike many other sports, there isn't an inclusionary standard for playing American football in international competition (rightfully so due to lack of popularity outside of North America). Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Reynolds

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON Joeykai (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was created in 2016 when Reynolds was a freshman at Texas A&M. He fizzled at Texas A&M, tallying a career total of one tackle assist. See here. Not finding significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no presumption of notability per NGRIDIRON and also fails WP:GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Byron P. Howlett

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for military personnel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Silver Star [74] doesn't satisfy SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:SOLDIER "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if.....Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign". The page Byron P. Howlett claims "he personally oversaw the extraction operation, including piloting the helicopter that finally extracted the men from the Dustoff 65 crew and the original wounded from the 101st Airborne Division." Next, take a look at the comments and reasons for keeping the page titled Dustoff 65. A 175-page book was written on the subject titled [Under Fire: The Story of DUST OFF in Vietnam] which claims "It is almost impossible to capture, in a single word, the enormous impact Dustoff had on the Vietnam War." For these reasons, the page should stay and be expanded with additional information. Boston1775 (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rescue of Dustoff 65 was not "a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign" which is why I also put it up for AFD. Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mid-ranking officer with a single third-level gallantry decoration. Not notable per WP:SOLDIER, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Responding to Mztourist -- Please see my updated comments on recommendation for deletion of Dustoff 65. Operation Dustoff was a major operation. Bryan P. Howlett played a significant role in that operation. Suggestion is for changing "Rescue of Dustoff 65" to "Operation Dustoff" and merging page of "Bryan P. Howlett" with the new page titled "Operation Dustoff". This should hopefully satisfy everyone and preserve significant and notable information regarding the Vietnam War. Boston1775 (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it wasn't a major operation. It was a very minor operation indeed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue of Dustoff 65

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

Don't see how this rescue of the crew of one helicopter in the Vietnam War meets WP:GNG, 5,607 helicopters were lost in the war, nothing about the loss of this crew or their rescue justifies its own page. This was a minor action during Operation Carentan and I've merged any relevant information into that page. Mztourist (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't merit its own article, and I doubt it even merits a mention in Operation Carentan. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article According to WP:GNG "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." According to the references listed on the page Rescue of Dustoff 65 a 175-page book was written on the subject titled "Rescue under fire: the story of DUST OFF in Vietnam". According to the Amazon page listing this book for sale [[75]] it states " It is almost impossible to capture, in a single word, the enormous impact Dustoff had on the Vietnam War. However, John Cook has done it in a most compelling, sensitive manner. Here, for the first time, is one of the most incredible stories produced by V" Conclusion: The fact that a 175-page book was written on the topic that claims this particular incident had an enormous impact on the Vietnam War not only indicates the article should be kept but in fact, it most likely requires expansion to illustrate these facts. Boston1775 (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You are misrepresenting "Rescue under fire: the story of DUST OFF in Vietnam", that book is about Army helicopter medical evacuation in the Vietnam War, not specifically about this event. Dustoff is significant, the Rescue of Dustoff 65 isn't. Mztourist (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes you are correct. There was no intention to misrepresent the book. However as far as I understand Operation Dustoff and Operation Carentan were not the same operation even if there was some overlap. My suggestion would be to change the title of "Rescue of Dustoff 65" to "Operation Dustoff" and then expand the article so it does not just focus on 1 helicopter. Boston1775 (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - You are missing some information here. "Dustoff" was not a single military operation (there was no "Operation Dustoff") , it is a US Army term that just means Medevac and we already have an article on that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dustoff might not have been the name of an actual singe operation but as you mentioned it refers to "Army Aeromedical Evacuation in Vietnam" and the United States Army's Center of Military History published a 148-page report which you can access here https://history.army.mil/html/books/090/90-28-1/CMH_Pub_90-28-1.pdf. I did a search and saw there is a Wikipedia article title Casualty evacuation which is a poor title since the lack of the word Vietnam or Dustoff in the title means the article could be about casualty evacuation from any era by any means. Regardless of the helicopter evacuation of the Vietnam War deserves its own article (and the title of such an article can be left for another debate). Also, two of the Dustoff pilots were recipients of the Medal of Honor which is not mentioned in the article titled "Casualty evacuation". Those pilots are Capt. Patrick H. Brady and CW3 Michael J. Novosel who are both mentioned in the Center of Military History report. I stand by my previous suggestion. Retitle the article "Rescue of Dustoff 65" to either "Operation Dustoff" or something like "Dustoff - Medical Evacuation in the Vietnam War" and expand on the material. Once that article is started then deleting the lesser events might seem reasonable.Boston1775 (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - There never has been anything called "Operation Dustoff", so re-titling this article to that is not an option. Also we don't rescue an article up for AfD by changing the title, the subject and all the content in it to something totally new. If you think that there should be a new article on Medevac operations during the Vietnam War, then that might be a good subject for a new article, but the creation of that new article has little bearing on whether this one should be retained or not. - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok sounds good. I've been on Wikipedia for a week so thanks for explaining the procedure. Now I agree with you that the page should be deleted and a separate recommendation should be made for a new page which I assume would go through a similar type of discussion??? Boston1775 (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - Actually anyone can start a new article, it doesn't need any discussion. As long as it meets WP:GNG, which that would do so, it should be kept. - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many hundreds of Dustoff events in Vietnam, I dont see this as being particualy notable in the big scheme of things. If a new Dustoff article was created about the role of Army medivac helicopter in Vietnam it would not really feature. MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chain Reaction 2008

