Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 February	12 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liri Seitllari[edit]

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

Don't see evidence the subject passes WP:GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed to find any notable work to satisfy WP:AUTHOR or mentions to justify WP:GNG - The9Man | (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. This is an WP:IAR non-admin closure, because the deletion tag on this article makes us look silly (if I may say so). It is the author's most famous work and there is extensive secondary literature which may be used to expand the article. There are even numerous podcast episodes discussing it. Notability is not at issue here, and AfD is not a cleanup process. Outriggr (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I and Thou[edit]

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

Article is incomprehensible and is not based on reliable sources. ${\texttt {adamant}}$ ^{(talk/contribs)} 23:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but might be happy to consider draftify. First port of call for this one was German Wikipedia, which has this article with the better title IMHO. That makes the case that this is one of Buber's best known and most important writings, and it appears to provide some additional sources, although in fact it is just one more, and that mostly about Buber, not the book. Undeterred I then looked on Google scholar and found plenty. The first link is to the book itself, with a preface calling it a classic. Ok, well that is marketing hyper perhaps, but then the second link is indisputably good.[1], because it is a paper by someone else revisiting the book, which demonstrates its notability. The third ref is also good[2] being a book that discusses Buber's, and so it goes on for page after page.[3]. Over 22,000 hits and a lot of them for this book. Then I tried the search on Ich und Du, and found a further 17,600 hits, again very many of them being for this book. It looks notable. Also the description is not incomprehensible although it could do with work. So... the subject is notable and the page should exist. The only question is whether the page is good enough as it stands. Despite the existence of many sources, the article writer has put none in. Also the lead does not really tell us anything - not even why the book is notable, and the description clearly lacks clarity. It has been tagged for a long time and no one has improved it. Draftify is therefore definitely worth considering, although I weakly favour keep. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is not particularly easy to understand, nor is it well-sourced. But the underlying topic is a clearly notable book. There are entire books about the philosophy described in Martin Buber's I and Thou. See Martin Buber's Ontology: An Analysis of I and Thou by Robert E. Wood; Martin Buber's I and Thou: Practicing Living Dialogue by Kenneth Paul Kramer with Mechthild Gawlick; Buber's Way to I and Thou by Rivka Horwitz. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get past the nominator's statement that the article is incomprehensible. It is not, so the rationale offered is the thing that is incomprehensible here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs inline citations but there is notability. there are multiple research texts and books written about this book. From a cursory search: ^[1]^[2]^[3] And there is annother one cited in the article itself. These are very high quality sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There is no deletion issue here. Outriggr (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - required reading in thousands of critical thinking, philosophy, and religion courses in colleges and seminaries. AfD is not for clean-up. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Wood, Robert E. (1969). Martin Buber's Ontology: An Analysis of I and Thou. Northwestern University Press. ISBN 978-0-8101-0650-5.
^ An Analytical Interpretation of Martin Buber's I and Thou. Barron's Educational Series, Incorporated. 1975. ISBN 978-0-8120-0505-9.
^ Horwitz, Rivka; Buber, Martin (1978). Buber's Way to I and Thou: An Historical Analysis and the First Publication of Martin Buber's Lectures Religion Als Gegenwart (in German). Schneider.

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Langius[edit]

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

Non notable political consultant. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I mean it has been tagged with a template questioning its notability for almost ten years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political consultants are not automatically notable just because they exist — he has held no roles that confer an automatic pass of WP:NPOL, and neither of the two references (one of which is self-published by a directly affiliated entity, and the other of which is a book about somebody else) establish that he would get over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't really find good sources to support this. Delete per others. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appointed roles do not pass WP:NPOL. Seems to be a run of the mill state-level consultant. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG.Cinadon 36 17:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails notability. Ireneshih (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes This High (band)[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND LibStar (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Online sourcing is looking thin but they definitely made waves in Wellington. This profile by a music charitable trust (Not your usual random blog) called them: "Arguably the most memorable of all the early Wellington post-punk bands." And if you click read more there is reams of material. This source is republication of a 1981 review. However an interesting snippet at the bottom of that page says: "I’m making it available simply for the record, because there was so little written about such groups at the time." Wading through the other the google hits gets them plenty of passing mentions mostly in relation to Heyward. So weather this all adds up to significant coverage, I'm undecided on. Mattg82 (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week keep~~as the piece originally from a NZ paper The Evening Post is significant coverage and there are some reviews mentioned above and in the article, but more would help, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Changed to full keep explained later Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sourcing found, sources already present are trivial. And why do new article creators always append (band) at the end of article names even when they don't need to? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)}
Delete, albeit there seems to be related sources (to some extent), but as much as I see/reckon: such references might not be good enough to keep/support a page in Wikipedia; and factually it needs more related sources to be kept. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this source which heavily implies that coverage existed in the The Dominion Post (Wellington) and the Evening Post. Not sure about the second one but the Dominion is one of NZ's top newspapers. I also found [4], which looks decent. And also this blog post which was apparently originally published on Othermusic.com (no longer available online, so they reposed it on a blog). Not sure if Othermusic would count or not as I don't know much about the site, but it does have some nice coverage. I also found [5], which also mentions coverage in "In Touch Magazine". I think in general there is enough indication that reliable sources exist (and others exist that aren't available online) and that we have enough sources to be able to flesh out a non-stub article. I didn't even do that thorough of a search, so there's probably a lot I missed. (Disclaimer: I live in Wellington NZ but haven't heard of the band before.) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there is plenty of coverage of this band from the era they were active, but it will be in print newspapers and magazines that aren't easily available online. Based on what we have currently I'd say we are firmly at 'borderline', but giving the benefit of the doubt we should probably keep this. As a local Wellingtonian I'm wary of objectivity though. LibStar, Mattg82, Atlantic306,TenPoundHammer and Ali Ahwazi; thoughts? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far all you've found is implications of coverage, not the actual coverage. For all we know the "coverage" could've just been a name drop that got overinflated to make the band seem more notable, absent the actual coverage's presence. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changing to full keep. There is proven significant coverage in The Evening Post and in this magazine article here press read more for the full article and it is highly likely that there is content in the Dominican post so there is enough coverage for it to stay, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sejal Sharma[edit]

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

The person only worked in Dil Toh Happy Hai Ji in significant role. She worked in other production in minor roles. The article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the standards for actors and actresses, I don't think the subject is notable enough. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the reliable sources and WP:GNGACTOR, the article shouldn't be deleted. However, further readings may be more useful. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As it is relatively balanced. Creators are entitled to participate in an AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. 190.239.55.132 (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please login to your original account rather contributing via a naked IP.TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero starring roles, and no major awards. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. As Binksternet pointed out, the article qulifies for a G5 deletion as created by a block-evading editor. I have deleted it, restored the redirect that existed before the block-evading article creation, and protected the redirect. In view of comments below, this is probably what the outcome would have been had the discussion been left to run anyway. JBW (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YHLQMDLG[edit]

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

Prod declined with addition of a single source. Album is supposed to be released this month but there is literally nothing out there. No confirmed tracklist, no confirmation that the singles are from this album, nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. It’s a popular artist and it’ll likely be notable, but right now it’s WP:TOOSOON. It is a plausible search term though. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This should have been G5 speedy deletion because it represents block evasion by User:DB Dilan Brechero, who has been using Florida IPs and other socks to try and rewrite musical genres. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Or no consensus, but there have been no "delete"s since relevant sources were found. Sandstein 13:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Morrison (organist)[edit]

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

No sources listed in the article, and I cannot find any notable independent sources that would indicate WP:GNG. There are lots of listings pages, press releases and biographies, but nothing independent. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I struggled to find sources that establish him enough to pass GNG or WP:MUSICIAN. Missvain (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any indepdent sources, let alone ones that are reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No coverage to satisfy WP:GNG . Alex-h (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found a couple of possible sources: 1 and 2, but not a huge amount of coverage by way of reviews. Pinging Sesquialtera II and DGG to see if they have more information, just in case. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these Bearian - as they are both simply concert listings, wouldn’t these come under WP:ROUTINE? Asking not to be awkward but because I want to build my own knowledge on policy, I see you on a lot of these AfD discussions and respect your opinion! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Head of the organ department at a famous music school (Curtis), but that's not necessarily defiitive. . Whar we need to do what we would normally do, which is look for reviews of his works. His website lists 2, without specifics of just when they were published (1) "CLEVELAND "ORGANIST PRODUCES A JOYFUL PERFORMANCE" - "....a rising young virtuoso of flawless technique and refined taste.... Playing most of his repertoire from memory, he communicated a sense of pleasure that lifted the music beyond the notes." The Plain Dealer" and (2) " "....Alan Morrison knows something about igniting audience passions. Without hesitation and throughout, Morrison's playing is consummate and dazzling...." - Fanfare from Fanfare (magazine). DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

refs at [6] - but the orginal source needs to be added also. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG - do you have access to these quotes and can include them as independent secondary sources? Currently the article has no independent sources at all which we need to find if the page should stay. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - changed !vote and hat tip to DGG. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources reviews have been identified and now need to be tracked to source and added to the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG, Bearian, Atlantic306 - but at the moment I cannot find these original sources, only the publicity quotes taken and placed onto a primary source. Can we really accept notability based simply on these primary sources? Thanks for your help on this. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple oher reviews available also: they are listed, with some of them linked, and some links working, at [7]; I found this page by searching in Google for Alan Morrison organ, which is not a particularly subtle or complicated method, though it seems to have not been used by the nominator. Among the actual working links are [8], [9], I have not done a search in newspaper archives requiring paid access. For Fanfare, see [10] Actual access to the reviews requires a subscription. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG, Link 2 is new to me and is really helpful. Your sarcasm, however, isn’t helpful. Please WP:GOODFAITH in future. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I shouldn't have directed it at you specifically, because incomplete prior searches are a common problem. Some of this might be because the full searches asked for by WP:BEFORE are impractically detailed. And I too sometimesassume that i sarch I did is sufficient and it turns out otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to the fairly easy balance. It may be helpful if the early delete !voters could confirm if they believe the new sources remain insufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Marginal "keep". (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suthee Minchaiynunt[edit]

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

Non notable businessman who seems to be related to a notable person but per WP:NOTINHERITED he is not notable by being related to a notable person. Also subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The proper spelling of the subject's surname is Meanchainun, and I've renamed the article accordingly. Try the following links instead. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Here's a press release from the Chinese embassy in Thailand describing the ambassador paying him a visit.[11] The ambassador thanked him for his over thirty years of work contributing to China–Thailand relations, and called him a founder, promoter and witness to the friendship between the two countries. He certainly does not seem like an insignificant figure according to this description, though I'm having trouble identifying online sources that corroborate it. There's also a sentence in the statement that suggests that it may be confusing him with his predecessor, who served ten terms as the Chamber of Commerce president. (He served two.) --Paul_012 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a major contributor between China–Thailand relations. Also meets WP:ANYBIO, he received the Thailand's one of the highest civilian decorations "Knight Grand Cross (First Class)" of the Order of the Direkgunabhorn (source). 17:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idolmm (talk • contribs)

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 based on post-nomination expansion of the page. RL0919 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mehus[edit]

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

I'm personally expressing a ~~neutral~~ position (Note No longer neutral; see my !vote below) on this AfD, but out of curiousity, I stumbled upon this disambiguation page for my own surname. The lede of the disambiguation page contains useful information on how to correctly pronounce the last name, but it has only one bluelink to a Flemish painter named Livio Mehus from the 17th century. The redlink is to a model Laurelle Mehus, whose AfD closed as "delete." So my question is as follows, should we:

Keep this disambiguation page, noting the potential of Belle Mehus Auditorium and other potential future notable people named Mehus. Also, Mehus, Norway may be notable as a place;
Delete without prejudice to re-creation in the future when warranted, and add a hatnote to Laurelle Mehus at Livio Mehus to encourage article creation;
Retarget to List of villages in Nordland with {{R to list entry}}, where Mehus is mentioned, and one or more hatnote(s) to Livio Mehus, Belle Mehus Auditorium, and Laurelle Mehus, the latter two to encourage article creation;
Retarget to Livio Mehus with {{R from surname}}, with one or more hatnotes to List of villages in Nordland, Livio Mehus, and Laurelle Mehus;
Convert Mehus to geographic place stub article for Mehus, Norway, noting that several place lists link, incorrectly, to this dab page; or,
Something else
--Doug Mehus T·C 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Livio Mehus as {{R from surname}}. Add a {{redirect}} hatnote on Livio Mehus to List of villages in Nordland (from which I've removed the useless link to the page under discussion).

Laurelle Mehus failed to survive AFD, and has a one-line cast list mention in Pretty Woman (not Pretty Women, as this page said until recently). Belle Mehus Auditorium is an orphan redlink. It seems to me most unlikely that an English version of no:Mehus would pass WP:NGEO; it isn't mentioned in Sortland, the next higher administrative division. Discounting all those, that reduces to a one-entry surname page, which should be a {{R from surname}} redirect.

