Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 August	20 August >

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. Tone 14:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Fries

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

Not notable BodaciousTattvas (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subject that fails WP:GNG. No reliable third-party sources are given. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough sources and not notable Alex-h (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources of either Fries or his books, so appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. --Michig (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Chibiko Offorma

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, " avoid any possible systematic bias for any of the 3 possible factors (Africa, woman, education studies) or the intersection of all 3, should be a decision at afd." Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and her position and citations don't appear to show she passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS and searching turns up little. GS does not show strong citation record for someone claimed to have "over 100 publications, including textbooks, articles". Agricola44 (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:Prof. She has published stuff but not enough notice of it has been taken yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
weak Keep if article is improved. Offorma has an h-index of 8, she was the former President of The World Council on Curriculum and Instruction (WCCI)[1] Since 2016, a fellow at The Nigerian Academy of Education.[2] Three editor-in-chief and three other editor positions on journals and Dean of the Faculty of Education (2008 -2010).[3] University faculty pages are not generally a WP:RS, but we could probably do some digging to find them. Given these, I think she qualifies for requirements 1,3,6,8 as per WP:PROF.Fred (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep partly based on what Frederika Eilers has found, partly on the fact I see her name in a lot of Google book hits with no preview so I can’t be sure notability isn’t established. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving it some more time to find further sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The membership in the Nigerian Academy of Education appears to be enough for WP:PROF#C3. The academy doesn't have an article here but it appears to be well-established and respected. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the evidence that it is "well established and respected"? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I am not sure the journals for which she is/has been editor-in-chief are "major" enough to qualify for WP:PROF#C8, but she passes WP:PROF#C3 as argued above. Her field is one in which I would expect Google Scholar counts to be mostly uninformative. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Frederika Eilers and XOR'easter. As a project, we are still in the early stages of filling in gaps on African topics, so it is not surprising that we don't have an article about the academy or the journals, and that shouldn't be held against the article subject. Risker (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ahmed Khaled Tawfik. Tone 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safari (novel)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ahmed Khaled Tawfik - extensive series of books, but no citations to show that it is a notable series - does not meet any of the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT - Epinoia (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Euphiction

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

Non-notable orphaned article full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism - no sources cited so delete per WP:NEO - Epinoia (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that despite this team's league being a professional league, there's still insufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wakunaga Leolic

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTEAM Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Japan Handball League is a professional league. At the JHL article was written that it is an non-professional league, but this was wrong. I corrected it and add a source. So all teams of the JHL are important. -Malo95 (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only (even possibly) reliable, independent source I could find is book. I am not sure if it is significant since I can't actually get access to it. There might be more sources in Japanese, but I can't read Japanese. Everything else looks like confirmation that the club exists without actually giving it any treatment. Rockphed (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same here as with Rockphed in my searches, and I also can't access that book so I can't verify whether it's a WP:SIGCOV or just a listing. WP:NTEAM is a part of WP:NATH which requires WP:GNG to be met (significant coverage in multiple reliable sources). Since WP:GNG isn't met, delete. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Place Waikiki Beach

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

Non-notable hotel that fails WP:GNG Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some mundane local coverage concerning its conversion to Hyatt branding from its former name "Ocean Resort Hotel Waikiki", but nothing significant. Unremarkable building that is not in any way a local landmark.----Pontificalibus 14:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Mcampany (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. R3lo sd (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Additional arguments still made in favor of keep. Tone 17:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Scott (athlete)

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

Fails WP:NATH Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not pass WP:NATH requirements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails both WP:NATH and WP:GNG, nothing in the article indicates notability. JTtheOG (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've updated the article. Represented his country at the highest senior level of the sport in the Americas and is a multiple national finalist. SFB 22:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Initially closed as keep after improvements were made but then asked to relist to get more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 13:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question I note that this athlete (or non-athlete) has an international authority record. Shouldn't that be enough to substantiate keeping a Wikipedia page? If so, then I'd favour keeping. If not, how, in a nutshell, is athlete/non-athlete status determined? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NATH (point 2) with a top-eight finish at the Pan-Am Games. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no other contributors (non-admin closure) Hug^syrup 12:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burak Dakak

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

Almost completely unsourced BLP article. One source was added after its initial BLPPROD, but this is far too short for it to be a plausible source for most of the content. A quick Google translate of that source confirms his existence, that he's an actor, date of birth, and lists his films to 2018, but not his brother, pet dog, and all the rest of this detailed content etc. PamD 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PamD 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. PamD 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: will just remove the unsourced content and see how it goes. Sorry about that. PamD 09:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terhi Holster

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

I am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I want the article to be deleted. Toivohopehaap (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Toivohopehaap: Greetings. First of all we do not know if you are the subject as you claimed. Secondaly, even you are the subject, it is not up to the subject to state it their are notable or not but is determined by the Wikipedia notability guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is WP:BIODEL, but verification of the user as the subject is another another thing. --Pudeo (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The search links above do not return many results for the purposes of WP:GNG, although the article mentions achievements from the mid-1990s, which might only have been reported on in print. We don't have a specific guideline for ski-orienteerers, but there is Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Orienteering. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I'll assume good faith on the identify of the requester. We shouldn't force someone to have an article about them when the person is not a public person or someone in an important position (such as politicians). Privacy matters and in many countries it matters more than in the US or UK. -kyykaarme (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need to respect people's pricacy unless they are well known and often covered, which this person clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shefali Rana

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

An Indian actress. Notability is at best dubious. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails: WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolta99 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete seems to fail WP:NACTOR based on online coverage in English, with only a few minor roles in notable TV and film. There's a three-paragraph quickie about her in the Times of India, but that reads like a PR piece fed to the paper from the TV network. The rest is passing mentions in blogs. I'd be willing to change to "keep" if someone who can read Hindi finds substantial coverage in reliable Hindi sources (not just telly blogs). Tracy Von Doom (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails: WP:GNG Hughesdarren (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RHaworth, Hughesdarren, and CAPTAIN RAJU: there are now two articles cited from national newspapers. Your thoughts? Tracy Von Doom (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Three now. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in the Times of India and Bombay Times that have been added since the original nomination are good enough to justify keeping the article. Rana appears to be a reasonably notable actress who meets the requirements of WP:NACTOR and particularly WP:GNG. Railfan23 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article wouldn't suffer from a cleanup, it passes WP:GNG, and just seems to scrape by on WP:NACTOR. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Placebo. Clear consensus that this topic is already covered by placebo, as nobody has made an argument as to why it would require a separate article. Going by redirect rather than delete or merge because some valid points about preserving the content in some form have been made, but also concerns that this is a WP:POVFORK and the content may thus not be suitable for wholesale copying/merging. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Placebo studies