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

It seems this ran one or two years...not sure if it meets the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 07:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Brown-era initiative that, despite having some prominent speakers, received zero sustained media coverage in reliable, independent sources. Looking at the (non-independent RS, single-source) brochure from the Council on Social Action it's not hard to understand why as it is far from clear what it was actually supposed to be about other than "social change". FOARP (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, zero secondary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no signs of lasting notability or even a high level of coverage at the time. Dunarc (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of elections in 1786

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

Previously prodded with rationale: "Only one article on page, and only one article on a 1786 election in Wikipedia, which is also the only article in all related categories (so I'm deleting those too.)" This still applies. While the article might be potentially useful in future if other elections are mentioned and LISTN is demonstrated, I can't see how it is useful in its current form. Perhaps could be merged into List of 1780s elections. b uidhe 06:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 06:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 06:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Hundreds of articles like this, it just looks incomplete in the template to have any of them not listed. Obviously the list is incomplete since other states surely had elections that year also. Nothing gained by deleting this. Dream Focus 14:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DreamFocus, because we have listing for every year, it would be odd to leave out 1786.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN informational and navigational purposes. Lightburst (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DINC, the list is easy to expand, and just because it hasn't been expanded yet, doesn't mean the solution is to delete. For example, there were over a dozen U.S. states that year that held elections for their state legislatures and state executives, as well as the Confederation Congress. Elections of all of those bodies could be fodder for future articles, and several of them likely had elections in 1786. While there may not yet be Wikipedia articles on them yet, that still isn't a reason to delete this list, which can easily be expanded in the future.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill of material based on characteristics

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

Subject doesn’t seem notable, lack of sources and poorly written. Friendly neighbourhood platypus (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What an utterly baffling production. Congratulations to the author for writing something that is completely without context for almost its entire length, and seems to have zero relation to its title. - Apart from that, this appears to be based on a single researcher's work, and is way too specific for an encyclopedic article, let alone one of this level of detail. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We have one "keep" which disagrees with the concept of notability, and must therefore be discounted, since notability as a standard for inclusion enjoys broad community-wide consensus. Apart from that, nobody is convinced that we have enough sources for an article. If more are found, the article can conceivably be recreated. Sandstein 08:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Bar