Note to nom: relinked hatnotes are not permitted under WP:REDHAT. Narky Blert (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert, Thanks. Interesting, my nomination's retarget option was to retarget to Livio Mehus, but I changed it to the list entry thinking we should give precedence to where the Norwegian village is mentioned. Doug Mehus T·C 01:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims to be a stub but to my eyes it is a disambiguation page which only links to one extant article. Assuming that no article on Mehus, Norway is forthcoming, I would be guided by WP:G14 which says "If a disambiguation page links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), it should be changed to a redirect". Therefore, I concur with Narky Blert - Redirect to Livio Mehus with {{R from surname}} and add a hatnote to Livio Mehus to disambiguate the Norwegian village. --kingboyk (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Overtaken by events. --kingboyk (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingboyk, Yeah, I noticed that too when I tried to add the {{talk page of disambiguation page}} header to the talk page. It claims to be a list, but it really is a disambiguation page, so I added the disambiguation tag to it. I'm not opposed to redirecting to the 17th painter Livio Mehus as I'm officially neutral, but with Narky's find of no:Mehus on Norwegian Wikipedia, can we also have soft redirects on English Wikipedia to other Wikipedias, as we do with Wiktionary and Wikibooks? Could that be a possibility? This would encourage research to, potentially, create a stub-class article for the Mehus Norwegian village. Doug Mehus T·C 01:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the hatnote could point to Mehus, Norway which would be a {{R with possibilities}} to List of villages in Nordland? --kingboyk (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingboyk, Now that I think about it, a soft redirect of Mehus to no:Mehus isn't really helpful since, well, the target's not in English. We could potentially add a link in one of the columns at List of villages in Nordland to no:Mehus, though, I think. That certainly seems reasonable. Doug Mehus T·C 01:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's in spirit a dab page but has sourced info about the surname so needs to be a surname page with a couple of "See also" links, as I've now linked the village and the auditorium. Perhaps technically we should have a dab page plus a surname page with just the info and the one entry, but that looks excessive. PamD 09:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PamD, But the surname is named after the Norwegian village, so the Norwegian is a clear primary topic, I think, no? Nonetheless, I appreciate your improvements. I'm not opposed to keeping it as-is now. Would this be an WP:IAR/WP:COMMONSENSE keep then? Doug Mehus T·C 15:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, I tried to rescue the bare URL citation that was a dead link, to no avail. It's not in the Internet Archive. If this is kept, and right now, I'm leaning toward retargeting, it can be both a surname stub and a disambiguation page, per WP:IAR if needed. Doug Mehus T·C 15:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for @Kingboyk and Narky Blert: with the apparent WP:HEY undertaken by PamD and, in what may be a first, the nominator of this AfD, are either of you open to keeping this is as a first or second choice? And, if so, should it be (a) a surname stub, (b) a disambiguation page, or, since we have no rules and all, (c) both? That is, the consensus established here would provide for a non-precedent-setting tagging of both {{surname-stub}} and {{disambiguation}} (since we don't have enough to warrant two pages). If you're both amenable to either alternative, then I could with my nomination early. Doug Mehus T·C 15:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: If, as it appears, events have overtaken my previous input, you may consider my musings withdrawn. --kingboyk (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingboyk, thanks. Yeah, I'm not familiar with all of our requirements for surname stubs or disambiguation pages. We still only have one source, but, presumably, we can find another source that establishes its notability as a surname. Doug Mehus T·C 15:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hatnotes must not contain redlinks per WP:REDHAT. I've added a {{ill}} link to no:Mehus in List of villages in Nordland, which IMO is the cleanest way to make a cross-language link. Narky Blert (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The surname seems to have a range of origins, and it doesn't make sense for us to say that the Flemish painter had a Norwegian name. Just for interest, one "John de Mehus" crops up in various sources, as possibly earliest holder of a variety of surnames such as Muse, Mewsse or Mewis. The one source in this surname page was misquoted anyway: it says it means "middle house", while our article said it said "my house". Ouch. Have corrected it. PamD 16:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm beginning to lean back to the idea that we need a dab page with entries for the surname, the Norwegian village, and the Indian village (isn't exactly sourced in the article but the existence of its police station is, which seems good enough to be going on with). Then the surname page can say it's both a Flemish and a Norwegian/American surname, and cite the Oxford source about the latter. Two tiny pages, but I'm beginning to think it's the only way we can do it. For those who've suggested redirecting to the list of Norwegian villages, with a hatnote to navigate to our friend Livio the Flemsih painter, just think about it - it's a massive list, hatnotes would be at the top miles away from the mention of the village, and if that sort of hatnote became common the list would be top-heavy with a mega hatnote for all sorts of village names which had other meanings. No, please, no. PamD 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PamD, I just added the reference to my house. Apologies for the original research as I was going from memory as a kid. I think it does, loosely translated, also mean my house. Nevertheless, we should go with what the source said. Doug Mehus T·C 16:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Oxford Dictionary of American Family Names source, which is excellent, I think. I'm not sure why this source wasn't used in the first place over the now defunct "moosenames.com." Doug Mehus T·C 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If nothing else, we've got multiple experienced editors, and even an administrator, working on this long-neglected orphan page. So, that's great. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 16:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are about five or six entries on this page. That's too much for hatnotes. Smartyllama (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY. --kingboyk (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am neutral no longer; I'm certain we can find one more source to replace the "citation needed" tags and, thus, meet any notability guidelines for a surname stub page, and per WP:HEY to PamD and me. So, I'm voting "keep" on my own nomination. If Narky Blert decides to change his !vote, I may withdraw this as "speedy keep," or just let it play out. Doug Mehus T·C 21:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but classify as {{surname}} not {{disambiguation}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa Ruocco[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable influencer, with the references being the customary PR.Created in an apparently deceptive manner as an irrelevant redirect, then changed to an article. It looks like an attempt to evade AfC. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She certainly makes her way into a lot of fluff pieces that cite her opinions, but I'm not seeing anything of substance for notability purposes. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - G11 material if it wasn't already at AFD - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Business Insider, a clickbait website, contains a lot of PR junk. No other reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to BEXIMCO. Sandstein 13:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akash DTH[edit]

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

Doesn’t meet general notability guidelines. Sources are self-published and routine coverage. ~YahyA (✉) • 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BEXIMCO per WP:BRANCH. The sources present in the article are not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Via google search in Bangla and English I have found news about its launching, promotional activities and sponsoring Bangabandhu Bangladesh Premier League. These are not enough for our notability guidelines.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Römer[edit]

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

promotional without any evidence for notability The awards are trivial -- and some are only nominations, not awards. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing adds up to notable here. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is actually passing coverage in the NY Times, and better coverage in The Evening Standard and a couple other decent publications. However all the coverage basically does, even when it is more than a paragraph, is talk about how great a piece from her limited edition line of bangle-hoop-rings would look paired with a pair of slacks by (insert name) designer. She is definitely known and written about, but the coverage is pretty much entirely promotional, in the product sense of the word.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep Seems to meet People's WP:BASIC criteria for notability, since the coverage is from multiple reliable secondary sources. Some of the depth in the articles isn't substantial, but the amount of coverage should make up for it. From searching Google and the article, I've found she is mentioned at least 3 times in the New York Times [12] [13] [14], twice in Vogue [15] [16], at least in one book (Fashion Africa - Jacqueline Shaw) and has created jewelry for Nelson Mandela, Morgan Freeman, and Angelina Jolie[17] - so she is at least notable in her industry. Also, not all of the sources mention "limited edition lines" or are only promotional like stated above - but even then, it makes sense for a jeweler's work to be mentioned frequently in articles about a jeweler. I think the current article is mostly let down by neglect, poor research and a lack of weeding out bad sources - so it's hard for me to vote "Delete" until further research/editing is done. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whisperjanes, here is the text that mentions Romer, taken from all the sources you mentioned. I am very curious about how you would get anything but a few scant basic facts out of these items:
- New York Times 1: The London jeweler Sabine Roemer recently toned down a feminine rose gold ring by adding black diamonds for a male client and customized a round tanzanite ring for a woman “so the design is softer than sharp male lines,” she said.
- New York Times 2:...and the jeweller Sabine Roemer paired a simple diamond star stud with three strands of stars in glittering sapphires and fluorites cascading from a monochrome moon. Ms. Roemer also created an agate cameo from two stones that were bought years apart. One is a portrait in green, the other a group of women rendered in blue, and detailing in green fluorites, topaz and amethysts to harmonize it all... “Asymmetric earrings, of course, should be matching or seem to be but there’s an element of the unexpected that I like,” Ms. Roemer said. “The look gives me the space to create within one piece.”
- New York Times 3: "THE BUZZ “After 23 years in the business I still keep learning from Katerina’s amazing and knowledgeable posts,” said Sabine Roemer, goldsmith, jeweler and co-founder of Atelier Romy, based in London.”
- Vogue 1: Master goldsmith Sabine Roemer had a busy London studio making a limited number of stand-out jewellery pieces for private clients, but… “Sabine just understands the way jewellery should be worn, placed, cared for and seen.”...“Something easy to wear, with no fuss, but looking like high jewellery. I think this was the most important part for us so we can wear it with our engagement rings, heirlooms and diamond jewellery and it can blend in instead of standing out like silver, custom or fashion jewellery,” says Roemer…. “And, by cutting out the middleman by selling direct online, we are able to price conscious and competitive,” explains German-born Roemer, who is the creative design head of the label. We wanted to transfer our skill-sets to create a brand that is approachable, cool, collectable and long-lasting with pieces you can gift to your mum, sister, daughter or best friend. Instead of sending a bunch of flowers you can gift a beautiful crafted rose gold eternity ring ... how good is that?”
- Vogue 2: "The Emerald Queen, a life-size elephant designed by Sabine Roemer using Gemfields Zambian emeralds, was sold to an anonymous bidder for a whopping £150,000!"
- Hello Magaine (source 6): "Jewellery artist Sabine Roemer also revealed the level of detail that went into the gown, stating it "took over 50 hours to handcraft the fine gold plated corset."
ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP:, my point was that "Some of the depth in the articles isn't substantial, but the amount of coverage should make up for it" per WP:BASIC. In some of the big name sources, yes, they are mostly passing mentions. However, I would assume she's well-known enough in her industry to be called on for quotes and to be featured in bigger name sources, unless I'm missing something. Why would she be called for a quote in the New York Times to comment on another jeweler's work if she's not considered notable or at least an expert in her industry? She's also been consulted in a Forbes article about diamonds. In the articles I mentioned above, she's talking about her business (which is making jewelry), so I personally don't think it's that weird that her quotes sound like she is only talking about jewelry. It's what she does, so I don't know why that should count against her in any way. However, if what you're pointing out is that most of these articles are heavy with quotes from her, I would agree - that is a problem, and I'm having a hard time finding articles that aren't laden with quotes from her.

And when I said "not all of the sources mention 'limited edition lines' or are only promotional", I was talking about all sources about her, not just the ones I mentioned. I didn't decide to sit down and list every source that existed out there about her. She and her work have been featured in other places: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. In multiple sources, she's also been mentioned as the "youngest ever female Masters graduate from Germany’s Pforzheim Goldsmith and Watchmaker school"[25] or the "youngest ever female master goldsmith."[26] But I will admit I'm not the best judge at weeding out bad sources - I apologize I can't give a more concise list.

Comment But my biggest problem with this article being nominated for deletion isn't that she's "obviously" notable (because I don't think that's the case), but instead, I think there hasn't been any attempt at all to update, research, or clean up her article first, which I think would make notability much more obvious. There's only about 50 edits to her article at all, and the only substantial content edits (other than deleting dead links or deleting unsourced content) seem to be from the beginning in 2011 by the article's creator. I think the article needs to be "improved rather than deleted" WP:BEFORE it's nominated for deletion - since it's poorly sourced and has a promotional tone - but there hasn't even been any effort to do so or attempt to start that discussion, as far as I can tell. No cleanup tags, no "needs more sources," no discussion in the talk page - nothing.

I still do not think the sources are any good. I only checked #8 that you provided above: "Design-loving, value-conscious shoppers will also want to research master jewelers with direct-to-consumer luxury brands that sell exclusively via Websites and Instagram. For example, London-based Sabine Roemer jewelry artist https://www.sabineroemer.com/ holds a master's degree from Germany's Pforzheim Goldsmith and Watchmaking School https://goldschmiedeschule.de/ and operates a bespoke jewelry business that caters to high net worth individuals. Roemer's natural diamond jewels have been sold at London's leading luxury emporium Harrods https://www.harrods.com/en-gb/fine-jewellery auctioned for charity at Christie's https://www.christies.com/locations/salerooms/king-street/, and worn by actors such as Morgan Freeman to the Academy Awards. Roemer designs for Atelier Romy https://www.atelierromy.com/ . Selling online only, Atelier Romy passes the savings on to customers in their fine jewelry line, which is made in sterling silver, as well as yellow gold and rose gold vermeil." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think some sort of "quote war," without explanations as to why specific quotes are chosen, is the most helpful to onlookers/users. I refrained from pasting long quotes above when only Roemer's dialogue was quoted from the first Vogue article, but I feel I should mention that parts of the article were left out, including facts about her and her work. Yes, the quote you mentioned is a part of source #8, but there is a whole section underneath where Roemer also speaks about the difference between her process when working with lab-grown versus natural diamonds. To me, that is from a reliable source, that points to her having at least some expertise in her field.

For all the bigger name sources I mentioned: they aren't press releases, they are from reliable/verifiable sources, they aren't promoted content (since there is no by-line by the author of these reputable sources stating so), so I don't know what makes them not "any good" as sources. If you're saying the sound of the content in these sources make the sources not good, I would point to WP:BIASED which says that even though wiki articles must have a neutral POV, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." So the fact that these articles sound promotional or have quotes or content that talk about her jewelry or business---these quotes themselves that are being pulled out don't make them unreliable as sources. Because so far, all that's been said of the sources is that they sound "promotional" or are not "any good," but they're allowed to have a non-neutral tone as long as they're from reliable, non-promoted sources. And many of these sources do include information/facts about her or her work. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a quote war. It is just a routine discussion. You are presenting sources that you suggest support notability. I am presenting actual text in the sources, so other editors can see how thin (i.e. not in-depth) the coverage is. I might point out that you also seem to be arguing that notability of the subject can come from the quality of the publication itself or its approval when you say, for example, Why would she be called for a quote in the New York Times to comment on another jeweler's work if she's not considered notable; notability does not come solely from that. We editors detemrine notability base on the quality and depth of the reporting that is in a good quality publication-- reporters do not determine notability for a wiki article. In pretty much all of the sources you've given, the publications are high quality but the coverage is shallow, trivial or promotional. It does strike me that her company might be notable, but not her.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm realizing the "quote war" bit sounded snappier than I meant it. You are right, the content from the first few articles is less substantial than I first realized. I thought the only problem being mentioned about the sources was that they had parts that sounded promotional, which didn't seem like enough to disregard them, but I agree that many don't seem to have much depth. I do think the second set of articles I mentioned have more in-depth/substantial content, but then the reliability of them is in question (since I don't know which jewelry or lifestyle magazines out there are reliable), which is what I'm stuck on. It feels like there is significant coverage and reliable sources, but the sources that are reliable are so light that it's right on the teetering edge for me of being enough or not. -- Whisperjanes (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Citizen Femme source above ("youngest ever female Masters graduate from Germany’s Pforzheim Goldsmith and Watchmaker school"), and it is clearly a paid placement. Their advertising kit] offer campaigns that "include copy written by Citizen Femme, video content, image galleries and the creation of supporting media.". Once I see that a company has paid for one fake article, any skepticism goes up a notch or two.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the analysis by ThatMontrealIP. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from coverage of her jewelry company, which doesn't seem to be notable either. shoy (reactions) 19:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manila (1258)[edit]