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

WP:POVFORK of placebo written from the point of view that the placebo effect is a thing, when the main article establishes the opposite. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Placebo is a big topic as there are numerous books about it. It's not difficult to find sources which focus upon studies such as Experimental Placebo Studies or Setting the Agenda for Placebo Studies. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothign to emrge, this is already in placebo, it's just that one editor doesn't like the way it's presented. Classic POVFORK, in fact. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. For example, the page in question gives details of the early work of Louis Lasagna – a respectable physician at Yale and this information does not appear in the other page. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/delete – Nothing in this article is specific to "placebo studies" over "placebo effect" except for the first sentence. I'm seeing no evidence that this Kaptchuk (who by the way owns "an herbal and acupuncture clinic") was a pioneer of the study of the placebo effect, their program wasn't founded until 2011. A few of the recent meta-studies could be merged into the main article. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kaptchuk has spent decades trying to establish that the placebo effect is a thing, becuse he admits that acupuncture is a placebo, and he's an acupuncturist. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the field of research on placebos... --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For a discussion about the POV that this article is supposedly a fork from, see Talk:Placebo#Real_or_not. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not an actual POVFORK, as it was created in 2012. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Delete. Anything salvagable would make more sense in Placebo per WP:NOPAGE. Alexbrn (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Amberdeep Singh. czar 13:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi (Punjabi film)

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

There're no authentic reference or news. Sajid 06:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sajid 06:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The page was moved from Jodi (upcoming film) to Jodi (Punjabi film) after this was opened. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amberdeep Singh the director. Too soon for a dedicated article, but the history might be useful if the film does become notable. Wug·a·po·des 23:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Henry Hall

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

Mayor of a small city without further assertion of notability, does not appear to pass WP:NPOL Reywas92^Talk 07:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taunton MA is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors — but the sources here are a genealogical register and a biographical sketch in a local history book, which is not enough referencing to get a mayor over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage. To deem a smalltown mayor notable enough for Wikipedia, we need considerably more than just one or two pieces of technical verification that he existed — the notability test for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article about his political career, not the ability to locate the names of his wife and kids. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even today, Taunton is a medium-sized city; back in his term in the mid-19th Century it was small. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayor of a place that is not significant enough to make its mayor notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 13:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hannelore Knuts

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

Not enough reliable sources to establish notability by the standards. Purely appearances. Trillfendi (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added to the article quite a few RS that describe her as a top model of the late nineties, and she has also some interesting work collaborating with artists. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HouseOfChange has improved the article significantly. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely per HouseOfChange and their edits to the article, adding sufficient RSs to establish base notability. Hug^syrup 12:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HOC's changes ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Cycle Workshop

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

Prodded by Premeditated Chaos with explanation "I'm not finding any indication of notability outside the Oxford area. The sources cited in the article are either not independent (the OCW's website or blog), or are entirely Oxford-based. On a search, I only found Oxford sources, which per WP:AUD is insufficient. The one national-level source I found mentioning OCW is this Telegraph article, which is about another organization entirely. There's just not enough here to substantiate a whole standalone article." Removed without explanation. Reywas92^Talk 06:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's now a successor organisation, Broken Spoke, which has attracted national coverage. The worst case would be merger under a broader title such as Bicycle cooperative or Cycling in Oxford per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable even if it does still exist, it's nothing but a local store that sells and educates about bikes like the thousands of such around the world; Bicycle cooperative mentions 300+ in one group in the US. One of a series of lifestyle pieces about a traffic education project, a pig-growing collective, and a clothing exchange does not confer notability, and our policies do not grant indefinite inclusion of WP:EVERYTHING that anyone (like the WP:SPA that wrote this) wants to promote about their organization. Nothing more than a sentence would belong in either of those articles but that's welcome. Reywas92^Talk 17:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original PROD rationale, but in the interest of fairness I should point out that there actually was a comment by AlexAndrews on the article's talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original PROD by PMC. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barnard (executioner)

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

Of the existing sources, only one short article focuses on him, so WP:GNG isn't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whilst the existence of a famous South African surgeon by the same name complicates things, I was unable to find any further supporting references in my WP:BEFORE and so, unless other references can be found, this fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not nearly adequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability cannot be judged simply by looking at the sources cited in an article, which two of the three delete arguments here are based on. There are several sources that discuss the subject to some extent that are not currently cited in the article: [4], [5], [6], [7], "Final 52 Steps to Ending a Life", Pretoria News (accessible via PressReader - states Barnard was the longest-serving executioner, executed more than 1,500 people, and offered his services to neighbouring countries). Maybe not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, but if we had a guideline for notability of (legalized) killers, a tally of 1,500 would probably be seen as significant enough. --Michig (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the unorthodox nomination, there's strong consensus here that the sources are of insufficient quality and quantity to support an article. All of the keep arguments are essentially, "the nomination is bogus". While that justifies a WP:TROUT for User:Dharmadhyaksha, it's clear that people were willing to look past that. The arguments to delete are mostly detailed analysis of the sources which show why they are lacking.

If anybody wants to create a redirect, they're free to do so on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kumkum Bhagya - Sawan Mahotsav