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

Cannot find significant coverage in any source. frwiki article, from which this appears to have been translated, is based on mariusbar-photo.com and ROUTINE bibliographical listings. b uidhe 05:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nice photographs, but we need more in the way of notability to keep this page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What do we gain by deleting this? Notability as a criterion makes sense in a world of dead tree storage of information, but not for Wikipedia. I fully support deleting material that is fraudulent or irreparably incorrect, but material that is correct should stay. No one is delighted to find articles about Paris on Wikipedia, but they are delighted to find articles, even if brief, on obscure topics. Furthermore, there is a coterie of WP editors who work on battleships and the like, and nine of his photos already appear (with attribution) in articles, some substantial, on the ships. Thus the article on the photographer creates a link or interconnection between these vessels. Lastly, to return to the issue of notability, sometimes notability resides in a collection of articles, not in each article taken in isolation. In a pointilist painting no one dot has any great significance, but together, the dots create a picture. Put another way: chop down enough trees and pretty soon you have a clear-cut hillside. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. As one of those battleship guys, Bar is a hugely important maritime photographer, but I question if the amount of coverage in secondary sources is adequate to meet our general notability standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the keep argument is not that the subject is notable but that we should scap notability guidelines. Those of us who have seen what Wikipedia becomes when we loosly apply notability guidelines will not go down that path.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am trying to find sources in French, from the period when he was active. I wonder if his photos are held in museums - and I note that some volumes of his photos were published, so there may be reviews of the books. I have found an article in Warship International that says "The name Marius Bar always has been a special one in the world of naval photography", and goes on to talk about a catalogue being published in 1986. I suspect that there is coverage, but it may not be easily findable online. I'll add what I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, I've found quite a bit in a 1996 issue of Neptunia, though it's only viewable as snippets [76] - what is visible includes the beginning of a description of his practice - "Marius Bar missed no ship launch, whether it was at the Mourillon arsenal or at Forges et chantiers de la Méditerranée [fr] ..." A book D-Day Ships describes him as "the well known naval photographer" [77]. Letters sent by a naval officer to his wife from 1912-1919, published in 2008, include instructions to go to "the famous Marius Bar", and that they would "go together to the illustrious photographer" when he was next in Toulon [78] - which indicates that he was well known as a photographer of people, as well as of ships. A book about Jean Aicard starts to describe Bar as a "Var pioneer of photography", but is again only a snippet view [79]. I'll keep looking - everything I've found indicates that he was notable, though I think access to French resources, perhaps offline, or searchable newspapers, might be necessary to find coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that stating that someone is well known is equivalent to significant coverage. If you can find enough coverage to make GNG, though, I may consider withdrawing the nomination. b uidhe 12:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that those descriptions suggest that coverage did exist. I have no access to offline French sources, nor, as far as I can tell, to searchable digitised French newspapers. I mentioned the possibility of book reviews and museum holdings as it is possible that we may find evidence that he meets a WP:SNG, even if we can't find evidence of meeting WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked Gallica?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Winters

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

I was unable to find evidence that this individual meets GNG or any SNGs as a Catholic priest and secondar school teacher. Article was created shortly after his death in November 2019, so NOTMEMORIAL also applies. b uidhe 05:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nom pretty much covers everything. Doesn't read like an obituary, but we're still not a memorial site. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had a look at some Dutch-language sources, only thing coming up is his obituary, no major coverage, so doesn't pass WP:GNG. Has been AfDed on both French and Dutch wiki. Achaea (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sympathetic to the idea that one might find overlooked notable topics in the obituaries and create articles based on that, but in this case there's no evidence of academic or other notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Mine Studios

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. It's just that most studios are not written about so while many albums were recorded there, the studio itself will likely only receive passing mention when an album is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in agreement with the nom. We don't seem to have enough in the way of notability for this to stay. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator and previous voter. The studio has been listed briefly in sources that discuss albums that were recorded there, but it has no reliable coverage as an entity in its own right, beyond basic industry listings and social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mastoureh Afshar