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

One cited source ("Muslims in the Philippines" by Cesar Adib Majul) failed the verification process. The keyword "1258" only occurs three times in the book, and it only appears when the topic is about Baghdad. One page 23, the keyword "1258" only appears when talking about the seal of Sultan Muhammad Fadl of the Sultanate of Sulu who ascended the throne in the year 1842. Other keywords such as "Raja Ahmad" and "Majapahit" yielded zero results. The Mariano A. Henson source is inaccessible. The apparent lack of reliable sources to support this article also supports its lack of significant coverage. Stricnina (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Stricnina (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Stricnina (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a weird sense of deja vu about this AfD. I’m sure we deleted an article on the same topic about a year ago. Spooky...... Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah no I see we deleted Battle of Manila (1365) and Battle of Manila (1405). Battle of Manila (1500) is looking pretty ropey too. Mccapra (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage. Angus1986 (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Battle of Manila (1500) should be nominated for deletion as well, as per Mccapra. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of a run of ‘battles of Manila’ that are poorly sourced and very doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should be deleted because every single sentence has a citation needed and a need quotation to verify template at the end, which means it has no citations, which means the article is not notable. Also, I had tried to find links about the battle, and nothing showed up. Analog Horror, (talk to me) 22:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's zero evidence this ever happened. It appears to be propaganda to justify a 21st-Century invasion of the Philippines. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casper TNG[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. No awards or charted songs. The sources cited are blogs and record lists, or make trivial mention of him. I was unable to locate any biographical information in a reliable secondary source, and newspaper reports of his criminal behavior do not support notability as a musician. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree w/ nom. Sole source of notability seems to be that he made headlines like "rapper gets in police chase." I'm not finding anything about his actual music except sales sites and other expected fluff. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets WP:BASIC, WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLPCRIME. The person in question is notable in a national scale, if not international. References included in the article are from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Toronto Star, The Mississauga News and HotNewHipHop. The person in subject is known in connection with a criminal event in June 2018, added 2 more sources for this in the article. TwinTurbo (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I acknowledge the previous voter's stance on criminal notoriety, but I lean toward WP:BLP1E, which states that a person is not notable "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" and "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." This rapper was only in the news for one arrest (though it was a big one). Meanwhile his music has been largely ignored by the media, and most of the article's current music-related sources have him listed very briefly as a guest in someone else's work. His own music has not achieved significant and reliable coverage, and the media coverage he really has achieved is about one time he got caught for acting stupid. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reliable sources here are covering him in the context of a criminal incident, not in the context of anything related to music, so he doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC — and the criminal incident just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring encyclopedic interest who would pass the ten year test. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you, Bearcat. I'd like to hear from more Canadian editors. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Graham Chapman#Personal life. Sandstein 13:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Sherlock[edit]

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

I don’t think there’s anything here that warrants independent notability of Graham Chapman or Monty Python. Gogolwold (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Graham Chapman#Personal life. Not independently notable. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 in Canada[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2022_in_Canada. It isn't normal to have future "[year] in [country]" articles. We have a few elections listed here with unspecified dates, but as we saw recently with the UK elections, the dates and years that these happen are not always set in stone. At best it is a list of future events that are likely, at worst its WP:CRYSTAL. This is the only 2021 country article of this type and I don't think it makes sense to have articles like this until closer to the end of the current calendar year. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though I've made update edits on this article, it's too early for its existence. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in late November or early December. This will be valid eventually, but it's not needed yet — and creating new articles is not difficult enough that we would need placeholder pages to exist this far in advance of their actually being useful. This is indeed the only "2021 in [Country]" article that exists as of today — even in the "2021 in North America" navbox at the bottom of the page, every other country in the entire box is just backlinking to the general "History of Country" page instead of to a 2021 subpage. These don't need to exist until the year is only a matter of weeks away. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current consensus is to delete articles two and more years out, but to keep the next year's article. But see WP:CCC and Trump's going to kill us all when he loses re-election. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, What consensus? Where on that page is there anything about future country articles? We are establishing that consensus now. I'm fine with having an article like this toward the end of the year, but right now it's too early. The fact that this is the only one of its kind does not lend credence to your argument at all. As for your second sentence it is incomprehensible and a borderline BLP violation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua–Switzerland relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG for lack of third party coverage of relations. Most of the article comes from 1 source. https://www.eda.admin.ch/countries/nicaragua/en/home/switzerland-and/bilateral-relations.html LibStar (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not even an embassy. Geschichte (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The relationship between these two countries doesn't seem to be one of the most significant bilateral relationships for either of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no actual rationale for deletion has been provided, and the article clearly fulfills multiple encyclopedic functions. In addition, to respond to this boilerplate nom in the spirit in which it was posted, I will once again note that this nom, like many others on AfD, is based on a fundamental misreading of WP:GNG, which states the conditions under which notability (i.e. appropriateness as an article topic) is presumed. To claim that a "failure" to meet the GNG means that non-notability is presumed is to flip the guideline on its head. The GNG does not provide grounds for deletion. In particular, in this case, such an article makes sense (i.e. the topic is "notable", whether or not a handful of AfD habitués deem it "significant") because it makes far more sense to assign encyclopedic information about Nicaragua-Switzerland relations to a single article than to duplicate it in separate Nicaragua and Switzerland articles. -- Visviva (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rationale is it fails WP:GNG for lack of third party sources. Have you actually found any sources to back your vote? LibStar (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was too wordy, so let me try again. The guideline you cite does not support your claim. AfD is not cleanup. If you want to permanently erase the hard work of other editors, you need to make a better case than this. -- Visviva (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You probably oppose deletion of any article. WP:HARDWORK is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have made an excellent case for delete with everyone but you supporting delete. LibStar (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, (at least) based on my research, such topic (relationship between two mentioned countries) cannot be in a remarkable/acceptable degree of importance to have an independent page, and does't have sufficient independent sources to support it ... presumably, at most it might can be included/merged into other relevant pages. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: [27] This article offers intriguing evidence that the relationship is notable.--TM 16:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a dead link. LibStar (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link.--TM 18:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We will definitely not find enough reliable sources on this subject to fill out an entire article. Regardless of GNG criteria, it would be pointless to try to make an article with no significant sources dealing with it. Talrolande (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teun Draaisma[edit]

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

Apparent claim to notability is making two accurate predictions about the stock market. Other available coverage quotes or mentions him in hiring announcements, but does not provide depth. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Financial Times reported on his moving jobs, which suggests he's significant[28] and also describes him as one of "FT Alphaville favourites"[29]. Given that Alphaville is largely behind a paywall, I'd expect there to be more FT coverage available.Jahaza (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 18:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priashevshchina[edit]

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

A newspaper that published for a few years, with nothing to state why this is notable. My own searches did not bring up anything that can prove notability. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn since the page has been expanded 4 times since the nom.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep, notable article subject. Played a key role in articulating Russian/Rusyn/Ukrainian national identity at a crucial stage in history. Googling in Ukrainian gives a lot on hits on google books, notably. --Soman (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Soman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. (participant clarification)--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:LOTSOFGHITS. If the newspaper did extraordinary things in its short lifespan, then it should be easy to show how it passes the WP:ORGCRIT (which is a higher bar than GNG for Orgs). Without hard evidence stating WP:Clearly notable and WP:Assertion don't really help the AfD.DBig Xrayᗙ 08:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NNEWSPAPER.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: an acceptable stub on a historic newspaper. For example, this source indicates notablity: Occasional Paper - Issue 6 - Page 34: Its newspaper, Priashevshchina, was published in Russian, but approached problems from a Ukrainian -- or at least local -- point of view. Members of the intelligentsia, which was still under strong Russian cultural influence, acquired literary ... --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman, I really want to understand what others are seeing that i am not. Your link looks like a passing mention to me. Do you believe that historical newspapers will easily pass notability with such refs while contemporary newspapers need a higher bar? DBig Xrayᗙ 20:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per K.e.coffman and the sources shown in the article which pass the GNG. If the nominator is looking for "extraordinary things" to be worthy of keeping, that is not how the GNG works, nor is the fact that the paper "published for a few years" an indication of a lack of notability. WP:ORGCRIT clearly states it is for organisations "with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion." Which is hardly appropriate for a historic journal that as the nomination notes ceased publication many years ago. Nor is WP:NNEWSPAPER a good argument for the same reason, and in fact has a subsection Wikipedia:DEFUNCTNEWS for this very reason. Spokoyni (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spokoyni, I hope you do understand that passing mentions don't prove WP:GNG. The concern here is lack of "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and not that it published for just few years. You are claiming that any newspaper (including political mouthpieces such as the subject of this AfD) automatically passes Wikipedia's notability criteria simply because it got a few passing mentions. This flies in the face of WP:N

The source + quote mentioned above by Coffman is clearly a passing mention with no evidence of notability from this quote. It only confirms the paper existed.

Let's take a look at the refs in the article.

ref 1 mentions the paper but the publisher of this source is "Центр. ком-т Культурного союзу укр. трудящих в ЧССР" (Cultural Union of Ukrainian workers in the Czechoslovakia) which is an ethnic organisation (similar to a political party.) So this publisher isnt an independent newspaper and can be considered an SPS.
ref 2 ~~Does not mention the subject at all. (see results.)~~ A two line mention in this snippet that mentions the newspaper's lifespan and its promoters.
ref 3 Only a one line WP:Passing mention that says "The paper was shut down"
ref 4 does not mention the subject see search result
ref 5 is again a one line WP:Passing mention. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, has the possibility of multiple ways to transcribe a non-Latin script name into Latin script occured to you? --Soman (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely what I am saying, and as has been shown on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golos Pravdy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trud, Zemlia i More, your attempts to apply WP:ORGCRIT and assertions of failure to meet GNG are not upheld by the community. Your assessment of the sources would be more convincing if you had some knowledge of the subjects you were trying to argue. Ref 2 for instance is clearly not in cyrillic, so your search using Пряшевщина of course turned up nothing. Try this. I am concerned that you have either cherry picked the way you searched that source, or WP:Competence is lacking in how you approach the matter of sources. Spokoyni (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spokoyni I stand corrected on ref2. But even in this snippet I can only see a 2 line mention about the newspaper's lifespan and its promoters, please explain how you are calling it as significant coverage. Please refrain from WP:ADHOM and attacking the AfD nominator, without providing evidence. If you have rebuttals to my assertions on sources (like you shared for ref2) please present them I will be glad to hear them and if convinced I am ready to withdraw the AfD, but at the moment there is nothing AFAICS that proves the notability. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding it hard to maintain good faith when I see such evidence of canvassing at [30], [31], [32]. Snippet view shows you four lines, and it is disingenuous of you to pretend that the mention stops because the snippet view doesn't show any more than that. This just shows the weakenss of your approach to rely on current google returns for sources for historical subjects. Ref 2 shows that this subject has its own entry in a national encyclopedia. I see that as establishing notability, you see that as a passing mention. And you really must stop trying to suppress disagreement with your POV by claiming that you are being the subject of personal attacks. I can see that's getting very short shrift from several editors, and I would be prepared to join them in an official complaint. The evidence I provided was that you had, at best through lack of competence in handling the sources that were presented, inappropriately dismissed a source. Spokoyni (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not meet the definition of canvassing, see Wikipedia:Canvassing which explicitly says that placing a message at "the talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion" is appropriate. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks Mr. Vernon) Spokoyni, Please familiarize yourself with WP:CANVAS before falsely accusing others of Canvassing. WP:APPNOTE states An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. I would suggest you strike off this inappropriate accusation of canvassing. your comments are more on WP:ADHOM and less on the topic of the AfD, hence I requested for fresh perspectives from appropriate wikiproject.. I really don't want to go offtopic, So I will ignore the rest of your comment. Another thing that You pointed in your first comment that you believe the contemporary newspapers are involved in advertising using PR professionals, don't you think that this also happened in past. Or do you really believe that there was no advertisement in the past ? That is quite a shocking assumption. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:VOTESTACK. DBigXray has selected those projects which seem most likely to agree with his point of view. There have been no notifications to the Russian, Slovakian, or Ukrainian projects. And this is "Or do you really believe that there was no advertisement in the past ? That is quite a shocking assumption." what is called a strawman argument. Spokoyni (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikiproject newspaper so the next relevant wikiproject that cover newspaper topics were alerted.Spokoyni you yourself stated above that "WP:ORGCRIT clearly states it is for organisations "with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion." Which is hardly appropriate for a historic journal that as the nomination notes ceased publication many years ago." Aren't you stating that historic journal did not indulged in advertising or promotion ? I am simply pointing this obvious fallacious argument made by you. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, how do any of those projects imply vote stacking? That article says "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion." How would posting to the talk pages of WikiProject_Politics and WikiProject_Organizations be considered selective and why would those projects be biased against this newspaper? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and analysis of the hits turning up in Google Books mentioning the newspaper in passing and it not being the subject of coverage per WP:GNG. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, DBigXray tagged number of the references in the article. I provided quotes at Talk:Priashevshchina. Two points in particular to note, Наукові записки mentions Priashevshchina on 18 pages, so there could definitely be scope for expansion for a person with language skills and access to the journal in full. And in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Priashevshchina is given a full entry of its own. --Soman (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Magocsi mentions the following : "012 Duklja, Vol. XXXIII, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Edited by Fedir KovaC. Presov: Kul'turnyj sojuz ukrajins'kych trudjaSCych CSSR, 1985, 80 pages each issue. This volume contains relatively fewer scholarly articles in comparison with previous issues. Among the topics dealt with are life in the Presov Region during the first year after World War II, by Ivan Vanat (No. 1); the role of the newspaper Prjasevscina (1945-51) in the literary life of the Presov Region, by Mychajlo Roman (No. 3)" so... if anyone would get their hands on this publication, there is definitely expansion scope. The fact that the newspaper has been the main topic for academic articles should be taken into consideration in the AfD debate. --Soman (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: quote: "After the end of the war, several events had a very positive influence on the development of literature: The newspaper PrjaSevSCina started coming out towards the end of the war and creative individuals grouped around it. In addition to covering politics, the newspaper stimulated the development of literature." (Sirka, 1978, p. 31, https://books.google.co,/books?id=WwuxAAAAIAAJ ) --Soman (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: http://www.clovekaspolocnost.sk/jquery/pdf.php?gui=5FLUAWHCYZ7IG5CZU4GB4U9W : "Po roku 1945 začalo vychádzať niekoľko ukrajinských časopisov a novín. Medzi najvýznamnejšie, na stránkach ktorých sa objavovali články o ukrajinskom národnostnom školstve patrili: Prjaševščina, Demokratičeskij golos, Karpatskaja zvezda (Karpatska zvizda), Nove žyttja, Družno vpered, Duklja. Spomenieme aj Hlas ľudu hospodársky, kultúrny, spoločenský a politický týždenník, ktorý vydával Krajský výbor Komunistickej strany Slovenska pre prešovský kraj v rokoch 1945 – 1950 a následne jeho pokračovateľom sa stali noviny Nový život, ktoré vychádzali do roku 1957. Obdobie šesťdesiatych rokoch 20. storočia je vdobovej tlači výrazné svojou početnosťou článkov o ukrajinskom školstve na Slovensku." (quick translate: "After 1945, several Ukrainian magazines and newspapers were published. Some of the most prominent pages on the Ukrainian national education system were: Prjaševščina, ...") --Soman (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, https://www.rusyn.sk/data/files/23.pdf , pages 28-29, has material on the role of Priashevshchina in propagation of Soviet annexation of the region, and the reaction of Slovak authorities. Someone with better language skills could adapt the material better than me. --Soman (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that a newspaper that survived six years in those turbulant times is notable. Michael E Nolan (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, https://books.google.com/books?id=rtJAAAAAYAAJ p. 640, states "Okrem slovenských periodík vychádzala tlač pre občanov ukrajinskej národnosti. Z jej štyroch časopisov mal vedúce postavenie týždenník Prjaševščina (25.3.1945-28.6.1945)" Google translate: "In addition to Slovak periodicals, the press was published for citizens of Ukrainian nationality. Of its four magazines, the leading weekly newspaper was Prjashevshchina (25.3.1945-28.6.1951)". So whilst this can reaffirm the notability of Priashevshchina as the major Ukrainian publication in Czechoslovakia at the time (someone please double-check the Slovak translation...), it gives slightly different dates of publishing than other refs. --Soman (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per K.e.coffman. The sources currently in the article are fine and the very fact that "A newspaper that published for a few years" (70 years ago) is mentioned at all shows its significance. Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's notable enough to have its own entry in Encyclopedia of Ukraine (p. 216). -Zanhe (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The brevity of the mentions in several sources is irrelevant for establishing notability. What the newspaper represents is what establishes notablility, not the verbosity of the sources. Inclusion in another encyclopedia is sufficient to establish notability for purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia. Websurfer2 (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. That it has an entry in a reliable tertiary source makes this a slam-dunk by any standard, but even without that, this is clearly an encyclopedic topic with adequate coverage to support a stand-alone article. Even if we supposed for the sake of argument that the GNG creates a ground for deletion rather than merging (by its own terms, it plainly doesn't), the sources cited earlier in the discussion would already have been more than sufficient. -- Visviva (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment withdrawing nom since the page has been expanded 4 times since it was nominatedDBig Xrayᗙ 07:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason McCoy Inc[edit]