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

The real ~~WP:Bullshit~~ bullshit! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sources already cited, you are going to have to do better in your rationale than a mere slang assertion that this is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rectified the rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you really have not. You need something that is supported by Wikipedia:deletion policy, which that is not, at all. Uncle G (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who knows the topic will understand that the article is really bullshit and thus understand the rationale as well. Am thinking you have no experience of Indian TV show related articles. So if you would just wait and allow others to chip in.... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to provide a rationale that makes sense to editors that don't understand the subject. SpinningSpark 14:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per refusal of the nominator to explain their nomination, or provide a policy-based rationale, after repeated requests to do so. SpinningSpark 14:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 1. " The nominator ... fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection". An article that has a reference from The Times of India is clearly not WP:COBBLERS or any other form of Nonsense, so no policy-based argument for deletion has been advanced. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Only two sources are reliable; the ToI and DNA source. The ToI source however is just a photo gallery leaving the DNA source the only one. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, nominator fails to give argument but that doesn't mean this page is good. Fails WP:GNG and page is obviously bullshit. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha:Can u give me a sensible reason for nominating this page for deletion, and why did u call it BullshitPallaviharsh (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT Nomination does not follow procedure. Nomination is insufficient and not based on WP:POLICY Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I disagree with the nominator's rationale, the article does lack reliable sources - if we discount the two YouTube links (WP:NOYT), all the other refs are press-release style mentions announcing the series as upcoming, even The Times of India refers to "The upcoming episode" - there is nothing to show that the series is notable or has "received significant coverage in reliable sources" as per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, we have a nomination with no valid reason for deletion, some reasonable keep arguments based on the nomination, and a couple of subsequent assertions that the subject fails WP:GNG, with no real evidence of having searched for sources (just looking at the sourcing in the article is not sufficient to decide that no sources exist), but sufficient to prevent a speedy keep closure. We really need some better contributions here - please state why you believe the subject is notable/not notable, and how you have arrived at that conclusion, ideally with reference to policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete While I condemn the method of nomination, I would like to evoke "wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"; having said that, I would recommend taking a look at the subject's notability rather than discussing the nomination.
I didnt know about the show. When I read the article, I thought it was some sort of reality show, covering the cast of the original show. An internet search revealed it is a crossover. The subject didnt receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the coverage is from telly-sites. They try cover to cover everything and anything related to television. To establish notability, WP:PERSISTENCE is also required; the subject fails this as well. The ToI source being discussed, was published before the show was released. I couldnt find any RS covering the show after it was released. It didn't receive reviews from well-known critics, nor any awards. Basically it is just another show. Overall, the subject doesnt pass WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ Fails per WP:GNG. First two sources are just promos of show, IWMBuzz is discussed here and the other sources are either photo galleries or "in universe" gossip articles which are not at all helpful in establishing notability. Sid95Q (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with Miching, Redirect it to the the section Kumkum Bhagya#Television special as the topic is not notable enough for a page of it's own. --Sid95Q (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about other sources that may exist but which are not currently cited in the article - where did you look and what did you find? --Michig (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources which are available elsewhere are Another slideshow from Tellychakkar which is not considered reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES and Bollywoodlife which has been discussed here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_6#Bollywood_Life. --Sid95Q (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that this appears to be a special edition of Kumkum Bhagya, would it not make sense to merge or redirect there (where it is already mentioned)? --Michig (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't have enough coverage in RS for a redirect either. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it need a certain amount of coverage in reliable sources just to be redirected to the article on the series? --Michig (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: otherwise anything/anyone that has a very little coverage in RS, or a good coverage in non-RS would get a redirect to something? eg: non notable actor getting a redirect to the film with most screen-time. This might later result in "verifiable existence = redirect". —usernamekiran(talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, /no/ RS are needed for a redirect. Redirects are cheap and are just search aids - see WP:RPURPOSE - and if they are useful for the reader, primarily that they are mentioned in the target, then there should be no objection to their creation. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kumkum Bhagya#Television special. I don't see this series as being encyclopaedic enough for its own page but it is plainly a useful search term ("redirects are cheap") and the target can be expanded somewhat if reliable sources are found. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Mysterious

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

Sourcing is a long ways away from meeting WP:GNG. Despite having been aired in several different regions, the only available sources are entries on affiliated websites, TV databases, and press releases. I couldn't find anything in several different internet searches, although it was admittedly complicated by a lot of false positives from news reports that include the phrase "breaking mysterious". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a History Channel series that has been broadcast in the United States and in many countries around the world. It deals with important, non-fiction subject matter, such as NSA mass surveillance programs (interview with former NSA employee Thomas A. Drake), CIA mind control experiments (MKULTRA), the JFK assassination (interview with former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, who protected JFK), etc. There is surprisingly little information on this series available beside this Wikipedia article, so it would be a shame to delete it. I have not been able to find any news articles or reviews of this series, but it is not a major network program aimed at a mass audience. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It apparently premiered in 2017 on H2 in the United States...which is impossible since H2 has been Viceland since early 2016. Another paint-by-numbers history series that exists to merely fill a timeslot, and not much more. Nate • (chatter) 07:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does Wikipedia really want to be an encyclopedia that has an article about Dads (2013 TV series) (which has been called the 2nd worst TV series in modern history - https://www.businessinsider.com/worst-tv-shows-of-all-time-critics-2016-10 ) but not have an article about a series dealing with serious issues in American history from a critical perspective? Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like you're trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which is not what Wikipedia is for. On a separate note, if you think that a being aired on the History channel is evidence that something is serious, important television, I have some bad news for you... _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dads lasted an entire season on a major broadcast network with known actors...of course we're going to put it here, no matter if it literally dissolved brains as viewers watched. This is pretty much "Tin Hat Theories: The Series", lasted six episodes with little to no public notice, and we can't even source its airing history because the premiere date and air run corresponds to a time where its network didn't exist. We have some basic inclusion standards here, and this doesn't meet them. Nate • (chatter) 03:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Drake is a real person and NSA mass data collection was real: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/snowden-surveillance-subverting-constitution MKULTRA was a real CIA program: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7920010/cia-mkultra-mind-control-drugs-hypnosis-electric-documents/ The JFK "Chicago Plot" was a real, historical event: https://abc7chicago.com/archive/9315215/ These are not "Tinfoil Hat" conspiracy theories, although some people would like to paint them that way.

Yes, and we have what I hope is a decent article about MKULTRA and all these other events. But just making a tv show about an important event does not make the tv show itself important or notable. That having been said, what's important in this discussion is the sourcing, not the subject matter. Find me three multi-paragraph reviews (or other significant coverage) of Breaking Mysterious in reliable, independent sources, and I will be more than happy to vote keep. Though you may want to avoid looking for coverage in The Sun (RSP entry) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To address the concern about this being a show about imaginary topics, I've added references to the article for most of the topics featured in the program. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are now three or more citations by media websites in the article. According to WP:GNG, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." Ghostofnemo (talk)

Other languages are fine, but the sources you've added are not significant independent coverage, they're either 1) TV guide style listings or 2) unrelated articles about the subjects of the TV show that do not mention Breaking Mysterious. Please look for actual reviews of the subject by professional critics, as they are generally the easiest kind of significant coverage to find for a tv show. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These look more like reviews than TV listings to me.