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

Only one source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Splinemath (talk • contribs) 05:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Farsi wikipedia article suggests that there are quite a lot of sources. Googling finds "one of the prominent women's rights activists, Mastoureh Afshar". PamD 10:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~- Only one English source. -Splinemath (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator doesn't get a second vote. And sources don't need to be in English. PamD 18:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per PamD, the subject's Persian page has multiple sources and seems significant, I feel the article is only in need of a good translation.Droodkin (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is enough secondary sources available in Persian for this article. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping. Feel free to discuss merge options on the talk page of the article. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Fruits (Southern Africa)

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

Does not meet source requirements with only one source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splinemath (talk • contribs) 04:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this one as we wait on more sources to materialize.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOURCESEXIST for why this is not a good idea. We'd be better off getting those sources rather than simply waiting. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Only one source. I suppose it's a bit difficult to chronicle these traditions all considered, but if we don't have sources we had best not keep this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nguni people per WP:PAGEDECIDE. First, let's remember that "the absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." Second, here are some academic sources: [80] [81] [82] [83]. It's a notable subject. That said, even though the specific practice is notable on its own, WP:PAGEDECIDE suggests that if our readers will benefit from seeing the information in the broader context of a larger article, then we should put the information in the larger article rather than having a separate standalone article. In this case, readers would benefit from seeing why this particular practice is significant within the broader context of Nguni people. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nguni people; the text is fine, but there's not enough here for a stand-alone article. Preserve the text, but there doesn't need to be a stand-alone article with only this much detail. --Jayron 32 16:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Indignant Flamingo except for merging. The article passes our notability test and has multiple independent reliable sources substantiating that notability. That is the test, and as such, the article deserves a stand alone just like any other article. Can it be improved? Absolutely! Can more RS be added? Absolutely! However, content issues are not ground for deletion. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Senegambianamestudy: A merge vote is a keep, not a delete, as the content is kept and the title is redirected to the new article. Nothing prevents improvement and expansion of the "First Fruits" section within the Nguni people article after merging, and if the material grew to require its own article based on size or disproportionate treatment, it could be spun back out. There's no good reason to force our readers to go between multiple articles to figure out context and significance, when one well-crafted article would do. As WP:PAGEDECIDE makes clear, having or not having a standalone article is a matter of serving the readers, not of the importance or notability of the subject. Most of us agree that the content is important. A standalone article is not a trophy that a subject "deserves", but one possible way to present information to readers, and in this case, not the best way. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this discussion? The results are very obviously keep and merge.-Splinemath (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Ministers of Religious Affairs (Indonesia). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deputy Ministers of Religious Affairs (Indonesia)

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

The position is not notable enough for a list to be encyclopedic DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I guess you're not an Indonesian. You may see in the newest social studies books of Indonesia, the position is now included in the books.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete assistant secretaries are not notable as a group, although some individual assistant secretaries might be notable.NotButtigieg (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Merge into List of Ministers of Religious Affairs (Indonesia). Israeli lists have both ministers and deputy ministers which seems to work well. b uidhe 08:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fair to include the second-in-command with the main cabinet member article to preserve information about the position. Reywas92^Talk 20:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. To be clear, in the Canadian context that I'm knowledgeable about, a "Minister" is a political officeholder who automatically passes NPOL by virtue of being a Member of Parliament, while a "Deputy Minister" is a civil servant who does not automatically pass NPOL and doesn't get a Wikipedia article at all if he or she can't clear GNG on the sourcing. I can't speak with any certainty to how the Indonesian political system works — but Nasaruddin Umar, the one holder of this title who does have a Wikipedia article, is not described by his article as having ever been a member of the People's Consultative Assembly, so I suspect that the titles work the same way in Indonesia. (And if he has been a member of the assembly, then his article needs to be updated to actually reflect that.) Accordingly, it would be perfectly reasonable to have a list of the deputy ministers as a subsection of the list of minister ministers, but a separate standalone list is not warranted. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, per general speedy deletion criterion #4, recreation of an article deleted by discussion that was substantially identical to the previous version. Wily D 06:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ashraf (chess player)