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

New York City art gallery. I cannot find even a scrap of good independent coverage. GNG/NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the first time I've seen a gallery list "exhibited artists". That means artists whose work they sell on the secondary market, not working artists they represent (Waseem Ahmed (artist), Kenneth Blom, Terrell James, Kevin King (artist), Nick Lamia, Christiane Löhr, Ilana Manolson, Bryan Osburn, Annelies Štrba, listed here: https://www.jasonmccoyinc.com/artists) and not artists whose estate they represent (Bernard Childs, Stephen Greene (artist), Raymond Han, Frederick Kiesler, Charles Pollock, listed here: https://www.jasonmccoyinc.com/estates). Many of those articles are problematic, and I'm fairly sure they have been created by the gallery itself: either User:Jmcc1234 or User:MCCOYGALLERY. Vexations (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think User:MCCOYGALLERY might be related? :) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here are sources that review exhibitions/mention McCoy: Artnet - "A Show in Munich Reveals Intimate and Unusual Works by Jackson Pollock (And, No, They’re Not Paintings)—See Them Here", The New York Times - "Review/Art; Condo Creates a Future With Layers of Nostalgia ... Hunt Slonem Jason McCoy Inc.", NGA - "Jackson Pollock - Totem Lesson 2 .. from whom bought through Jason McCoy, New York, by the Australian National Gallery, February 1986", Artforum - "Charles Pollock Jason McCoy Gallery", MOMA - "Jackson Pollock Screenprints: A new Discovery ... They were neither documented nor shown anywhere pub licly until 1995, .. Footnote 2. Exhibited at the Jason McCoy Gallery, New York .. It is also possible that, .. Pollock was considering using them for a book .. Footnote 7. Stephen Cadwalader of the Jason McCoy Gallery, New York, brought this suggestion to the author's attention.(pp 2-4)", but is this enough for wikiarticles about McCoy or his gallery? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: ...Is this enough for wikiarticles about McCoy or his gallery? Unsurprisingly I would say no. The first link you gave has some good coverage and into. The second and third are simply namechecks, and the fourth is a footnote.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i note that, according to article, the gallery was established in 1982 (sources?), some editors may suggest that this contributes to wikinotability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nailya Alexander Gallery), à la "If I can make it there, I'm gonna make it anywhere,"(?) Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage cited is decidedly shallow. Not all galleries in New York, a world art capital, or even the Fuller Building, are notable automatically, although as indicated by Mr. Sinatra, it's one factor. In the past 30 years the artists featured here are, to put it kindly, B-Listers. I would not oppose a redirect to Lee Krasner, who did have a connection. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Stockton earthquake[edit]

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

No encyclopedic value Dawnseeker2000 08:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Dawnseeker2000 08:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:EVENT. Mikenorton (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can the content be moved into a list of UK Earthquakes instead of just deleting it? 80.169.132.92 (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the trend in Wikiproject Earthquakes is to apply our notability guidelines to both articles and lists. In other words, if the event does not qualify for a stand-alone article it should not be in a list. Remember that we are an encyclopedia. Not an earthquake catalog. If a reader is needing to view that many earthquakes, there are several very high quality catalogs to choose from the major players in the earthquake monitoring field. Their websites are outstanding. Dawnseeker2000 19:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this isn't notable enough for a standalone, but that's kind of an odd trend considering lists are perfect for information that isn't notable enough for an article and List of earthquakes in the British Isles has few if any notable earthquakes in the list. Redirect this. SportingFlyer T·C 09:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The state of that list article is problematic as it is currently an indiscriminate list of all earthquakes that have been felt, which isn't what wikipedia is for. I've attempted to improve it in the past and got nowhere - I'm trying to get the energy to have another go. Mikenorton (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to be a sourced list of earthquakes which occurred in the UK and is a "list assembled with thought" - how is that in any way indiscriminate? SportingFlyer T·C 10:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but here is not the place for that discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable seismic event. ⌚️ (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable tremor, WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Just came by to point out how misleading the title is, since Stockton, California is the place that is located in a real earthquake-prone region. Just sayin'. No need to address since article will probably be deleted. StonyBrook (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Glasman[edit]

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

The history shows only two significant contributions to this article, created by an SPA in 2011 and then a large-scale update by an IP SPA in 2014.

None of the sources are RSs. It's self-promotional, for a career of little achievement - nothing that can justify GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plenty of issues with this one, including the non-independent sources used, the article being highly promotional, etc. But basically this individual appears non-notable. There is simply no SIGCOV, nor does he satisfy any of the MUSICIAN criteria. PK650 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - winning a Clio is a big award per WP:CREATIVE. I'd like to see better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I couldn't find reliable sourcing for the Clio. In fact, most of the awards can't be verified. PR fluff like "has received 30 international awards for his work, including Clios, Mobius and D&ADs" rings highly of paid editing, don't you think? And are the Clio awards even notable/significant? They used to be a business charging for tickets and nominations, so their relevance is questionable at best. PK650 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable persons can disagree on the value of a Clio. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Winning the Clio may or may not be notable, but since there's no proof that he actually won one, that's irrelevant. None of the "sources" I checked for the other "international awards" mention him. The claim that he worked on Superman IV and the Deathwish series isn't supported by his IMDb entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename to Wachregiment (disambiguation). Sandstein 19:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wachregiment[edit]

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

These are all partial title matches. Perhaps sources exist for an overview broad-concept article, but it's not appropriate as a disambiguation page. b uidhe 17:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Wachregiment (disambiguation) as there are clearly multiple potential matches and WP:NOPRIMARY. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Wachregiment (disambiguation) as per Eggishorn. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please discuss the argument that a dab page is not needed. Renaming it would not change that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To address the relisting comment: the original nomination did not make an argument about disambiguation other than, "...it's not appropriate". Well, why? Renaming would comply with the WP:DAB policy: there are clearly multiple possible matches for "wachtregiment" as a search term, it is a plausible search term, the page contains redirects to 5 possible results, all of which are notable on their own, and none of the results is primary. Hence, renaming to follow the naming standard for all other disambiguation pages and keeping it is beneficial to the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but all the results are partial title matches. None of them are named, standalone as "Wachregiment"—there are other words in the names. WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. b uidhe 19:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATA is not policy, it's an essay and nothing more. WP:DAB, on the other hand, is an editing guideline and the whole point of the project is to be useful. Lastly, the standard isn't "will the entire target title be used as a search term", it's "will the redirecting title be used as a search term". Which do you think a reader is more likely to type into a search box: "Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment" or "wachtregiment"? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:DAB says that dabs should not be created for partial title matches. b uidhe 02:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wachregiment (disambiguation). I appreciate the reference to WP:Partial given above. Read closely you'll notice that partial title match DABs are not forbidden but restricted to certain circumstances. We have Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. For instance, the Mississippi River article could not feasibly be titled Mississippi, since that name is used by the US state article, but it is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi". and It is entirely proper to include such place names in disambiguation pages with the specific title (North Carolina is properly listed at Carolina (disambiguation)); but only exceptionally in the generic title (we do not expect to see North Carolina in North (disambiguation), just as we do not expect to see Mississippi River in River (disambiguation)). Having reviewed that and given the search term is plausible and that there is no primary, a DAB is appropriate. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of wachregiments. None of the entries qualify for a dab page per WP:PTM; you don't see a gigantic Regiment (disambiguation), do you? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to this, but I'm not convinced LISTN has been demonstrated. b uidhe 21:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)You know, I considered that, but I couldn't find discussion as a group or set, WP:LISTN, nor from going over the articles could I discern a common pattern beyond the name and being elite, as not all the units served a ceremonial function. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to bludgeon this discussion, but I don't know if I'll have time to get back to this again. Wachregiment is a logical search term, but it can't be redirected because it has five more or less similarly plausible targets. Readers should have some kind of navigational assistance if they use that search term to help them find what they're looking for. If there is a rule which prevents us from providing that assistance, we should just ignore it. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Body psychotherapy. Sandstein 19:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reichian body-oriented psychotherapy[edit]

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

I had merged this article with body psychotherapy, but a user reverted this merger with the claim that the umbrella term is not a synonym. However, there does not seem to be a type of body psychotherapy that is not based in part on Reich's claims. As such, this article is either functioning as a soapbox or it is a WP:POVFORK. Either way, that's a delete or "reinstate redirect". jps (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator's rationale is contradicted by the Body psychotherapy itself, which reads:

Alongside the body psychotherapies built directly on the work of Reich, there is a branch of post-Jungian body psychotherapies, developed from Jung's idea of the 'somatic unconscious'.^[1] While many post-Jungians dismiss Reich and do not work with the body,^[2] contributors to Jungian derived body psychotherapy include Arnold Mindell with his concept of the 'dreambody' and the development of process oriented psychology.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] Process oriented psychology is known for its focus on the body and movement.^[7]^[8]

^ Totton, N. (2003). Body Psychotherapy: An Introduction. Berkshire, England: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill House. ISBN 0-335-21039-2 (p.28)
^ Heuer, G. (2005). “In my flesh I will see god”: Jungian body psychotherapy. In N. Totton (Ed.), New Dimensions in Body Psychotherapy. ISBN 978-0335-21592-8 (pp. 102–144). London: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill. (p.106,107)
^ Caldwell, C. (1997) 'Dreams and the dreaming body. Amy and Arny Mindell' in C. Caldwell (Ed.) Getting in touch: The guide to new body-centered therapies. Wheaton, IL: Quest. ISBN 978-0835-60761-2 (p.61)
^ Totton, N. (2003). Body Psychotherapy: An Introduction. Berkshire, England: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill House. ISBN 0-335-21039-2 (p.107-108)
^ Audergon, J.-C. (2005). The body in Process Work. In N. Totton (Ed.), New Dimensions in Body Psychotherapy (pp. 153–167). London: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0335-21592-8
^ Young, C. (2011). The history and development of Body Psychotherapy: European collaboration. Body, Movement and Dance in Psychotherapy, 6(1), 57–68. doi:10.1080/17432979.2010.545189 (p.65)
^ Payne, H. (2006). Tracking the web of interconnectivity (Editorial). Body, Movement and Dance in Psychotherapy: An International Journal for Theory, Research and Practice, 1(1), 7–15. DOI: 10.1080/17432970500468117 (p.9)
^ "Modern Body Psychotherapy". bodypsychotherapist.

--Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've gotten this confused here. If you check each of these sources you will find references back to Reich who indeed was the initiator of this modality. That some later therapists have thought it wise to avoid Reich in their justifications and refer instead to his antecedent Jung is not surprising given the issues that arose with Reich's orgone medicine. The point is, however, that these are not two separate subjects and the article that exists does not add any reliably sourced content to Wikipedia beyond promotion of pseudoscience. jps (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the article was originally named bioenergetic analysis, which is definitely not synonymous with body psychotherapy. I suspect the renaming was misguided. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but it's very hard to identify sources which indicate that these therapies are receiving notice outside of the small communities which promote them. I think it may be worthwhile to pare down our coverage of these until we find better sources. Right now, we're relying on the credulity of therapists who promote their methods over others without much third-party review. jps (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but as it turns out, only Reichian body-oriented psychotherapy contains any significant criticism. Body psychotherapy, instead, is written from the POV of its adherents. Therefore, deleting Reichian body-oriented psychotherapy would exacerbate the POV problem. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to body psychotherapy - this does seem to be notable bollocks, but there's really only one topic as far as I can tell so the issue is basically one of WP:POVFORKing. Guy (help!) 11:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into body psychotherapy - [33] suggests it's Reichian. —Paleo Neonate – 00:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. I remember studying this as a undergrad in my Psychology of Motivation course. There's not enough a a difference with body psychology, so this is in effect a fork. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andaman Kural[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. No indication why this newspaper is notable and deserves an article. It is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:MILL. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the main Tamil language publication of the archipelago, at least in earlier period. There are about 50,000 Tamil speakers in the Union Territory, so having a circulation of 4,500 (each newspaper is read by more than 1 person in most cases) means that the publication reaches a major share of the Tamil community. --Soman (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Soman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Soman, still fails WP:ORGCRIT. You are giving statistical juggling without a link to back up your numbers, while the requirement here is of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.--DBig Xrayᗙ 11:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful, well-sourced and encyclopedic. The fact that it does not qualify for a presumption of notability under certain guidelines is not itself grounds for removing such facially encyclopedic material, particularly when the article clearly embodies the hard work of many editors over an extended period. Also, tangentially, WP:MILL is one of the most shockingly anti-wiki essays I've had the misfortune to read. -- Visviva (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visviva I am sure you don't mean that all newspapers are notable. I could not find the coverage that merits a pass of WP:NORG. It is possible that I may have missed something, Please post the links that led you to vote keep. If they are indeed convincing I may offer to withdraw the AfD. DBig Xrayᗙ 07:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently passé to suggest that people on AfD should read the policies they cite. But if you were to do so, you would note that WP:N (and its various specialized guidelines) is not about whether a topic should be covered at all, but whether it should be covered in a freestanding article rather than in an article about some superordinate topic, e.g. Newspapers of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (article does not exist). Perhaps such a merge would be warranted in this case, but I think that's a question that editors with local expertise can tackle, and it doesn't require any form of deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are concerns about WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTYELLOWPAGE. In any case links that support the notability are expected from AFD participants and it is still sorely lacking. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched online for "Andaman Kural" and "अंडमान कुरल" but nothing much turned up. The content in the article seems to be it. No prejudice against a List of newspapers of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Ping me if you find significant additional coverage. starship .paint (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify, the newspaper seems not verifiable, at least I couldn't find almost anything about it. Could potentially move it to the proposed List of newspaper of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands if there is something about it. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrandSafway[edit]