Investigate some of the greatest mysteries with HISTORY TV18’s ‘Breaking Mysterious’!, Media Infoline https://www.mediainfoline.com/entertainment/history-tv18s-breaking-mysterious
Breaking Mysterious, TV Time https://www.tvtime.com/es/show/343890 Google translation: "Radio announcer Jimmy Church and a dedicated group of collaborators investigate the greatest mysteries and controversies of our strange world. Is the CIA behind a popular mobile game? Did the US Government create an army of mentally controlled murderers? Other issues they will deal with are: a possible plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy weeks before the tragic events in Dallas, a search for the missing Confederate gold, a new and unsuspected lair of Bigfoot, a novel travel theory in time, and some nuclear weapons missing in the US. We seek revelation, the answers, the truth. We seek to understand what is not explained."
Otkrivanje tajanstvenog, Moj TV https://mojtv.net/emisije/98596/otkrivanje-tajanstvenog.aspx Google translation: "Is a popular virtual smartphone game part of a CIA surveillance plot? A look at the frightening future of armed microdrons and the search for the first National Security Agency alert to inspire Edward Snowden. These are just some of the mysteries this series reveals to us. Radio presenter Jim Church (Blackout, Coast to CoastAM) and a dedicated group of truth-seekers embark on a journey to explore the greatest mysteries, controversies, and conspiracies of our strange world: a possible secret UFO underwater base off the coast of California; a popular virtual smartphone game that may be part of a CIA operation; the alleged plot to assassinate J.F.K. just weeks before the tragic event in Dallas; the search for the lost gold of the Confederacy; the appearance of Bigfoot in an unexpected area. All this, with a new theory about time travel and atomic weapons lost off the coast of Georgia. To get the answer you have to unravel in a mysterious way." Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the references look like TV listings WP:REFBOMBING - other references are supporting the topics of the shows - the topics covered by the series may be notable, but there is nothing to show that the series itself is notable per WP:CONTN, "Article content does not determine notability" - Epinoia (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le mariage

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

Unnotable company, page created by COI editor – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is a non-notable company. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD G11. Any article that uses the word "leading" in the first sentence and written by a COI editor is going to be irretrievable spam regardless of any notability it doesn't have. SpinningSpark 14:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Luxury wedding planners are by design, unable to have full-market appeal and in the end, nobody thinks of who created an absurdly-large wedding that you know was coordinated by many more people and companies. Nate • (chatter) 03:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither a COI, or using "leading" in the first sentence, are valid reasons for deletion, but having searched for sources, I didn't find enough to justify an article. I found these that don't appear in the article: 15min (Lithuanian source - brief mention), Al Sharq Times - more substantial, but not a source I'm sure about. I think that unless more coverage can be identified, then (despite clearly working on some huge wedding occasions) the subject isn't shown to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Tajbakhsh

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

Notability appears to rest on one Financial Tribune article, which appears to be a re-worked press release; the rest are passing mentions, and one nomination (I can't even find evidence of the claimed win) for a music website's award for arrangement. Possibly there are further, better sources in Persian - non-detectable by me. As it stands, fails WP:NARTIST. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The award mentioned in the article ("Best pop music arranger, Tehran, 2013") should be listed in fact as "the best instrument player" (along with 19 other instrument players), according to this ref. (Musicema.com is the creator of this award).

For sources in Persian:

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

Farhikht (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete no indication that the subject meets GNG, and it's not clear that the awards won are sufficiently notable for ANYBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. I know that I have commented in this discussion, but the nominator had already made a botched attempt to withdraw that I hadn't noticed and it's pretty much snow keep anyway. SpinningSpark 19:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Taunton, Massachusetts

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

This list does not have many reliable sources, and most of these people do not qualify by the notability criteria. Interstellarity (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Category:Lists of mayors of places in the United States. Not every entry on a list needs its own article for a list article to exist. Plenty of blue links though to justify it. Dream Focus 19:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Dream Focus. I'm assuming that more of them are notable, but that no articles were created yet for them. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do not have any rule that every mayor of a town or city always has to already be bluelinked before we're allowed to create or maintain a list of their names; open-ended lists that are vulnerable to the addition of self-promotional wannabe spam, like a generic list of writers or musicians, can have an "article must already exist" restriction placed on them, but closed-ended lists with tightly defined inclusion criteria, like a list of past and present holders of a specific political office, are not barred from containing redlinked or unlinked names — as long as the person's membership in that defined topic is verifiable, they're allowed to be named in the list whether they have an article or not. Spotchecking some of the articles that do exist, I can see that their actual notability may sometimes be debatable — Taunton isn't large enough to guarantee every mayor an instant free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because he exists, but not all of the articles I randomly spotchecked are referenced well enough to get the subject over the bar — but deleting the list now is putting the cart before the horse. If you have questions about the notability of some or all of the mayors in this list who have articles, then tackle getting those non-notable mayors deleted first, and then we can revisit whether the list is worth keeping anymore on the basis of however many articles are left once the problematic ones have been canned. But as things stand right now, enough of the mayors in this list do have articles whether they should or not, and there's no rule that they all have to have articles before a list of them is allowed to exist. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep there are dozens of such articles, nominator should have considered that before nominating._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:59, 17 August 2019 (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/2019 August 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some articles like theses don't even have blue-linked mayors. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has made the classic mistake at AFD of confusing absence of sources in the aricle with non-existence of sources. As a check, I searched for the first unsourced entry, "Onias S. Paige", and found a source which also verifies several other entries. Please read WP:BEFORE before making any more AFD nominations. Also, as others have said, it is not necessary for every entry on a list to be notable, per WP:CSC criteria #2 and #3. SpinningSpark 14:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination. Interstellarity (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This article can't spend forever at AfD. Detailed policy-based reasoning has been presented both for deleting and for keeping. At the end of the day we need consensus to delete and we don't have that here. Haukur (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raji Arasu

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

Not independently notable outside of her company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, another corporate spam. Meeanaya (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in sources like Forbes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Forbes is not a reliable source here, as it written by a contributor and not staff, it is not a RS in this situation. Meeanaya (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is written by a sports writer, named Mark J. Burns. What makes you think that Mark J. Burns has a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy? What makes you think that the article has bypassed any of Forbes' editorial processes for the same? Uncle G (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uncle G, contributors' content on Forbes.com doesn't count towards notability, and is considered generally unrelaible: for details, see WP:ORGCRIT and check the entry of Forbes.com at WP:RSP#Sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @NitinMlk: and @Meeanaya: Burns is a sports and technology writer and as such is a subject-matter expert so despite being a contributor this article could be used to show notability as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes.com. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        More than reliability, the main problem is that these type of sources are generally not considered independent, per WP:ORGCRIT. Anyway, let's say this is a third-party source. But even then this is just a single source. Are there other reliable, independent, in-depth sources about her? - NitinMlk (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        When the claim that Forbes is unreliable is shown to be wrong by the very thing that you point to, you switch tack to independence. But that with the passive voice weasel wording "are generally considered". Why is Mark J. Burns, writing in Forbes not independent of an Indian businessperson? For reference, this press release is the sort of source that the Primary Notability Criterion discounts as not independent: advertising and autobiography. Uncle G (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, when did I claim that the Forbes is unreliable? Forbes.com is listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP#Sources. And that's what I mentioned here. Also, WP:ORGCRIT is a notability guideline, and it mentions that the Forbes blogs by non-staff contributors are not considered independent. Still, I used "passive voice weasel wording" to give it the benefit of the doubt. If you want explanation for them being non-independent, then you should ask at the talk page of the relevant guideline, i.e. at Wikipedia talk:CORP. You also totally ignored the remaining part of my previous comment.