AfDs for this article:

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

does not meet standards for notability of chess players - and the article seems highly promotional, to the extent I wonder about paid editing. This does not seem likely to be a contributor's first article. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I'm going to hedge a bet on a CSD G4 for this one as this was deleted in a prior AfD. I do not know if this is a duplicate recreation but it's pretty close to November's AFD at this point. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Journal of Contemporary History contributors

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

totally non - encyclopedic, for this of any other journal

WP is not a periodical index. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – doesn't this list meet the List Purpose > Navigation criterion? Sunwin1960 (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As DGG says, absolutely non-encyclopedical. Almost every academic who publishes will publish in multiple outlets, so the fact that they publish in this journal, too, is basically near-trivial. Also, there is not a single independent source discussing the concept of "Journal of Contemporary History contributors". Note that the article creator, Sunwin1960, has also created a bunch of categories for "Journal of Foo people", all of which should be taken to CfD by somebody with time at their hands to clean up this mess. --Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. We don't do this for any journal articles, and splitting it into its own list makes ever less sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I am closing this delete discussion as keep. The concerns of the nominator has been met by User:RebeccaGreen who provided adequate sources, even though some which are passing mentions. But most importantly, there is consensus to close this as keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Perkins

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

No new third-party source found and the article only list one source. Thus fails WP:NACTOR and the much lower WP:GNG. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Power Rangers Lost Galaxy. She had a lead in two shows but they're the same character. ミラ P 05:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Miraclepine, how about In Space? She's a major baddie there too. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 05:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: She was a Ranger in LG so no doubt more prominent there. ミラ P 05:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Article needs some sources, however. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an actress on a major television show, she seems notable enough to warrant an article to me. But as Dflaw4 said, the article could use some sources and citations... — Hunter Kahn 17:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter Kahn, well she doesn't have enough sources. Thus she fails WP:GNG. I think the article should be deleted, merged, or redirected. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't sources in the article as it stands right now but that doesn't mean they don't exost. At a cursory glance it appears there are sources out there that could be added to the article to expand and improve it... — Hunter Kahn 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Hunter Kahn, well we can't keep an article indefinitely on the premise that there is a source out there somewhere. We can always draftify or redirect, both keep the history. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if the sources mentioned can be found
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as she meets criteria 1 for WP:NACTOR - two roles in two different Power Rangers series, I think, counts as "multiple". But I'm going with weak because she only meets criteria 1, and NACTOR is not clear as to whether one must meet all three criteria or just one criterion. To the end of user:Hunter Kahn's statement that the sources can exist, that's kind of hedging on the argument that there are sources somewhere - we need those sources to come up, so to that end whether I change my mind is contingent on those sources being provided. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dennisthe2, well without the source, WP:NACTOR will fail. WP:GNG is the minimum criteria that all articles must pass, I believe. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that WP:NACTOR is ambiguous as to how many criteria must be met, therefore I would argue that only one must be met. (I have already voted with a Weak Keep). Dflaw4 (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dflaw4, I've always thought GNG is the lowest criteria that all articles must meet. So without notable sources, an article is toast. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't necessarily think the article should go simply because of lack of sources. That being said, I think the article can be worked on for that purpose. With a few more sources, I think the article would comfortably meet WP:GNG standards. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dflaw4, I mean a suitable notable source found. I did some Googling but none could be found. Some of the sources might be on physical prints though as she was more active before the time of Internet prevalence. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be the case. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR Notable parts in notable film. Lightburst (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, and what about the sources? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dúnhere