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

Google, Google News, and Google Books all return not much but press releases (and rehash), meaning this article topic fails to meet the WP:GNG. Izno (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case the community/closing admin cares, there are also concerns here of (undeclared) paid editing (I was not the one to assess that). --Izno (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question who eviscerated the article? I prefer to evaluate the article when it was an article and not a sentence as it is now. COI does not necessitate completely erasing. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who removed the majority of the content today because it was not sourced to reliable sources. There might have been content prior that was of actual interest, but the search for sources indicated that there was nothing to see here even without my removals. --Izno (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started putting the article together. The company is notable and has 114 locations in North America and 253 loactions around the world. They have 38,000 plus employees/associates. The company is valued at over 6.7 billion dollars. The article needs additional work, but it is clearly a pass of WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability for companies is based entirely on substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources - not on size, turnover or number of employees. Of the 7 sources in the article as of writing this comment: two are the websites of the company or parents/subsidiaries, the Nasdaq one is simply a syndicated version of the Reuters article (and so in fact the inclusion of it gives a distinct impression of deliberate padding to make the sources appear better than they are), and one is a business directory website. None of those are suitable sources and all should simply be removed. That leaves the original Reuters piece, which is a run-of-the-mill business announcement and offers almost no depth. Finally, the two BIC pieces: one is an interview, therefore not independent, so does little to establish notability. The other is a very brief announcement with little depth. Both would, I think, deserve inclusion alongside better sources but on their own they clearly do not offer ‘substantial coverage’ in ‘multiple’ sources. Hug^syrup 08:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also explicitly considered the sources that Lightburst has added before bringing this article to AFD and identified the same issues, hence why we're here. So, I agree with your analysis. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A company worth billions of dollars is obviously notable based on common sense. To claim something is notable if some random reporter decided to choose it to write an article about one day, no matter how small and insignificant it is, but a company worth billions of dollars is not, is simple ridiculous. The guidelines have a disclaimer at the top which reads "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Dream Focus 11:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of our notability guidelines agree with your position. As I said in the nomination, I saw nothing else either in news reports or in books to consider this company in the realm of notable, whatever its revenues or otherwise. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to here they also go by Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services Inc (or they where acquired by them. Its not really clear) and also Safway Group Holding. Which might be why there isn't many article out there when looking for BrandSafway. Although that's just speculation as I didn't check. It could just as likely be that they aren't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has a complex history. It was formed by merger in 2017 and so the name "BrandSafway" is comparatively recent, being derived from the parents "Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services" and the "Safway Group". The latter started in 1936 as the "Uecker Equipment Company" and was then renamed "Safway Steel Scaffolds" which then became one of the largest scaffolding makers in the world. The Brand side of the family has an even more complex history, starting when Pitou, Beinecke and Davidson (no relation), founded Patent Construction Systems in 1909 – see the State Library of Massachusetts for details. A variety of other scaffolding business were acquired and the conglomerate was then acquired by Harsco in 1964 which continued the process of acquisition. So, we have numerous company names to search for and therefore a naïve Google search on the current title is not enough. There are substantial and detailed sources about scaffolding and construction such as this and so there is ample scope to develop the topic and its history of over 100 years. Per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rather suspect that 'Massachusetts Historical Commission Form B Annex E' is a primary source, and so cannot really be used to establish notability. And even were that not the case, I also do not believe that a historical and architectural description of a building does anything to establish the notability of a company that occupied/occupies it. Hug^syrup 15:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Massachusetts Historical Commission history is secondary as it was written many years after the matters that it describes. And it has an extensive bibliography, giving the sources which were the basis of its research. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as "keep", but a participant in the debate would prefer a relist to establish further consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Defaulting to keep, without prejudice against another nomination if the notability issues become clearer. – bradv🍁 15:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muzammil Haque[edit]

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

Whereas the subject is possibly notable, the article is POV and says nothing about the subject. Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I could find only one reliable source that mentions the subject which is not already in the article. Even that source mentions him in passing. But this source looks more like a press release by an organisation in his name. All I could find was non-reliable sources mentioning things named after the subject like school, hostel, and similar; but not about the subject himself. I also added a little content about the subject from a source already present in the article, which is about the death of subjec's brother. Such paid "people mourning after XYZ's death" obituaries/news are common in India. Overall, the subject doesn't have coverage, nor significant coverage in sources, only passing mentions that too mostly in non-reliable sources; thus failing general notability criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having schools named after you is not a sign of notability, otherwise we would have an article on John R. King (school secretary) and Paul K. Causino.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - having three public buildings named after a subject indicates the subject might be notable. I found some sources on Google Books that need to be examined. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Hi. I couldnt find any public places names after him in my search. Would tell me their names? It will help me with search, and maybe i would find something usable. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, see a youth hostel here and a primary school here. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are government schools and hostels at universities named after him. At different places Mojammil, Mujammil, Mozammil has been written because of translation from Assamese to English. If one google using different spellings one finds many mentions.InspireTheWorld1 (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2020 (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)} 14:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weal delete whilst having stuff names after you might be a sign of notability, it may be a sign of having wealthy or influential parents, not of any inherent notability. We need RS about the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was an activist who succumbed to police bullets. Do you think government names hostel in public universities and media organisations gives away awards if someones parents are wealthy or when someone is notable enough then only awards and hostels are named after persons?!InspireTheWorld1 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do (ohh and universities often name things after or at the behest of donors, as do hospitals and libraries), if they are notable we would have more then just things named after them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in the light of the arguements provided by InspireTheWorld1, and Bearian: the local politicians usually use this tactic to appease/pacify public. Other organisations have similar intentions, including brandjacking. It is very common in India. The subject died in a protest, obviously someone or other is going to use the subject's name. But the fact that we cant find basic information about the subject, is an indication that they are not notable. If they were really a notable person, a lot more things would have been named after them. I dont like to say this, but the subject was 17 years old protestor in a protest, among many others. He was hit by a bullet, and died. He was not an organiser of that protest, or some influential leader. The subject fails general notability guidelines. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One can read this URL wherein the spelling is wrongly mentioned as Mojammil Haque. ^[1]. If we use alternative spellings then lots of citation can be found. Even more in Assamese language.

The citation I mentioned discusses about the subject and hence falls under the general notably rules of Wiki. InspireTheWorld1 (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InspireTheWorld1, If you have access to Assamese language sources then you can present them as well. It is not that only English sources can be accepted. I understand that the regional language is Assamese so it is expected. DBig Xrayᗙ 13:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can understand and write Assamese. Via google search in Assamese by typing মোজাম্মিল হক অসম (Muzammil Haque Assam) and শ্বহীদ মোজাম্মিল হক (martyr Muzammil Haque) I found coverages of his death anniversary these are not enough for passing WP:GNG. He is considered as first martyr of Assamese Language Movement. So the article can be redirected to Assamese Language Movement.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was a martyr of Madhaym movement and not language movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InspireTheWorld1 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I can't understand Assamese but one of the "recognition" he has is through the name of an award of the Assam Sahitya Sabha is a major literary institution. So if we are going to weigh on the merit of the argument of whether having public institutions named after yourself as sign of notability. He might just pass. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO makes not mention of "having an award named after them". At best this is an argument to have a brief mention about him in any section about the award at Assam Sahitya Sabha. When I start to see "variant spellings" being used I have to ask "how do we know its the same person"? Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded with Slatersteven. We can add a little about the subject in Assam Sahitya Sabha appropriately. (I also fixed Slatersteven's comment/signature in this edit.) —usernamekiran (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Karanfilovski-Bojs[edit]

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

I did Google search, and I couldn't really find much about the subject of this article that isn't already said. The only notable thing about him is the Eurovision Song Contest 2000... King of Scorpions 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. King of Scorpions 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. King of Scorpions 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V unless it's sourced that he was a star in Macedonia. Had he been a performer at the ESC it might have been different, but he was just a songwriter. Could redirect to either the song or his family member. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. It's up to editors to change the redirect target or to merge any content from history. There's consensus to not keep this, but no consensus as to where to redirect or merge this to. So that's up to the editorial process to figure out. Sandstein 13:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Displacer beast[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. The only current reception source is a trivial listicle. TTN (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The information in reliable, secondary sources is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. There is the "top ten" style list currently included, and then brief entries in a couple of books that do nothing but describe the creature as it exists in-game. There is nothing that would establish any kind of real world notability. Rorshacma (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. I just will never understand the bizarre desire of some editors to remove content rather than preserve it. Your mate down the pub? Your house? Your brother's band? Clearly not notable. A well-established element of a game played by millions? Clearly worthy of recording. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not inherited, so it really does not matter how notable, nor how many millions of people play D&D. The individual elements of the game are not automatically notable, themselves, and need to clear the WP:GNG on their own merits (i.e., having sufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources). Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is not inherited" really is a completely irrelevant comment in relation to this discussion (but a very popular one among those who love to get articles deleted, I've noticed). Nobody is claiming it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that is not what you were arguing with your claim that "A well-established element of a game played by millions? Clearly worthy of recording", then I'm not actually sure what rationale you are using to argue to preserve the material, as WP:ITSNOTABLE is also not a valid argument. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an opinion. As are most comments at AfD. Remember, we don't have rules on Wikipedia. Something that is too often forgotten by those whose primary purpose and source of enjoyment here is to delete others' work, I've found. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insinuating that people who do thankless AfD's because they somehow love deleting people's work is ridiculous. Mostly because it's not "deleted". That work can always be transwikied if it's something totally unique and helpful to fans. I go to fan wikis all the time for info on various franchises and media. Though usually it already exists off wiki in superior detail._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really? I've been here a long time and I've actually seen evidence (on user talkpages) that some editors do indeed celebrate the deletion of articles and see it as one of their main purposes for being here and their main source of enjoyment while they are here. So no, I'm sorry to say I do not believe it's ridiculous at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources are really independent enough of the topic for this to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 03:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support a redirect, either - the proposed redirect location is to a WP:GAMEGUIDE which probably also needs to be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 00:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SportingFlyer, I have a different opinion about the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, but would you consider changing your mind about deletion of displacer beast if the target was Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons instead? That would in my opinion be just as valid a merge target. Daranios (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article also appears to fail WP:GAMEGUIDE. 07:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

How so, as that article is mostly based on independent secondary sources, and mostly contains meta-information rather than plot-summary-like information? Daranios (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable monstercruft that fails GNG. As said above, already exists on the Forgotten Realms wiki in superior detail._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Two secondary sources are used in the article, and the displacer beast also appears in The Monsters Know What They're Doing. If that's not enough to keep the article, it should be merged and redirected, because there is no benefit in removing all information by deletion. Daranios (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Monsters Know What They're Doing is actually one of the book entries I mentioned in my comment above as being nothing but a straight description of the creature as it exists in-game. That book is literally just a game guide for most of its entries, and does not really have any sort of discussion or commentary that indicates real world notability of the creatures it describes. Rorshacma (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Monsters Know What They're Doing provides the description and use in the game, but only very little further real-world connection for the displacer beast. (That's different in some other cases.) I understand that a purely plot-summary article is no good in Wikipedia. However, WP:GNG does not say that "significant coverage" has to be done all in one source (which would exclude usage of many sources). WP:GNG also does not say that a secondary source providing only plot summaries does not count towards providing notability. As long as extant secondary sources together provide "significant coverage", WP:GNG can be fulfilled.

As I am obiously leaning towards a more loose interpretation, I see the "significant coverage" fullfilled by these three sources (you mentioned there were more?), and therefore want to keep the article. I can understand if someone sees this more critically and says this as too little for a stand-alone article, so that it should be merged (if a target is available, which it is) and redirected.

What I cannot understand is why it should be deleted. WP:GNG says "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." What would be the benefit of loosing what's here instead of at least putting it into another article? How would that make Wikipedia better? Daranios (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the other book I was referring to in my comment was the "For Dummies" book, but that one is basically just a mention - a Displacer Beast is just the example monster mentioned in the paragraph explaining how awarding experience works, but there is no actual coverage of what a Displacer Beast is. Also, as mentioned in other AFDs, the independence of the "For Dummies" books is debatable, as they were written by two, at the time, current employees of Wizards of the Coast. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monsters_in_Dungeons_&_Dragons#TSR_2009_–_Monster_Manual_(1977), where it is mentioned in context. This was one of the early monsters and there are sources across many authors for it spanning 30 years of coverage. There is not enough independent sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but basic facts about the monster are verifiable, e.g., a brief mention in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. It is a plausible search term and it is Wikipedia policy per WP:ATD to prefer alternatives to deletion, such redirects, for verifiable material. Hence, I think redirect is a reasonable policy-based course of action. None of the editors recommending deletion have given a policy-based reason as to why deletion is better than redirect; claiming "doesn't meet WP:GNG" is not enough to preclude a redirect. As such, their recommendations to delete are flawed. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) Merge and redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters per Daranios and Necroesp. Miniapolis 19:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient WP:RS to establish WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added another RS and removed some of the fan cruft. Ignoring all of the TSR publications cited, the article has three RS (Ewatt; Witwer et al; Bricken) that all choose to put a spotlight on this creation as an important part of the early game of D&D. Guinness323 (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Arts and Arcana" book, while not published by Wizards themselves, is an officially licensed dungeons and dragons product, and is listed on the official D&D product page as such. I would not really consider it to be independent any more than, say, the the current official comic or video games like Baldur's Gate. All of them, while not actually published by TSR/Wizards, are officially licensed, created with Wizards, and advertised as being official D&D products on their own website. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three authors are independent of WotC. Their plan was to demonstrate the changes in D&D artwork, but in order to do so without running into copyright issues, they needed to gain permission of WotC to use any and all artwork. The easiest way to do this was to get a license from WotC. If WotC had commissioned the book as a vanity piece, it would have been a WotC publication and would have said so on the title page. In fact it is published by Ten Speed Press, and the copyright is owned by Witwer et al. Guinness323 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Guinness323 's source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guinness323's argumentation for the independence of Arts and Arcana seems plausible to me. The authors seem not to be associated with Wizards of the Coast. An internet search provided a Forbes article, which says things like: The "illustrated history is providing an unprecedented look at the visual evolution of the game, showing its continued influence on the worlds of pop culture and fantasy" and "Art & Arcana helps put the game in context". That sounds exactly like the kind of out-of-universe analytical content which has been belamented as absent in so many AfDs. Daranios (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on real-world independent sources: Art & Arcana and Of Dice and Men, currently cited in the article. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article currently cites three non-primary sources (Arts & Arcana, Of Dice and Men, and io9), which should be enough to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Neutral (see the belove comments) Not a very active user (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of Dice and Men/Witwer source is clearly not significant coverage: according to a Google Books search, the book only mentions this once and directly quotes from the Monster Manual. The io9 is a Gizmodo article which just includes it in a list of monsters. Neither of these demonstrate notability so I stand on my delete !vote. I don't have access to Arts & Arcana, so I'm even giving that the benefit of the doubt. SportingFlyer T·C 07:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out "Of Dice And Men" from Google Books, and it seems that you are right. I'll change my vote to "neutral" unless more non-primary sources can be found. Not a very active user (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of the secondary sources given, one is a passing mention and the independence of the other is questionable. Undisputedly, they are not enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't what we do here dispute about if this passes GNG? There were two more secondary sources discussed. What again were the benefits of deletion for Wikipedia compared to at least a merge in a case of doubt about GNG? Daranios (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with a very selective merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons Redirects are cheap, while there are insufficient references in reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG it is a plausible search term, a small amount of additional material can be incorporated there. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not that I think we need more than one list of DnD monsters, but that's a discussion for another time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting IceFishing as blocked sock. Sandstein 19:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter E. Hoffman Jr.[edit]