Second, I didn't "switch tack" to anything. In my very first comment here, I stated that "contributors' content on Forbes.com doesn't count towards notability", along with pointing to the relevant guideline, as I thought you would read the relevant details (regarding non-independent nature of these blogs) from that page.

Finally, I am familiar with WP:WOMRED, and if the subject has received some decent coverage in a couple of other independent sources, then I am fine with it. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable. FitIndia ^{✉ बात} 06:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On what evidence do you base this comment, please? 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources cited do not meet WP:BIO. However, in addition, there is much that is not encyclopaedic in the page. It states "Arasu is noted for her work towards educating, mentoring and empowering women to be successful in the male-dominated computer and technology industry." A big claim requires a big source but this claim is unsourced. Which women has she mentored to success in these industries? She has worked for eBay but eBay is cited as a source for another big claim "eBay described her as a "role model for women", given her work as a technology executive,". This eBay source is used five times and is clearly a puff piece based on an interview she gave to The Daily Muse which as the Wikipedia article on The Muse (website) states: "creates in-depth profiles of companies seeking top talent, showcasing their brand" and as is as far away from a RS you can get. And so on, I could parse most of the article similarly. Essentially this is a promotional piece for a worthy, successful person but not one who meets our notability standards. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This looks pretty borderline to me. There are many non-independent sources in the article, which don't help in showing notability. The independent ones seem to be The Daily Muse and Forbes. I can't see the Boston Globe source, so I don't know how much it has about her. Computerworld includes her in some articles where IT leaders give advice and opinions - March 2009 and August 2016, and in 2016 included her in 100 Premier Technology Leaders. (I'm not including links as I access them through the NLA.) Business Insider in 2017 had her as #28 on a list of "43 most powerful female engineers of 2017" [8], and in 2014 had her as one of "5 Successful Women In Technology From India" [9]. So that coverage extends from 2009-2017. It's not substantial, but neither is it trivial, and I think it just meets WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like the later added sources have convinced people that this is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Emerson Bashen

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

Except for one patent, she fails to establish what she is notable for. Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, clearly promotional piece, needs deletion. Meeanaya (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD by DGG was weak, else it would have been deleted 5 years back. Meeanaya (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to have been extensively edited by the subject, apparently to promote her business handling EEO claims--see earlier versions. In the process she seems to have restored some copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one paptent does not come even close to making someone notable. People trying to use Wikipedia as a promotion tool is done way too much and we need to stop it before Wikipedia gets shifted to being Indeed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is an orphan, mostly OR, and essentially a piece of business promo. Agree with JPL: with the increasing erosion of notability standards, WP is slowly becoming a directory. Agricola44 (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:GNG with 3 long profiles of her, with lots of biographical info, one in the article already (BlackPast.org [10]), and two others that I've found quite quickly: Face2Face Africa [11] and Black Enterprise [12], plus a short entry here [13]. It's clear that the subject and others working for her have edited the article, and it does need work to remove unencyclopaedic descriptions, but she does meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the article, adding the sources listed above and others. Just as a matter of interest, the article is not an orphan, and has not been for at least 4 years (not that being an orphan is a reason for deletion). Nor is it OR - all information is sourced to the references, except for the degree at Tulane Law School, for which I haven't yet found a source. If no sources can be found, that can be deleted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTPAPER Notable woman. If the article has a WP:POV problem or a WP:PROMOTIONAL feel, it should be edited. WP:ATD. She is Number 45 on Ebony's Power 100 list. Chicago Reporter, Face2Face Africa, Black Enterprise. Notable Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has coverage in a number of sources (this one seems especially good). The page definitely has issues, but this is a case where improvement is preferable over deletion. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:GNG, I think this is a good example of WP:DINC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 13:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Beatenbough

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

Fails to establish why he is notable, he has president of trucking companies but fails to establish notability outside of these companies. Meeanaya (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was really inclined to vote "keep" on this one given the number of sources, but reviewing them on line they all appear to be related to the companies he worked for and not significant coverage of him per se. As such this fails WP:GNG. PS - probably there is an article to be written about PIE and some of the other companies he worked for. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is a few sources, they relate to the companies he was working for. Thus it fails WP:GNG Taewangkorea (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coverage of the subject is not wide enough to show notability, thus it fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lacks coverage about him. Everything is about the companies he was working for and mentions of him are incidental.Sandals1 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill business person; little evidence on line or in published books. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 13:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bednar

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

Not independently notable outside of his company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, clearly corporate spam. Meeanaya (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Coverage is mainly passing mentions of him in deals his company was involved in (or wanted to be). No significant coverage of him personally.Sandals1 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - he's had some coverage and the businesses he ran were major, but not quite there. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 13:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Belkind

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

Not independently notable outside of his company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, clearly corporate spam. Meeanaya (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless we view the award or position as inherently notable, then nom is correct that he makes the coverage, he doesn't get it. (A recurring issue for both reporters and the actual news organisations). He's clearly an impressive journalist, but I don't believe he meets WP:BASIC. No single redirect target Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither award seems substantial or prestigious enough to overcome the fundamental lack of notability and decent independent sources covering the individual in any depth. Hug^syrup 13:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though as creator of the page I'm a bit biased, I've checked sources etc. again and agree with all above (except that it isn't corporate spam ;)). At the time I was still new (as I still feel compared to most of you) to Wiki and felt like the award, his presidency at the National Press Club and other positions might be enough to meet general notability. Hurts me to see a "deletion" in my account history, but that's life I guess :D Thank you all for weighing in!--Ruhri Jörg 13:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to the first article I wrote (way back in 2012), which was both a COI and a failure of what we'd now call NORG, and didn't last past NPP. Mine was definitely clearer cut than this one! Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Thanks for the feedback, really appreciate it and feel encouraged! Can't help but still mess up stuff occasionally :D And people don't seem to ever read / remember this (although I'm not a complete newbie anymore, I hope ;)). Thanks again! --Ruhri Jörg 14:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the National Press Club is not so important a group that it would overcome WP:NOTINHERITED. There's not so much coverage of him. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 13:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark P. Vergnano