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

PROD contested by User:DGG, stating that the character was significant and that it was possible sources could be found. Going through five pages of Google results locates nothing reliable about this figure. Google scholar turns up a reference in the "Artist's comments" referencing that Dunhere is pictured in a work used by Mythlore, a source that appears to be in Ukrainian titled "Відтворення авторської лексики штучних мов Дж. РР Толкіна в українських перекладах" that appears to reference Dunhere (I can't evaluate this source because I don't read Ukrainian), a source titled "Spell Checking the Lord of the Rings" that appears to be merely a list of names, a couple references to an unrelated Dunhere who is a character in the ancient poem The Battle of Maldon, and several uses of "dun" and "here" as separate words. Unless that Ukrainian source is incredible, I don't think this article can pass WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just to be clear, there are primary sources to support the content of the article: it is easy to find Dúnhere and his deeds in the texts of The Return of the King and I presume in Unfinished Tales. However, as the nominator's thorough WP:BEFORE check indicates, there is a dearth of coverage in secondary sources. Thus we cannot support the topic's notability. Note that as an alternative to deletion, we could redirect to List of Middle-earth characters. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I'm working on the same premise as I did with a previous AfD for Dior Eluchíl. there isn't much material to work with outside of primary sources, and it's best left in a wiki that focuses on Middle Earth. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a very minor character.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. God knows how many times I've read LOTR, and I drew a complete blank on this character - that's how obscure he is - so I think we're done here. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources cover Dunhere in detail.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dúnhere is less notable than Eldarion is. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 03:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michigan Wolverines football series

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

This page fails WP:NOTSTATS. A simple list of game results is nothing more than an ~~indiscriminate~~ large collection of information. Some of the tables of results are duplicate information directly copied from Michigan rivalry pages (e.g. Ohio State and Michigan State), and other, less played series fail WP:NRIVALRY. Frank Anchor^Talk 01:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor^Talk 01:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor^Talk 01:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor^Talk 01:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the nomination statement, this is literally the exact opposite of 'indiscriminate' as the article almost exclusively focuses on Michigan's various series with Big Ten opponents (plus Notre Dame, which is an independently noteworthy series). I'm not convinced that this is an appropriate content fork, but I'm not seeing anything at NOTSTATS that would support deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I do agree this isn't indiscriminate, I do think this is WP:NOTSTATS - just a list of tables of rivalry games, presented out of context. All of the data on the page is a content fork from other notable articles and is needlessly duplicative. SportingFlyer T·C 03:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is very interesting information and I'm proud of the enthusiastic editor or editors that put it together. I think it is well-suited for another encyclopedia and I suggest to try another wiki. I can't point to a policy necessarily, but it just seems that it doesn't quite belong.--16:38, 2 January 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.

The result was keep. User:Dennisthe2 asked for reliable sources and was provided by User:Vejvančický who is familiar with the region and also a long standing editor. Taking aside User:Dennisthe2 Delete vote, there's consensus to keep and thereby I'm closing it, since it does not need another relist. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edvard Schiffauer

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Not credible claim of notability and lack of significant coverage. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 01:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am still working on improving this article but I am not sure how to bring it to a level that it will not be deleted. This composer has large number of musical works many of which have links to websites in Czech language. Can you please help me as to how to improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmedraj (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of the lack of coverage at this point; sources seem to not meet WP:RS. I'll address the author's query on their talk page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I personally consider people listed in this database (Memory of Nations) as notable, but that's just my opinion. Similarly this reliable website mentions him as a composer and political prisoner. He has also an entry at the Czech Music Information Center website, which I think is always a very good proof of notability. Furthermore, there are substantial articles in independent local newspapers [84], [85] and in radio [86]. Of course, he is not Antonín Dvořák, but in my poinion he meets our notability requirements. There is a possibility to create a decent article based of good sources. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above including newspapers and radio that show he passes WP:GNG and that there is no need for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 7th Arkansas Infantry Regiment. RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7th Arkansas Infantry