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

Biography of an airline pilot and operator of smalltown aviation services, "referenced" only to his paid inclusion death notice on the self-published website of a funeral home rather than any evidence of notability-supporting reliable source coverage about him in media. As always, simply owning a business is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees a person a biographical article just because you can offer technical verification that he existed -- the notability test is the depth and range and volume of journalistic coverage he did or didn't receive about his business career in media, and is not fulfilled by just showing a paid death notice. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Wally was a well-known local character, and I have included more references in the press and on the web to his airline and his airpark and resort (which first got me interested in this, since I fly over it all the time). Dclunie (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC) dclunie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclunie (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe that User:Dclunie was acting in good faith when they created the page, but the subject appears to fail WP:BIO.IphisOfCrete (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to post local-color articles, we need substantial reliable sources and for people of local interest we need articles outside of hyper locals. Not everyone who gets an article in a hyper local paper is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some material and sources, primarily, however, my argument is that he established two companies, a small airline and, separately, a honeymoon hotel with its own airstrip , both have articles and I readily found sources form which both articles can be expanded (I have not carried out these expansions). I do see enough here to keep - (totally apart from coverage of the former Eagle Scout who started killing Pennsylvania State Troopers and went to ground in the abandoned hanger of the abandoned honeymoon hotel air field where he was found after a massive manhunt.)IceFishing (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass. Maybe redirect Pocono Airlines? Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. I'm not seeing anything that remotely could be considered notable. This is an ordinary businessman who worked part-time as a pilot, or alternately, who used his day job to subsidize his hobby that never went anywhere. Bearian (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There seems to be enough here for an article to pass GNG though barely. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you decide, thank you all for your thoughtful consideration (and IceFishing for your interesting additional reference about how full-time aircrew have a lot of spare time to moonlight). It has certainly educated me on what Wikipedia is and is not, and I accept that even though the concept of notability (or utility of any kind) is hard to quantify, that there is a marginal cost to adding an entry to Wikipedia, which is resource constrained. Previously I had thought that the more information in Wikipedia the better, no matter how narrow the audience might be (i.e., a sort of Encyclopedia Galactica containing all information about everything). I now understand that it is not nearly that simple. As someone whose day job involves standards and document maintenance, it is also interesting to be even peripherally involved in your consensus, decision making and discussion tracking process. Rest assured that I am not dissuaded from continuing to make my minuscule contributions in the fields with which I am engaged (Aviation and Medicine), and will try and research and apply the correct procedures more effectively in future. Dclunie (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless there's something interesting that I'm missing, it doesn't satisfy GNG. Dorama285 18:57 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No independent articles about the man himself. I'm not all that familiar with aviation notability guidelines, but I'm also wondering if Birchwood-Pocono Airpark and Pocono Airlines should also be deleted. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shafiullah Quadri[edit]

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

There is no significant source to Pass WP:GNG The fact that he contested an election does not prove his notability,Fails WP:NPOL Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 17:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 17:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 17:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Google search turned up one mention of the subject on a news site. All other mentions were on PR sites. There is no significant coverage to show notability. Thus, it fails WP:GNG and does not pass WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He is the elected candidate as Member of the Legislative Assembly (India) from Rajendranagar Constituency in Hyderabad. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 00:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Authordom:,:Could you please provide any source here that validates your point..?-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source he received 0.16% of the vote in 2014 and did not stand in 2018. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ,which means @Authordom: said a false statement here -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 05:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test per WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this is referenced entirely to brief glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that do not have him as their subject, so there are no grounds to claim that he would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Véronique Tristram[edit]

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

Not relevant enough. ExtraOrdinaryCrafts (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not an editor in chief; not mentioned in Glamour_(magazine)#International_editions; just run of the mill; not enough coverage about the subject. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth R. Valpey[edit]

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

nn scholar, tagged since 2016 without improvements. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "but hang on his latest books is about moos!", "sorry coola, i know you like books about cows but a different type ie. Moo, Baa, La La La! or Click, Clack, Moo it is not, (see Cow Care in Hindu Animal Ethics here). ps. and apparently no reviews apart from flap copy (yet?). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent coverage outside of the ISKCON universe. Badly fails WP:NPROF. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kushal (Hindi word)[edit]

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

Article dedicated to a word, its meaning and etymology. Should deleted per WP:NOTDIC. Wiktionary already has an entry for it. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete.' Unrefefenced dicdef. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. WP:DICDEF. Wiktionary is the appropriate wiki project for this. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-k(r)ushal article. Wikipedia is not a Sanskrit dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is categorized as 'Indian given names', but doesn't seem to be tagged to WikiProject Anthroponomy. I've left an AfD notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy, but I don't know whether the name is notable by the standards of that project. Cnilep (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this were an Anthroponymy page, it would be named Kushal (given name). As it's currently unsourced, it can anyways be deleted even if a list of people with the name were to be created.—Bagumba (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the name a variant of Kaushal? – Uanfala (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Kushal" says so, without references. I guess, we need page Kushal (given name) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as an ordinary name. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Sandstein 19:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan McCaffrey[edit]

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

Non-notable football player. Being a back-up quarterback at Michigan and having notable relatives do not meet any notability standards. He may become notable playing at a high profile school like Michigan but that requires a crystal ball. Right now he hasn't done anything to show he's notable or have any coverage that is unusual for a highly recruited high schooler. Sandals1 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. McCaffrey has been on the radar for quite a while, and were it my decision as to when to start the article, I'd have waited until the fall when he in all likelihood will be Michigan's starting QB. An analogy can be drawn, however, to the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Chugunov situation where an article on Ohio State's backup QB was kept. At worst, the article should be draftified (sp?). I want to examine the coverage further before casting a final vote. Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please see User talk:Sandals1 for known WP:Sock PenulisHantu (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PenulisHantu: Your !vote will be discounted by any closing reviewer as it doesn't cite any applicable policy for keeping the article. It appears you're just trying to sling mud at the nominator by making unfounded accusations.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PenulisHantu, since the talk page only shows a block reverted with apology, and an accusation by an editor who was themselves blocked as a sock, what is your point? If you want to defend the article, speak to policy and sources. Schazjmd (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: @Schazjmd: Pointing out a fact from User talk:Sandals1. I'm not married to the page and fine with whatever happens to it. PenulisHantu (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What "fact" are you alluding to? That the editor was incorrectly blocked once for sockpuppetry, or that an editor that accused them was themselves blocked as a sock? That you feel it's necessary to point either of these irrelevant events out in reponse to an AfD nomination is concerning. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. The existing coverage is routine. McCaffrey has played in ten games over two seasons and hasn't accomplished anything especially noteworthy in that span. If he becomes the starting QB in 2020 that may be a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I'm drawing the comparison with Spencer Rattler, who was the backup at Oklahoma last year. College backup QBs are rarely notable, though McCaffrey has gotten some coverage. Either weak keep or move to draft would be fine. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I'd say McCaffery is just a bit under the waterline of notability but he will likely receive enough coverage to pass GNG in the late summer/early fall assuming he is Michigan's starting QB. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a backup college football QB is not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Will likely be notable in the future, but right now, it's simply WP:TOOSOON. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify it's borderline, but there's no point in deleting now only to recreate in a few months. Lepricavark (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now (WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL), move to mainspace later if that becomes appropriate. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Speedy deleted by Bbb23 following a sockpuppet investigation. kingboyk (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Bhanot[edit]

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

Appears not to meet WP:GNG. Was proposed for deletion by User:Jerodlycett with the rationale "I cannot find WP:RS to show he meets WP:GNG let alone anything beyond that."

A previous version edited by one user blocked as a sock and one blocked for promotion was speedy deleted under G11. The first revision of this article has some striking similarities to that deleted article. kingboyk (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. kingboyk (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McAsey[edit]

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

Deletion requested by article subject via OTRS (Ticket#2020012810001648). Listing at subject's request, no rationale provided. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: can you give any more background on the reason for the subject's request? Is it a specific issue with article content, or a mere dislike of having an article on himself? – Teratix ₵ 12:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subject states that he did not create the article himself and wants it deleted; no further reason for deletion was offered. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason given for deletion. Subject passes the relevant SNG and given this article from just last year I don't see any privacy concerns. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NFOOTY and with a son now as a top draft pick, interest in him will only increase. Neutral article, nothing controversial at all. The-Pope (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if not speedy keep, as no reasonable rationale for deletion has been given. The article is brief, straightforward, well-sourced and not unduly invasive of the subject's privacy. If the subject has a specific issue with the article's content, he is welcome to bring it up on the talk page. – Teratix ₵ 05:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Teratix and agree about the issue being brought up on the talk page. Bookscale (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's Chris McAsey, the page subject. The main reason I requested deletion is because the page includes my DOB and age. I'm looking for a job and when recruiters Google me, the search page includes a Wikipedia extract, including my age. (It also incorrectly includes a photo of Chris McAsey, the New Zealand rower). My age isn't otherwise publicly available and I believe it has a detrimental effect on my employment opportunities. The other reasons were that I didn't think the fact that I played one game of VFL football met the notability criteria, and that the page presented a narrow view of my life. Those concerns have been alleviated by a recent edit, which added some relevant details. If my DOD and age can be removed, I don't have any issue with the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusty1962 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've removed the date as Wikipedia allows this (see here) but the year you are concerned about has unfortunately been published externally elsewhere (for example, see the two external links on the article page). It seems like your bigger problem is Google that shows up this information - if you Google search your name and click the "feedback" link under the Google profile that comes up on the right, you are able to ask Google to remove any information as the relevant subject. And you should direct your recruiters to this and this! Bookscale (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sports notability is really too low of a threshold, especially in this case, to justify keeping the article against the subject's wishes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the subject is only concerned about one aspect which has been removed to the extent Wikipedia allows it. Bookscale (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As others have stated, subject's concerns have been addressed. As the only delete !vote just says the article shouldn't be kept against the subject's wishes, this should have the same effect as an AfD withdrawn by the nominator, with the outcome being a speedy close as keep. Smartyllama (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Good luck, Crusty1962, on the job search! Bearian (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of council of Vilnius University[edit]

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

Lists of this sort are non-encyclopedic. WP is NOT A DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no merge to Vilnius University, nonencyclopedic detail.Staszek Lem (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable list of academics. Ajf773 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even prominent universities don't have pages listing their trustees or councils. Dorama285 19:00 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Actually, while it is true that Wikipedia is not a directory, WP:DIRECTORY says "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guides, or resources for conducting business", "For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc.", and I do not see how any of that applies here. If it does, a case should be made more explicitly. As for notability, well, the article does cite a couple of news articles in national news web sites Delfi.lt, 15 min, Lithuanian National Radio and Television, they give the full list of the members of (then) newly chosen council. Thus those sources are reliable, secondary (not protocols of relevant meetings, that would be primary sources), independent of the object (neither of those web sites belong to the university), and they cover the subject (the list of members) in detail (that is, they list all those members). Thus the requirements in WP:Notability seem to be met. As for "Even prominent universities don't have pages listing their trustees or councils.", that might look counterintuitive, but maybe in this specific case those boards simply have no suitable sources, for some reason? Maybe the boards themselves are seen to have a less important role? Maybe the people in them are not seen as quite as prominent (in this case Ingrida Šimonytė was a former Finance minister, afterwards was second in presidential elections)? In conclusion, currently I do not see a valid reason for deletion... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom by DGG, WP:NOTDIR, and as original research. This list is akin to having one for the List of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, both of which are quasi-government boards, but neither list is encyclopedic. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – bradv🍁 15:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A.D. Penner[edit]

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

Biography of a small-town (pop. 15K) mayor, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough significant press coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. As always, the notability test for mayors (especially mayors of small towns) is not just the ability to verify that they existed -- it requires the ability to write and reliably source a substantive article that contextualizes his political importance. But this is just a purely biographical sketch, referenced 75 per cent to bad sources: his paid-inclusion death notice in the newspaper classifieds, a (deadlinked) death notice on the self-published website of the funeral chapel that held his funeral, and a very short blurb about other people trying to organize a tribute to him after the funeral. The only source here that isn't completely worthless is a local history book, but even that was published by the local historical society through a print-on-demand house, so it doesn't clinch his notability all by itself if it's the only non-worthless source you can show. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really Weak Keep - the town he was mayor in is the 3rd largest city in the entire providence. That may be the regional prominence per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoral notability is not a question of where the city ranks in an ordinal list — it always requires a substantive article that provides more context for his political importance and cites more sources than this, and the question of whether it's the largest, smallest or middlest city in any given region has nothing to do with it. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local politician which does not put him over the WP:POLITICIAN & WP:GNG guidelines. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BTW Iamreallygoodatcheckers did you know...

... that Wikipedia once deleted an article on a decade-long mayor of Baton Rouge, Louisiana?