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

I cant see any signs of notability. Not independently notable outside of his role at company, No indepth news coverage, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. This is one of the places where we have some of the worst presentism possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV of Vergano per se, independent of his role at Chemours, in my WP:BEFORE, and as such this fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - once again, Chemours is not so important a company that it would overcome WP:NOTINHERITED. There's not so much coverage of him. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Free Church of England. It's not clear how much should be merged but that can be addressed in a separate discussion. There is a strong consensus against keeping this page with merge being the preferred option. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England

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

No evidence of any notability. No independent refs at all and searches find nothing better. It appears to be another small sect intent on maintaining its differences. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Evangelical Connexion is a small church it doesn't need deletion it needs editors do their job right. So yes destroy one small church getting one bit of recognition. You have served your master well. Keep it with amendments not destroy everything in your path because you are so sad only thing you have done is be an editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C489:A100:14B3:7779:A019:3B32 (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. It looks like someone is cite-spamming. I see 2 books in the cite list, but one of them looks like the sect's constitution (it is used as a ref in explaining the organization of the sect). The other is fairly malformed, but it looks like vanity press. Rockphed (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I didn't see the old version, how does this one compare to the previous 2 times it was nominated for deletion? Maybe it should be speedy deleted and salted? Rockphed (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification The 2nd AfD was speedily deleted by an admin part way through its normal process. A refund was requested and granted, so this version is substantially the same as that deleted at the second AfD. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; otherwise merge back to Free Church of England. That is itself an older splinter from the Church of England. This is a splinter of a splinter. The four congregations adhering to the Connection seem also to be listed in the Free Church of England article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Free Church of England not independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Free Church of England due to the directory findings of Peterkingiron--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see sufficient sources which meet the requirements of WP:NORG for there to be a stand alone article. Based on the sources provided in the article and a brief search I am not convinced that there is even sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources for it to be covered in Free Church of England (beyond bare mention) without crossing into undue emphasis on a minor schismatic sect. Jbh ^Talk 19:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Deleted by administrator Liz as G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Justi Rino) in violation of ban or block . Nsk92 (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martino Lupini

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

Appears to be a bit too early for passing WP:PROF. Four years past PhD, h-index of 11, only student level awards. I am not seeing anything else in the article to indicate passing WP:PROF. Probably soon but not yet. PROD declined by the article's creator, therefore I am listing it for an AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. It's always problematic evaluating researchers in pure mathematics because our most commonly used metric, citations, works so badly in this field, but with only an entry-level faculty position and best-dissertation awards to go on we have no evidence of academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The deletion proposal is based on personal and unqualified opinion about dr Lupini's academic achievements and arbitrary interpretation of the WP:PROF criteria. As to the dr. Lupini's academic achievements we can read from Rising star in mathematics world featured in inaugural lecture series: "Dr. Martino Lupini from CalTech University who is producing “exciting and cutting edge mathematics” will speak at the inaugural H.N. Gupta Memorial Lecture March 2 at the U of R"; " Lupini is considered a rising star in the mathematics world.". As to the WP:PROF, its Criterion 2 is arbitrarily interpreted since it's not visible from this criterion how profound research results in the mathematics foundations demonstrated in someone's dissertation could be put on the same academic level as the IMO or the Putnam competition results of the secondary school and undergraduate students. In addition, at many universities worldwide the graduate studies are those leading to the MSc degree, the PhD studies are not considered as the graduate ones, rather above of the graduate ones. Therefore the Criterion 2 of the WP:PROF is unclear and imprecise and nowhere regarding the PhD dissertation disqualified as not notable.
Dr. Lupini's academic achievements are far above those listed by Nsk92 and Epstein which can be seen here: Research papers and preprints in Combinatorics, Dynamycal Systems, Operator Algebras, Functional Analysis and Model Theory. There are two books published by the world renown Springer Verlag. Then there is a long list of Invited Talks.
The Google h index cannot be taken seriously as a measure of the serious academic credentials and achievements since h-high in such fields like the fixed point or the inequalities cannot be ever superimposed to h-low index of a serious researcher in the mathematics foundations.
At the end, the ASL is not an institution supporting talented secondary school or undergraduate students - rather "an international organization supporting research and critical studies in logic. Its primary function is to provide an effective forum for the presentation, publication, and critical discussion of scholarly work in this area of inquiry.". Therefore the Sacks Prize is about "stunning results", "results that stand out", "a deep and sustained study", etc. - i.e. not a student level award as Nsk92 stated above.--Justi Rino (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Invidious comparisons, special pleading, walls of text, and hints that the article creator might be the return of a blocked sockpuppet (previously active on the article for Lupini's academic grandfather, which would be cause for G5 speedy deletion) aside, the two books could become an indication of notability through WP:AUTHOR rather than WP:PROF, but only if they had multiple published reviews each. "Introduction to Sofic and Hyperlinear Groups" appears to have two, the bare minimum (MR3408561 in Math. Reviews and MR3616345 in Bull Symb. Logic) but although Nonstandard methods in Ramsey theory has one pending in Math. Reviews it doesn't seem to have any published yet. Again, WP:TOOSOON, although maybe the wait will be shorter for notability in this direction. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Justi Rino's sockpuppetry is now confirmed. If we are going to consider G5 speedy deletion for Martino Lupini, perhaps we should also consider it for Justin T. Moore and Ilijas Farah, both created by a previous incarnation of the same puppetmaster and primarily edited by socks? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Moore appears notable per WP:PROF#C3 and Farah perhaps by WP:PROF#C1, but I'd support deleting both under the general principle of banned meaning banned. XOR'easter (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with XOR'easter. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, thank you, XOR'easter. I tagged the page as CSD G5 and I see that it has already been deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Setting aside citations as generally unilluminating for pure mathematics, all we have is a couple awards that might merit a mention but aren't enough to confer wiki-notability, and a pair of (co-authored) books that haven't yet earned the recognition necessary to meet WP:AUTHOR. (A PhD thesis can contain great work, but if it's the kind of accomplishment that would confer wiki-notability, then it would receive recognition above and beyond awards explicitly devoted to student work.) Unspecific praise in a press release counts for nothing. I'd suggest draftifying, but the possibility of sockpuppetry rules that out (we shouldn't preserve content that is eligible for speedy deletion). Nor is there any indication that his work has poked out into publications like Quanta which generally do a decent job at writing about mathematics in a popular or semi-popular way. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to "speedy delete" per the identification of the article creator as a sockpuppet of a blocked user. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. --JBL (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So You Think You Can Dance (American season 16) Top Ten finalists