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

This page is a duplicate of the more detailed and better cited page 7th Arkansas Infantry Regiment NathorTheWise (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a duplicate page and then make a dab page, as both 7th Arkansas Infantry Regiment and 7th Arkansas Infantry Battalion are pages. Hog Farm (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per user:Hog Farm. Spot on, that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the regiment, with a hatnote there to the battalion per WP:ONEOTHER. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Clarityfiend. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Cloud Guru

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

Insufficient evidence of notability . The item in the Sydney Morning Hrald isa promotional article where the founders talk about their own project, and therefore is not independent by the standards of WP:NCOPR. The article in the Austin Statesman is a notice of funding + a quote from the founder and thus is not reliable for RS. The article in the Australian ,which I cannot access, also seems from the visible information to be either a statement by the founder or based on a statement by the founder. checking Google News and even Google I find more of the same:announcement of finance, and promotional interviews or reprints of what seem to be identical promotional interviews. Theeare discussions on reddit and quora. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started this article thinking that the merger with Linux Academy would make it notable. Their co-founder also won the Entrepreneur of the Year award from Ernst and Young Zr2d2 (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis of current coverage. It's a bit promotional, but it more talks about them than promotes I think. Can't seem to access the other articles owing to what appears to be a paywall, so if we can get some better coverage that'll strengthen it up I think. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP, The language of the article seems promotional.DMySon (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't work for, or subscribe to A Cloud Guru, so it certainly isn't meant to be promotional, if you have a NPOV way of stating things I would be open to it Zr2d2 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Essentially, the arguments to delete are the strongest and backed up closest to policy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Mysterious Mr. Epstein

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

There does not seem to be any indication that this podcast has anything beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Most of what I found seemed rather surface level and not particularly in depth. Therefore, it probably should be deleted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this podcast. At best, it is too soon to have an article on this subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only trivial coverage exists. No real RSs. I have also listened to some of the podcast. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON. but it is WP:NOT for now Lightburst (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination Kitaab Ka Kida (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - or alternatively, redirect to Wondery. The redirect is such an obvious WP:ATD that in my opinion it should have been considered before even nominating this. However, in fact I would make a cautious argument to keep on the basis of the changes I have made. Specifically: the #1 Apple Podcast chart position, reliably sourced to Forbes, and the following (admittedly quite brief) reviews: [87], [88], [89]. Hug^syrup 11:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Hugsyrup. Recently added sources are good enough for the article to be kept. _SUPER ^ASTIG 10:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Forbes article found by Hugsyrup is a passing mention. The other three offerings are bloggish mentons. We have no non-trivial coverage of this podcast in WP:RS. Lightburst (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Hugsyrup. Appears to barely meet GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Lindsay Graham (podcast host), and probably merge in American History Tellers, and expand into an article on the person behind both works. BD2412 T 05:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Purely by added sources which are ok and leads towards WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources BabaQ refers to consist of passing mentions, lacking substantial, in-depth, third party sustained coverage, and in no way confer or attest to the topic's notability...let alone "leads towards" it. ——SN 54129 10:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the criticisms you can make of the sources I added (and they are certainly not perfect...) I’m not sure that ‘passing mentions’ is really accurate. One of them is a dedicated review article, and another is a substantial paragraph within a roundup of reviews. The Forbes one is a passing mention but the sole reason for adding that is because it establishes the number 1 chart position which, were this an album or book, would potentially be enough to pass an SNG. I’m honestly not overly wedded to this being a ‘keep’ but just want to make sure the sources are given a fair hearing! Hug^syrup 10:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t mind the ”criticism” Hugsyrup. POV never trumps the guidelines and a closing admins eye.BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's enough to err on the side of keeping, especially considering there's time yet for more. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.GhotuoIncubator (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this passes WP:GNG, and I have some WP:PROMO concerns as well. SportingFlyer T·C 02:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TelemediaUkraine

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I am closing this delete discussion as no consensus because after two relists, consensus wasn't reached. If some editors feel that the article is some sort of WP:PROMO, they should take it up at WP:COIN. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 00:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Škoda 33Tr SOR