ミラ P 19:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when he was mayor the population was below 6,000. This is not the type of place that gives notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added three better sources. User:Mennowiki

You added three new sources, yes. They aren't better, or notability-clinching, ones: mayoral notability always still requires more than that. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added another three more. Scholarly sources. These certainly are better. With the new sources I think this article should stay. The notability rests not simply on him being a mayor of small city, but also his economic impact and his transformative cultural impact, as established in the recently added scholarly sources (From U of T, for example). User:Mennowiki

People don't accumulate notability just because their name gets mentioned in a book that isn't about them in any non-trivial way. So to change the equation here, you have to do a lot more than just reference bomb one single, generic, quasi-promotional sentence with three book citations — it's not enough to just say that "he transformed Steinbach economically and contributed to the cultural assimilation of the Mennonites in southern Manitoba into mainstream society", if you can't or won't write any substantive content that explains how he accomplished those things. What specific things did he do to earn that claim? That's what might make a difference here, not just stating the claim as a given. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rewritten now, with better scholarly sources, to emphasize and address the specific concerns that Bearcat has. Penner is not notable for being a mayor of a small town, but for his cultural and economic impact on the Kleine Gemeinde Mennonites. I believe the article, as it now stands, is substantive and specific. User:Mennowiki —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do think the article should stay. While this article would clearly not meet notability for the subject's contributions as a politician. It does seem to meet notability as a community founder, builder and establisher of a relatively notable ethno-cultural group within a nation or region. I would also think that this article would benefit from some additional credible sources however. In the meantime the article should remain, not based on his contribution as a politician, but rather as a builder and integrator of an ethno-cultural group. Krazytea(talk) 17:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tending towards delete; however, just to be cautious, going ahead (begrudgingly) with this relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 13:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody actually assessed this page as something other than a political page? I believe this article is being considered as a town/city founder and builder, of which him being a politician is only a footnote. There are plenty of similar articles on Wikipedia including for example Alexander Majors, William D. Brown, or Frederick H. Billings as three random examples. Now if under these criteria A.D. Penner does not meet notability, that is fine. If this article is simply being assessed as a now deceased, small town mayor, that is an injustice. Krazytea(talk) 05:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This strikes me as really grey in terms of notability - he's not notable for being the mayor per NPOL, there's enough sources in the article I can't access that aren't about him being a mayor, he was talked about a bit by the Winnipeg Free Press. I'm not sure how independent the Mennonite books are. I've been on the wrong side of articles for "big fish in small pond" articles before - a prominent person in a small community. I really can't determine if WP:GNG is met here, so I'm the weakest possible keep. SportingFlyer T·C 12:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the original article was problematic in terms of sources and not establishing notability. I agree with Kraytea's comments, that the article should be reassessed based on the new academic sources and the notability of A.D. Penner should be judged based on his unique cultural and economic impact in southern Manitoba. The fact is, and the sources (especially Royden Loewen (U of T)) attest to this, the Mennonites of southern Manitoba would be significantly less assimilated had it not been for A.D. Penner. Now, whether this impact is enough to warrant an article can be debated, but as Krazytea pointed out, I hope it's being assessed with this impact in mind. The fact he was mayor is secondary. User:Mennowiki

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notable impact on a certain community, which is not at all "a small pond". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. It's a different article, Bearcat. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD process does not require me to come back and withdraw or revise my nomination statement, or even to have ever looked at this page again. If enough other people are convinced that the article has been improved enough to be keepable now, then it can get kept whether I change my mind or not — so there's no need to ping me in your responses, because my followup attention is not required. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now shows accomplishment. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Seems to meet WP:GNG now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:HEY - credit to Mennowiki for working so hard. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harold M. Brathwaite[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an educator, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to get over WP:GNG. The notability claims here are that he was director of education of a local school board and that he won an award which is not important enough to confer an instant free pass over WP:ANYBIO in the absence of much better sourcing than this -- but the only reference present here at all is a WordPress blog, not a reliable or notability-building source. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not nearly enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You would think that being a school administrator would not be enough (or at least I would). And it's really difficult to find the sources because they're swamped by material about the school named after him. But the sources are there, enough for WP:GNG. So far I've found [34]/[35] (same event, only counts as one source), [36], [37], [38], [39] [40]. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of those are primary sources or blogs, not GNG-building media coverage — and the only two that are actual media reportage are both short blurbs in a suburban hyperlocal community weekly, which is not sufficient to confer a GNG pass all by itself if it's the best media coverage that can be found. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that meets or exceeds two" — it also considers depth, geographic range and context, not just number. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that any of those sources are blogs, so I have no idea where you're getting that from. Which ones? Are you using some strange definition of blog different from what I would expect? The sources currently in the article include two newspaper articles, a biography published by the University of West Indies as part of an event honoring him, and a brief biography of him and some other committee members published by the Ontario government. They would only be primary if we were using those sources to discuss the newspaper, the event, or the committee, none of which are actually mentioned in the article, so they are secondary. Also, there is absolutely nothing in WP:GNG about "geographic range": you are making up that part out of thin air. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ontario government issuing backgrounder press releases on its own website, about its own self-administered award and its own self-appointed panel, are not notability-supporting sources — they aren't independent of the claims being made, but are self-published by a directly affiliated entity. A self-written biography on the self-published WordPress site of a gala he was directly affiliated with is not a notability-supporting source, for the same reasons. And "Barbados in Toronto" is a WordPress blog, not a reliable or notability-supporting source.

And the two sources that are actually newspaper articles are short blurbs in a suburban community hyperlocal, not a major daily newspaper — and we most certainly do have a rule that being able to show just one or two hits of purely local coverage, in purely local interest contexts that aren't "inherently" notable under our SNGs, do not add up to enough coverage to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from having to satisfy any SNGs. If all it took to get a person into Wikipedia on strictly GNG grounds even if they didn't pass any SNGs was to show that they had received two pieces of coverage in their hometown local media, then we would have to keep an article about every municipal councillor on earth, every school board trustee on earth, every garage band that ever won a high school battle of the bands competition, everybody who ever tried out for a high school football team despite having only four toes on their kicking foot, everybody who ever won a high school poetry contest, and my mother's neighbour who got into her local papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her yard.

We don't have a rule that local sources are entirely verboten, and I never said we did — but we certainly do have a rule that if a person has no "inherent" notability claim, and is relying solely on "media coverage exists = GNG" as their path to inclusion, then it does take a lot more than just one or two hits of purely local media coverage in purely local interest contexts to actually get them over that bar. An MP doesn't have to show non-local sources to be kept, for example, because he or she holds an inherently notable NPOL-passing role that guarantees an article — so it doesn't matter how local or non-local an MP's actual sources are, because that wouldn't impact their notability at all. But conversely, city councillors aren't all accepted as "inherently" notable, so to actually be notable enough for inclusion they have to show more than just purely local coverage to demonstrate that they're special notability cases of more than just local prominence. Local sourcing isn't nothing, but it isn't always enough in every context if it's all the subject can show. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG based on the sources found above. Also, at the very least, this could be merged/redirected to the school named after him per WP:ATD. TJMSmith (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources found above clearly do not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Bearcat's analysis of the sources, they are clearly insufficient for a GNG keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tending towards delete (again); however, caution trumps my impulse; re-listing for more comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 13:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is profiled in this book, ISBN: 9781906190064 (and he is featured in several others, if you search him on Google Scholar). In addition, he has a school named after him, and he has received the highest honor available in the province of Ontario. There are likely many newspaper mentions, if someone can access a database with them. Seems like a clear keep to me. Citrivescence (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per GNG. There is 9 references, and he has been a board member and given a notable award. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Goolnik[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Many dead links and searches reveal nothing else other than social media, adverts, directories, a British Dental Association blog etc. etc. The few working links are either internal to the Dentistry niche or the Daily Mail (Australia)!. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think the problem is that there are no sources. The problem is that the sources are buried on the fourth and fifth paged of Google and are quite old. Like this one,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1272248.stm

or this one

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/have-teeth-will-travel-bmkft69t8cd

I think the subject meets WP:GNG but the page has been written like a CV and the sources used are either primary or self-published promo. Perhaps WP:ATD is a better route? Let me take a swing at it, see if I can turn it into a proper page. 8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 12:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also this https://www.standard.co.uk/news/city-bonuses-fuel-boom-for-dentists-6963900.html

Interestingly, all three sources show up green at WP:RS/P. Although dead links should be fixed or removed and promotional content should be removed altogether as per WP:NOT Furthermore, if the page is overly reliant on primary sources it should be tagged accordingly.8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 14:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this page is written as a self published vanity piece. Please delete it forthwith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grotsmashah (talk • contribs) 13:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Most of the articles in the sources are "advertorials", typically paid for advertisements written as editorials. Delete as almost certainly self-authored sources and hence article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.229.22 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhile I agree that most of the content about self-published books and various schemes and charities aren't worthy of inclusion, there is a small amount of RS from the early 00s making him borderline WP:GNG. I'm not saying the page meets WP:NBLP that would be an Indiana Jones-style leap, but it is interesting that Grotsmashah joined WP after the page was nominated and the only other delete vote comes from some random IP address and is putting forward the exact same argument. Funny that....8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 21:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He isn't noteworthy in the profession or wider public. Most in the profession would have no idea who he is, other than a small group of people who are directly involved with him through fringe organisations. It's somewhat difficult to criticise an article on anything other than the self promotional element when that is all that exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.175.49 (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Grotsmashah Just in case you aren't aware, this isn't a ballot. What we are doing here is discussing whether the page is suitable for this encyclopaedia going forward, the number of votes doesn't necessarily influence the outcome one way or another so sending in the cavalry probably isn't the best approach. Now, you may very well be right, the notability bar is much much higher for living people than it is for say, 16th-century lutists and I would be inclined to change my position to a Weak keep if you can persuade me.8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 12:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scruffy 8 Lizard I'm not Grotsmashah. Two of the IP comments are mine, I am not trying to make this a poll and know that this is how it works. You may think you are protecting this page, but this page is vandalism of the concept of Wikipedia. Don't make assumptions about others and their motives. Wikipedia is not for self promotion of people who are not noteworthy. Now I could make this personal as you did, but Golnik is not noteworthy at all, others are far more noteworthy and still wouldn't meet the criteria. This page wouldn't exist if not self-authored. You may notice this AfD was added by Velella, not Grotsmashah— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.5.228 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD is not cleanup. A discussion of the sources presented as in-depth, independent, and reliable should take place, to determine if GNG is indeed met or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources largely paid-for promo pieces or PR release based. Therefore sources are not impartial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.229.22 (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still weak keep This IP hopping SPA who keeps on leaving unsigned messages all over the place has failed to persuade me.8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 12:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltic Origins of Homer's Epic Tales[edit]

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

A rather weird theory that seems to have attracted no serious attention DGG ( talk ) 10:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's presented not as an article about a theory, but about a publication (which may or may not be notable) about the theory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, but there's very little difference. Its much easier to write an article about something specific like a person or a book. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a great deal of difference; and there's a good reason why one is easier than the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this book has been published in a number of editions/languages ie. The Baltic origins of Homer's epic tales - 114 libraries, Omero nel Baltico - 63 libraries, Italian WP has an article on this book - Omero nel Baltico that appears to have multiple reviews, so may be a "keeper", but will leave it to other editors to assess. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Even if there are a lot of library copies of the book, its subject is a strange fringe theory. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The subjects of works are not a valid reason for deletion of articles about such works. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources in the Italian-language article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 28 January 2020 (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)} 14:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Maybe this has a somewhat larger footprint in Italian, but its English reception is negligible. It's obviously an idea that didn't make an impact. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article does not really do anything to show that the essay is in itself notable enough to have its own article, with a serious lack of references to suggest that it has been widely discussed or debated. This might be a focus issue as the article seems geared to repeating and explaining the essay's ideas (which is not terribly encyclopedic), but I would still expect much clearer evidence that the essay has had a significant impact. There are other articles on the origins of Homer's works and associated legends, notably Homeric Question. That article does not seem to mention this work (again bringing in to question its importance), but it might be worth adding some mention of Vinci's ideas there (as well as responses to these theories by other authors if such responses can be found and cited). Dunarc (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE as NN, and WP:UNDUE. If the closing admin wants to keep the history of the article, a smerge to Homeric Question may be in order. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While there is a general keep feel to this the complete lack of clarity in the article between the two similarly named artists has compromised this discussion. Those who feel one (or both?) of these photographers are notable are encouraged to improve this article so its subject is clear as is the sourcing. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Ryan (photographer)[edit]

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

The subject is clearly a skilled and successful portrait photographer, but after nine whole years in which the feeble article might have been strengthened, it's still feeble, perhaps because there's not much that can be added. (Aside, that is, from the obviously unsuitable.) Hoary (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~Pure advertising for a non-notable photographer.~~ Due to the info about him having photos in the National Portrait Gallery definitely notable. Article needs a large update then to represent this. Canterbury Tail talk 15:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's got photos in the National Portrait Gallery[41], Museum of Fine Arts, Houston/[42], and the Worcester Art Museum[43], which I think is good enough for WP:Artist 4d.Jahaza (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well that drastically changes things. Striking to keep then. I think having something in the NPR makes one notable. We should add such information to the article. Canterbury Tail talk 22:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail, thank you for cutting junk from the article. You are of course very welcome to add information to it. (This might inspire you.) But first, do please read the attempted clarification that appears immediately below. -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted clarification: We're talking here about Seamus Ryan (seamus.co.uk). He's a commercial portrait photographer, who I think is based in London. Though I don't live in Britain and wouldn't recognize most British celebs, I do recognize the people in a number of his portraits: he's certainly photographed some famous people. I believe that he has won the Taylor Wessing prize, which is quite something. However, I have no reason to think that he is the same as Seamus A. Ryan (seamusryan.com), who is based in Tunbridge Wells, is also a commercial photographer, has done portraits, but bills himself as a "Fine Art Photographer and Photography Teacher" (so capitalized). Seamus A. Ryan says: "My work is [...] in the permanent collection of the Museum of Fine Art in Houston and the Worcester Museum of Fine Art." -- Hoary (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our man is based in central London, and sounds interesting. But it seems less and less likely that he doubles as Seamus A. Ryan. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds. Interesting. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable secondary indepdent 3rd party indepth sources to establish notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:CREATIVE. We have tended to keep artists whose work are in major world collections, regardless of other issues. If consensus has changed, I'd like to know about that and I would require a re-listing for clear word that consensus has changed. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, WP:OUTCOMES is long and I confess that I haven't read it. But I have looked through its list of contents and I don't spot anything within this that's obviously relevant here. Could you please specify? As for WP:CREATIVE, this lists four criteria. I see no evidence of meeting any of the first three. The fourth itself has four criteria; and again, I see no evidence of meeting any of the first three. The fourth: "been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"; well, he is represented within the permanent collection of one notable gallery (aka art museum). (I trust that nobody is still confusing him with Seamus A. Ryan.) What am I overlooking? -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, not for the first time, there's been confusion about two similarly-named artists. I don't know which is which. It's like that Internet meme of the two Spider Men. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, I think it's pretty easy. Our man is based in London, doesn't put an "A." in his name, almost always works in colour, is a commercial (and sometimes noncommercial) portraitist, and has a prize-winning portrait of Stoppard in the NPG. The other one is based in Tunbridge Wells, always puts an "A." in his name, usually works in B/W, does little portraiture, teaches courses, has prints at MFAH and Worcester. Just look at their two websites: they're easy to tell apart. -- Hoary (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2020 (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)} 14:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let me recap. Jahaza writes that "he's got photos in the National Portrait Gallery[44], Museum of Fine Arts, Houston/[45], and the Worcester Art Museum[46], which I think is good enough for WP:Artist 4d." Our man, Seamus Ryan (seamus.co.uk) has one photograph at the NPG. He describes himself: "He has worked on countless advertising campaigns, editorial commissions and theatre posters over a twenty year career." He adds "He has been awarded by the Association of Photographers and the Taylor Wessing Portrait Prize and has work in the permanent collection of the National Portrait Gallery." (No mention of MFAH or Worcester.) He's based in Shoreditch (central London). He's highly proficient, and the Wessing prize is an achievement -- but he doesn't meet WP:Artist 4d. There is also a Seamus A. Ryan (seamusryan.com). He describes himself as a "Fine Art Photographer and Photography Teacher". He adds "My work is in many private and corporate collections and in the permanent collection of the Museum of Fine Art in Houston and the Worcester Museum of Fine Art." (No mention of the NPG.) He's based in Tunbridge Wells The names of the two photographers are similar, but the risk of confusion is low, if one spends five minutes in each of the two websites. I invite Jahaza, Canterbury Tail and Bearian to do this. (And of course I am open to reasoned arguments that no, I have made some mistake, and the two subtly differing names, the two websites and the three museum holdings are after all of the same one person.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now seems good. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did we all forget about WP:V? Where are the sources to support the statements in the article? Are we just a resume hosting service now? Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Ayoob[edit]

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

Non notable actress who falls short of WP:NACTOR & lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Hence doesn’t scale GNG either. Or Anybio as I can’t see subject receiving any notable awards. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: In terms of the standards for an actress, I agree that she falls short (because the films she starred in don't seem notable), but given the controversies surrounding her modelling career, she might be notable enough to sustain an article on that basis. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Dflaw4. I have the same concerns about notability as a model, but scandals can be notable. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 27 January 2020 (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)} 14:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actress is not notable. Also the controversy is minor. GargAvinash (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist before No Consensus close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the controversies. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Shankar[edit]

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

Non-notable director and producer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Has not directed or produced anything notable. Nothing here to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 13:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 13:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 13:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 27 January 2020 (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)} 14:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Most of the given references even does not include the name of subject. GargAvinash (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lot of WP:REFBOMBing but none of the sources establish that Shankar comes even close to being notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We usually delete articles about producers, and we hold directors tot he same standards of WP:CREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV as other creative persons in the film industry, both of which this subject fails. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Numerically, opinion is divided, and as regards policies and guidelines, the main issue here does not seem to be notability in a technical sense, but whether this is a useful spinout article per WP:SS. About that, people can in good faith disagree. Sandstein 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greta Thunberg speeches[edit]

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

The article isn't a list, so I've moved it to Speeches of Greta Thunberg. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this is not a "list of notable speeches". In fact, none of these are notable. Gettysburg Address is a notable speech. We shall fight on the beaches is a notable speech. These are just speeches, and some of them aren't clearly really even speeches.