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

Poorly sourced content fork of dubious necessity; it is not at all clear that this needs to be a separate article from the main So You Think You Can Dance (American season 16). While it is true that a couple of the early seasons have standalone contestant lists separately from the season articles, they mostly feature poorly sourced deep trivia that wouldn't even be kept in standalone BLPs if these people qualified for those -- separate contestant lists literally haven't existed since Season 6, with consensus having shifted toward keeping the contestant lists in the main season article rather than spinning them off as separate articles, and the only reason that even S2 through S6 still have standalone lists is a lack of editor commitment to actually cleaning up all the unencyclopedic bumf in them. This is cruft, not a model we should be reviving for the current season after having deprecated it for a full decade. Even the referencing here is mostly unreliable junk like Meaww and Goldderby and/or routine "local kid gets on reality show" coverage in the contestants' hometown local newspapers, not reliable or notability-making sources about the show. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form, obviously. It was deleted twice from the main article where I had put it some this seemed like the best place to house it. Obviously adding to each bio will take time. As each will be getting media coverage as a top ten finalist the article will grow. If there is a better place to house these bios I’m open. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the contestants are not yet notable enough for their own standalone BLPs (which they're not, so don't take this as a license to try), then why do we need to create or maintain extended minibios of them, in either the season article or a standalone minibio compilation like this, at all? Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking to start a few of the bios, Eddie Hoyt’s for one, but I was having Internet connectivity issues and also working on Rainbow Honor Walk, so put it off for the moment. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People are not automatically eligible for BLPs just for being competitors in a reality show. The person who wins the season in the finale is the only one who gets an article because of SYTYCD itself; anybody else who competed but didn't win still has to build their notability the same way a dancer who was never on the show at all has to, namely by continuing to work as a dancer and/or choreographer and achieving something that would get them over our notability standards for dancers or choreographers. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going by WP:GNG. This was the step to see which would have their own articles. The show itself feeds out biographical content every show in its aired video packages. Just like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, etc. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The show is not an independent source for the purposes of establishing the standalone notability of its contestants; it is a directly affiliated source. Just like American Idol, America's Got Talent, etc.: their non-winning competitors don't automatically get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning competitors on a reality show either, but also have to establish their notability the regular way by achieving something more notable in their continued careers after the show. Brian Justin Crum got an article because he had an actual charting hit that got him over NMUSIC, not because he was on AGT; D.J. Demers got an article when he scored a Juno Award nomination for a comedy album, not because he was on AGT in and of itself; Jennifer Hudson got an article when she was in Dreamgirls and became a major movie and music star who now cleared NACTOR and NMUSIC, not because she was on AI. They don't have articles because they were on reality shows and lost; they have articles because they kept working, and went on to achieve something more notable, after their non-winning runs on reality shows ended. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why you’re talking past me? I never suggested these finalists were notable because they were a finalist. I started compiling these to see if any did meet WP:GNG before creating their articles. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the remarkably rare event that a non-winning competitor in a reality show somehow already clears GNG on coverage already received before they were even on the show, that'll be immediately apparent without needing an article like this to exist as a premature placeholder — in fact, if a person is actually in that situation, then there's already a significant probability that their article already exists. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was created in the main article where I think it belongs. Only after an anon deleted it, and I saw at least five other identical articles did I chose this option. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unneeded fork; this should stay in So You Think You Can Dance (American season 16) in whatever form is WP:TV-appropriate, and we don't need to carbon-copy fox.com/sytycd for biographical information. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ve never even seen Fox.com/sytycd. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're enough of a fan of the show to think we need an article like this, but you've never gone to the show's own primary website at all? Seems unlikely somehow. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I’d be willing to bet the far majority of people who watch shows never visit their websites. No, I never have, despite your suspicion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if you couldn't gain the consensus in the article for its inclusion maybe there was a reason why. Absolutely no reason to have this split off. --Gonnym (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It was one anon. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Definitely does not need its own article. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a repeat of information largely already in So You Think You Can Dance (American season 16) - Overlistification, WP:LISTCRUFT - Epinoia (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that while NFOOTY is not satisfied, GNG is met with sourcing about his managerial work (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano Trani

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Tropicanan (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has been an assistant manager at several A-League clubs. There are also plenty of articles out there to satisfy WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails WP:FOOTY guidelines but appears to satisfy WP:GNG due to coverage of managerial work. ----Pontificalibus 06:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Fails WP:FOOTY~~ but passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update the subject passes WP:NFOOTY he was the acting coach for Adelaide United in the Asian Champions League run checking for how many matches"Kosmina's assistant Luciano Trani has taken the formal reins of Adelaide's ACL campaign, with Kosmina's current qualifications not recognised by the Asian Football Federation." as per Sydney Morning Herald here .He did led them atleast in a match against Pohang Steelers as per this and hence he has managed a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues.Have added references .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC) @GiantSnowman: can you please take a look thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unconvinced by GNG arguments, coverage is ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 09:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfies GNG for managerial duties. Bookscale (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ – I agree with GS: coverage is routine transfer reports and non-independent bios from team websites. Would change my mind if WP:THREE were presented, but I don't see it in the article, here, or via online searches. – Levivich 01:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - extensive media coverage over the last 20 years. Article is well referenced with 15 references, and some of the coverage is significant. Meets GNG. I added three more to make it 18. Nfitz (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – (changed from delete) Ask and ye shall receive: another POTW WP:HEY, I think it meets GNG with 2016, 2014, 2011, among others in the article. – Levivich 19:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The NFOOTY points are moot, the question here is does the player pass GNG. Some sources have been presented to indicate GNG, but there is a lack of consensus whether they are enough. Fenix down (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lucas