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

Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be a variant of another bus model, but the other bus model doesn't even have a page. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective referencing. Seems to be a couple of paid editors pushing Skoda bus articles on Wikipedia. @CaptainEek: Can we please add this: Škoda 32Tr SOR. Thanks.scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add this: Škoda 31Tr SOR and this Škoda 30Tr SOR and Škoda 14Tr and Škoda 15Tr. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 11:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, Please do. Makes sense to take care of em all at once. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find this a confusing AFD. First it was about this new article that has just two refs. Then there is a comment requesting that four more bus articles be added, all with varying age (one going back to 2012) and referencing. I see no justification at all for treating all five in one AFD. Furthermore, I would never see Delete for any of them; if they could not be justified as independent articles then there should at least be Merge/Redirect to Škoda Transportation or List of Škoda Transportation products but never outright delete. There is also a comment about paid editing. That may be true, but again it doesn't apply to all five. the 14Tr and 15Tr are out of production so I don't see any possible promotional issue there. The newer articles seem to be neutrally written. If there is a concern about promotional editing, then that is a matter for WP:COIN, not AFD. MB 03:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Romoser

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Only other claim to notability is that he wrote a paper claiming that there are insects on Mars, but that seems to fail WP:BLP1E. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - little evidence on hand to shore this one up as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my "delete" based on discussion below - the article was obviously created because of recent notoriety over the bug silliness, but he sounds like his texts may have been noteworthy enough to pass - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ The book has about 350 citations, and he has two articles with over 100 citations. That looks a bit marginal, but between that and the media attention from the insects-on-mars affair, there might well be enough notability for a keep vote. My weak delete is per WP:BIODEL, where I'm interpreting the fact that he's set his webpage to private and stopped taking interview requests to mean that he'd likely also prefer not to have a Wikipedia page discussing his insects-on-mars poster. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As further evidence of a preference for privacy (whether on the subject or his institution's part) when I search for this incident I get stories about the university retracting the press release [90]. I think this and the citation record for his other work is borderline enough that we should respect those wishes, however much fun insects on Mars might have been. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per the two previous comments. --Tataral (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. wrier of three major textbooks in his field. This qualifies by WP:PROF,. I se no reason why his other activities whould invalidate that. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If those are actually important texts in the field, that might sway me - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - David Gerard, The Science of Entomology has 350+ citations according to GS. I think that's enough to indicate notability. I didn't see anything for the other two texts. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC Csgir (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPROF#4 Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm looking to build a consensus: The arguments for deletion (like my own) are that he's marginally notable, and may prefer not to have a Wikipedia article at this time. The argument for keep is that he's notable, perhaps marginally. Notability in both cases is mostly due to his textbook, supported by his articles and book chapters. Since we don't actually have a preference from the subject, perhaps we should agree to keep, but speedily delete upon request from the subject? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in the absence of request from the subject. I'm still concerned about the privacy issues, but also have come to think that we should not try to guess the subject's preference. If he does request deletion as per WP:BIODEL, then the case for such deletion seems straightforward. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Litvak-1] Litvak, Meir (2009). "Constructing a national past: the Palestinian case". In Litvak, Meir (ed.). Palestinian Collective Memory and National Identity. Springer. pp. 118–119. ISBN 978-0-230-62163-3.

[2] Stalder, Will (2015). Palestinian Christians and the Old Testament: History, Hermeneutics, and Ideology. Augsburg Fortress. pp. 235–237. ISBN 978-1-4514-8214-0. Based on a 2012 PhD dissertation at the University of Aberdeen.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)

[3] Fishman-Duker, Rivkah (2009). "Nazis for Jesus/Jesus for Nazis". Jewish Political Studies Review. 21 (3/4): 208. ISSN 0792-335X.

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak P Shukla}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam S. Radomsky}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Brierley (2nd nomination)}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Brierley (2nd nomination)}} -->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big World of Little Adam}} -->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Maynard-Brewer (2nd nomination)}} -->