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. -- Tropicanan (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Has played in the A-League. Simione001 (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY has played in a WP:FPL that is A-League.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Bookscale (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changed from a Weak keep. - He meets WP:NFOOTBALL but I don't know about WP:GNG as he only played the one match against Sydney FC. HawkAussie (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking it over and @Levivich: makes a good point as he played less than 15 minutes of play in his only appearance. Their is mentions of him playing from Olympic in the FFA Cup but that is just match reports. HawkAussie (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per longstanding consensus: one appearance (10 minutes of play) [14] in an FPL league, and no indication of meeting GNG, is not enough to show notability. The one appearance was like seven years ago, and the player has been playing semi-pro ball since. – Levivich 21:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
reaffirming my !vote post-addition of new sources post-relist... none appear to be secondary, independent, reliable, and in-depth. This is the closest I see and it's not sigcov IMO. – Levivich 05:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage = no article. Arguments that we should create an exception to that principle for single-match footballers are not just uncompelling but ridiculous.—Mkativerata (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the article meets WP:NFOOTBALL then it meets, regardless of number of games played. Suggestions that it should be deleted due to a small amount of games played starts to blur the guidelines of WP:NFOOTBALL. Additionally, the player is currently the top scorer in the 2019 FFA Cup which is a national competition playing against clubs from WP:FPL so if anything, the article could be strengthened. Clifton9 (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He passes WP:NFOOTBALL. The only exceptions should be if a player plays a minimum amount of time in a fully-pro league in his whole career and they're retired. In this case Lucas played for a WP:FPL club, and has a career in the 2nd tier (semi-pro). Add to him currently being top scorer in the domestic cup as Clifton9 said, and this shows this article can be expanded, not that it should be deleted. --SuperJew (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no evidence of the article subject meeting WP:GNG beyond passing references in routine coverage. The subject clearly fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTBASIC. Hack (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the article meets WP:NFOOTBALL then it meets, regardless of number of games played. Suggestions that it should be deleted due to a small amount of games played starts to blur the guidelines of WP:NFOOTBALL. Article certainly needs improving but if it's deleted, then it is contradicting [15] Victoryboy (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFOOTY passed with career ongoing, which is consensus to keep; e.g. AfD/Mats van Kins, AfD/Sean Karani and AfD/Danish Irfan Azman. One app is also consensus, one that I am fine with being enforced, but it doesn't apply here - as mentioned by SuperJew. R96Skinner (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mats van Kins = 2 FPL games, 20 years old, still playing in top-tier league (Eredivisie). Sean Karani = 18 years old, 4 FPL games (at the time of the AfD), still playing in second-tier USL Championship. Danish Irfan Azman = 20 years old, 19 FPL games, still playing in top-tier Singapore Premier League (and that AfD was withdrawn). These three are in no way comparable to this article subject, Chris Lucas, age 27, whose single FPL appearance was seven years ago and has been playing semi-professional ball ever since. Not a single source that could even potentially qualify for GNG has been put forward here and there are none in the article. The consensus in such situations is to delete, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romain Carbonnier, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Pawiak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Paul Nomel, and many others like it (see User:Levivich/NFooty AfDs#Some NFooty for a list). – Levivich 14:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Mngadi, for example, vanished off a cliff after leaving his FPL club. That's very different to leaving an FPL club and joining multiple clubs one tier below the previous club's FPL; Lucas' case is equivalent to leaving an English League 2 team and joining an English National League team, in these terms. R96Skinner (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and then staying in the English National League system for seven years, generating zero in-depth coverage in reliable sources during those seven years. I call that "not notable". :-) The fact that this guy played for 10 minutes in an FPL seven years ago is a fluke–it is no reason to !vote keep–there is no logic or rational thinking (nevermind policy) behind such a position. It's a complete "WTF" kind of argument... 10 minutes and you get a bio in Wikipedia? With no GNG sources, but just because of the 10 minutes? Come on, let's put that argument to bed, forever. – Levivich 16:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: By that logic, might as well scrap WP:NFOOTY completely. (And also deletion discussions are not polling booths) --SuperJew (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While his WP:NFOOTY qualification isn't all that much, Lucas at least has a full body of work in the Australian cup along with a decently covered lower league that's second-tier Australian in which he was the top scorer, and being the first player to score multiple hat tricks in the FFA Cup [16]. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N. Although a number of sources can be found, and some are provided, all the coverage is routine statistical listings. That does not meet the "significant coverage" from "multiple sources" required by GNG. The subject made a single top-level appearance. Technically, the subject meets WP:NFOOTY, 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." Harrias ^talk 06:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added some content/sources which specifically pertains to the subject.Simione001 (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. Simply put. - J man708 (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG with one, two, and three. Nfitz (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the first two are written by the leagues (not independent), and the third one is a local blog written by self-described "aspiring journalists" (not reliable). I don't think any of those count towards GNG. – Levivich 03:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. Nfitz (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keep votes merely stating "meets nfooty" do not even begin to answer the challenge that the player fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nenad Vekić

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. -- Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does actually pass NFOOTY, 14 apps (+ cup apps) for Tuen Mun SA in the Hong Kong First Division League (listed at WP:FPL; until 2014) in 2011–12 - per Soccerway. R96Skinner (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Has played in the Hong Kong Premier League. Simione001 (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and therefore fails WP:FOOTY. WP:FOOTY is guidance given as part of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) which states "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." WP:FOOTY is therefore merely guidance as to whether a subject is likely to pass WP:GNG. In this case the guidance fails because there isn't signifiant coverage in reliable sources. A biography needs more than statistical tables as a source.----Pontificalibus 06:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No sources, no article. We cannot meet WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:NOT when the only available sources are primary statistics databases. This article has no secondary sources at all, and I can't find any online. Without sources, we end up with a one-line article such as the one we have now. If sources are found, the article can always be recreated. Until then, having this article violates like every content policy we have. – Levivich 01:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing I feel I should add to Levivich’s incontrovertible reasoning is that the reasoning is even stronger in the case of a BLP.—Mkativerata (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, why has this even come to afd (unless (cue ominous music) its a concerted effort to "defooty" wikipedia:)), at the very least this can be a redirect to Marconi Stallions FC, as player name may be a wikireader search term. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indepth coverage in independent secondary sources. The NFOOTY guidelines do not trump GNG and if the coverage can't be found there is no reason to keep the article. The criteria NFOOTY are so easy to pass that no one bothers to even add in depth coverage so maybe it is time to remind editors that GNG matters! --Dom from Paris (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why should that be at the expense of this article? Simione001 (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be applied to all articles. This one doesn't meet the criteria, please don't hesitate to find the sources that are needed. Just because it wasn't applied to other articles doesn't mean it shouldn't here as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search for sources reveals only routine coverage, mostly on statistical websites. No evidence that this player meets the WP:GNG. WP:NFOOTY, as part of WP:NSPORT does not trump GNG, as confirmed by the community in this discussion. Harrias ^talk 07:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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