Much of the content isn't about speeches at all. All of two sentences of the September 27, 2019 section is actually about the speech. The remainder is trivia about who she borrowed her car from and what questions reporters asked her during a press conference. The same can be said for much of the article. Trivia about what happened before and after speeches. Trivia about panel talks and press conferences that aren't speeches.

What content is directly about these speeches, the lion's share could be removed and added to Wikiquote, as fully half the article is just a random collection of quotations.

The only bit of the whole article I can see that is actually about the broader significance of any of the actual speeches is exactly one sentence about Peter Singer. The reason presumably being because these are not notable speeches, and if you take out inappropriate off-topic content, and the random collections of quotes, there is little to nothing to actually say about the speeches other than the fact that they occurred. GMG ^talk 15:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial agree. The speeches are certainly notable to the point where several have becomes memes and get responses from world leaders. However, the list is certainly not a list, does contain a lot of irrelevant information and often does not include the speech itself. If this can be made into a compliant list very rapidly I would vote to retain it. If not, then delete. I am not intending to work on it myself, so if nobody heeds the call in the nexr very few days, maybe it should go. I think it came into being as a split. E x nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from what I can tell, a bunch of tangentially related loosely compiled content was taken from the main article and moved here, when it should have been removed from the main article and (what parts are actually on-topic) added to Wikiquote instead. GMG ^talk 16:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thunberg's speeches are not "tangentially related" to the subject addressed by the main article, the Greta Thunberg article. This is a supplemental article. Thunberg is a speaker. Thunberg's influence derives from the capacity to verbally deliver forceful messages. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thunberg is primarily noted as a speaker. That is distinct from a climate scientist, a point she clearly makes. Thunberg's speaking style is also exceptionally distinct. I think it can be safely said that no one in the spotlight speaks quite like Thunberg. At the risk of treading on WP:indiscriminate I think a collection of Thunberg's speeches in one place is a useful resource. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL. Otherwise, the relevance of the remainder is unclear. We do not keep or delete articles based on our personal opinions of whether someone is eloquent. If there are useful quotes, they should go on Wikiquote. If/when the speeches are free in their entirety, they should go on Wikisource. Neither of these are encyclopedia articles. GMG ^talk 16:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to an exceptionally distinct speaking style—I didn't say Thunberg was "eloquent". Thunberg is primarily a speaker. Thunberg's influence may wane over time—future speeches given by Thunberg may fail to be as influential as those that have already taken place. But undeniably the verbal exhortations already given have been exceptionally consequential. We are not going to enumerate them in the main article therefore it makes sense to have a supplemental article. Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, then there should be information we can add to the article directly about the impact of the speeches themselves, rather than tangentially related information about subjects other than the speeches. GMG ^talk 18:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reader is benefitted by having a resource of speeches spanning these brief few years. It is axiomatic that the speeches have been impactful. What is questionable is whether this article should continue to compile Thunberg's speeches indefinitely. The speeches compiled here are the reason for Thunberg's notability. Perhaps this material should be re-added to the main article, but either way, they are important supplemental information. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is Wikipedia. We work with sources, not axioms. GMG ^talk 18:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. I did not present any axiom. But let me try that again. The speeches are the bedrock of notability in this biography. I hope you are not going to say we don't do bedrocks here. "Axiomatic" is a manner of speaking. There are no literal axioms involved. Nor were any axioms harmed in developing this product. Rest assured we have the utmost respect for axioms and treat them with delicateness and all-around general respectability. Please see "Colin the Chicken, Portlandia". Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you. GMG ^talk 18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this might be includable in the article on Thunberg, it is not worth creating a seperate article about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"it is not worth" Is there a price tag associated with having "a seperate article"? Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and move I'm moving the article to "Speeches of Greta Thunberg", as everybody here seems to agree this is not a list. Thunberg is one of our most-read articles (top 100 last year), indicating she is very notable. Also, most of the sources indicate her speeches and talks are the reason she is notable. I have readded various parts of speeches back into the main article recently. I think I initially voted against the split from the article, but given her speeches are the basis of numerous memes, musical performances and so, I now believe they are notable on their own. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the issue at hand is not whether Thunberg is notable, or whether her public speaking is what made her notable, but whether her speeches are themselves independently notable, a thing which is not inherited from her person. GMG ^talk 20:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This information could be kept in the main article but why should it? More space is available in a separate article. I think a brief listing could be included in the main article with a note linking to the more expansive treatment found in this article. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the issue at hand is not Greta's notability. I mentioned it because to me it is a bit of a prerequisite for subarticles that the main article is highly notable. Her speeches an sich are notable in my opinion because they are A) themselves extensively covered in media B) fractions of it are abundantly used in memes and C) they are visible in popular culture, for instance in musical renditions by Fatboy Slim and Björk. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - enough worship already! Is relevantly & sufficiently covered in the "good article" about her (the celebration is huge, so I've heard!). Her campaign for climate worry is notable, her adequate wordings not so. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SergeWoodzing—you write "Her campaign for climate worry is notable, her adequate wordings not so." Aren't these two things one and the same? I don't know how you separate her "campaign for climate worry" from her "adequate wordings". Aren't they one and the same? Bus stop (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment, except that it would be nice to give an opinion just once without (someone) starting a lengthy argument. To whomever does not understand what I wrote: sorry, that's all your getting here from me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is "sufficiently covered" in the other article? I just looked. The speeches are not sufficiently covered in any other article. QuackGuru (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thunberg is one of the most well-known living individuals on the planet, yes, but that doesn't therefore mean that every particular action undertaken in her social campaign is notable. Historical figures notable for their oratorical skills don't typically have articles in this style. I'm not aware of even one. There's no 'Speeches by John F. Kennedy' or 'Speeches by Abraham Lincoln'. As stated above, notability for specific talks depends on the context and can't be said to simply be inherited by the speaker's high profile. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeWithMarkets: Just as a point of order, we do actually have some articles similar to this, such as Speeches of Barack Obama. The difference there is that there are a dozen or more speeches by Obama that are notable in their own right and have enough content that can be written to justify stand alone articles. GMG ^talk 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. While this does complicate things, I do still think, as you're getting at, this is an unnecessary article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic and she is widely known for her speeches. Not enough room in the main article to cover the speeches. QuackGuru (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most speeches are not notable, speaking generically here. She came to fame as a result of the UN speech so if there is one article to be had its that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.6.25 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC) — 123.243.6.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment I think the fact that we lack a seperate article on the speeches of Abraham Lincoln speaks for itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- See Lyceum address (1838) Peoria speech (1854) "Lost Speech" (1856) House Divided speech (1858) Lincoln-Douglas debates (1858) Cooper Union Address (1860) Farewell Address (1861) First inaugural address (1861) Gettysburg Address (1863) (event) Second inaugural address (1865) QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least until all the speeches are covered by Wikiquote and Wikisource. Surely this issue/individual is too important for material to be arbitrarily deleted just because it doesn't fit with traditional WP procedures.PeterWD (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per QuackGuru. --kingboyk (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She gets ample coverage around the world for her speeches. This is a valid spin-off article. Dream Focus 15:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and endorse CoffeeWithMarkets' proposal to create a Speeches of Abraham Lincoln page, too. These are reasonable spin-off pages for notable orators. Pburka (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the arguments so far -- she is known for her speeches, and the press provides significant and substantial coverage of her presence at events. Sadads (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Baur[edit]

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

Delete, may be notable butnothing here actually shows she is. Promotion is evident if an editor searches the history of the account who created it. Wikipedia is not a Webhost Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket, the creator has indicated (or tried) the COI on their user page, User:2020sandhu. They also created Draft:Venus boyz--also poorly formatted and full of promotional language and links. But the topics may well be notable. The only film expert I know is User:MichaelQSchmidt, but I don't know how active they are these days. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies I missed that. I'm open to anything here so if they are and I was too hasty feel free to close, check this out first though [[47]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I feel that it's worth noting that they're still skirting policy as they clearly indicate they are working for clients, so imo a COI disclosure isn't sufficient under WP:PAID policy but I guess that's a discussion for elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Praxidicae, I'm not saying they did it right. The draft shows that they are a novice and should have spent a bunch more time practicing before they got to work publicizing their client. Having said that, I do think that the Venus Boyz thing is notable, but I do not have the time right now to really argue that case, and I don't know how much of a bearing it will have on this article. You'd hope that at some point User:2020sandhu starts noticing all these notifications and realizes this is a collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--I'm going out on a limb, a bit, after seeing a few hits in JSTOR (for Draft Boyz, mostly), and a couple significant ones via Google Books--this (ha, a very not so good review of the film, significant and lengthy discussion in this, and this article. Again, I wish I had time right now to improve the article--but the coverage is there. John Pack Lambert, please look at it again, and maybe you can spend a few minutes improving the article--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The conflict of interest behind the creation tells me we should expunge this article on those grounds as well. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for promotion, and so we need to proactively exclude promotional creations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Drmies I'm not sure how your second source there helps establish anything. It's a self-published book of OR from a predatory publisher. Praxidicae (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like I indicated, I did it quickly and didn't look at the publisher. Cambridge is a fishy outlet, that's true, and I don't see anything acceptable cited on those pages. John Pack Lambert, tell me something I don't know--I thought I could actually get you to look at something, but I was wrong. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indiana UP, Palgrave/McMillan, U of Illinois P. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - All this is making me think that Venus Boyz is notable, but the director not really--a paragraph in the article on the film is maybe all we should have. I checked for Cada día historia and Nordland, but there's not much there. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - as it is a well known director whose films won many awards. Also Gabriel Baur is strongly engaged in gender equality within the film industry and therefore part and founder of different associations such as SWAN (Swiss Woman Audiovisual Network). Additionally Venus Boyz is a very notable feature film.--Elena Patrise (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Elena Patrise, you will have to come with better arguments than "because I say so". Please provide reliable, secondary sources; thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies sure, therefore I add sources and references to the article for example the Awards for Venus Boyz --Elena Patrise (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator (and the above delete !voter) apparently failed to do WP:BEFORE. In addition to having won 3 film awards and been nominated for 2 others, I see abundant coverage in Books, Scholar, News, and a number of results in WP refs and Reliable Source Search Engine (sample: [48]), all in multiple languages. If COI is an issue, do the appropriate talkpage (or article page if truly necessary) tagging; AfD is not cleanup. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: There's additional coverage when you use their alternate name, "Gabrielle Baur": Books, News, Scholar, WP refs, Reliable Source Search Engine. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE goes out the window when promotion is occurring, at least for me. Blowing it up and restarting is the best option for a pile of advertising or promotion. Sorry you disagree but I'd nominate again in a second if I saw the same thing occurring. Policy hand wringing doesn't improve the pedia when stuff needs to be swept out. Nothing personal on your opinion just an explanation of mine. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are operating incorrectly. Notability applies to ALL articles and ALL subjects, whether or not there is promotionalism or promotional language in an article. AfD is not cleanup. And any COI concerns belong at WP:COIN, the editor's talkpage, and possibly the talkpage of the article (if tagging). Softlavender (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely seems like there is enough to meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of 8 Out of 10 Cats episodes[edit]

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

AldezD (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelming precedent that game show episodes do not meet guidelines for inclusion. Article does not contain information that meets WP:EPISODE (specifically, "Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory.") This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that is appropriate to be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a television game show episode do not meet WP:GNG. Fails WP:NOT#STATS and WP:IINFO.

No sources for tables of information containing results of individual game show episodes. Only references in article are for television episode ratings.
AldezD (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP If you read through the reasoning in those other AFDs some state information is better suited in the main article and merged over. But there are more seasons listed here. Listing the episodes and their ratings of any television show is commonly done, and if it won't all fit in the main article, a spinout article is fine. Note also that some of those were recreated after more information was available. The X Factor has its series/seasons listed in its main article and linked to in their own individual articles such as The X Factor (British series 1) with another article for just listing its winners at List of The X Factor (UK) finalists. Dream Focus 05:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominations rationale and WP:NOTIINFO. We generally don't include episode lists for game shows. Ajf773 (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINFO reads: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. All articles for television shows list the ratings. Dream Focus 15:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you don't mind input from a casual unregistered user, but I have been editing for around 15 years. I just wanted to let you know that 8 out of 10 Cats is classified as a panel show, like QI, Have I Got News, Would I lie to you? etc... rather than a game show.

There are no civilian contestants, no money winning. It's just a bunch of comedians and Celebrities discussing and playing games surrounding a certain topic, music, film, politics or in this case , polls and statistics. I can understand no episode guide for shows like The Chase, Tipping Point or Family Fortunes where there is money to be earned for either personal gain or charities, but panel shows are a popular part of of UK TV culture.

As far as I have been contributing on Wikipedia, panel shows have always had episode lists in Wikipedia, such as the programmes I mentioned as well as many others, so I would vote to KEEP. Thank You. 160.32.214.75 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC) samusek2[reply]

Keep per MOS:TV and WP:TV standard practices for such articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. It is easy to pretend that panel shows are trivial, and so their episode lists somehow do not constitute worthy content. However such shows are in fact important parts of our culture, particularly and often for their social commentary. Articles on 8 Out of 10 Cats, or …Does Countdown, or QI have considerably cultural significance. However episode lists are large and need frequent updating. Embedding that content in the main article makes the main article unwieldy. Particularly on mobile devices where navigating through long articles can be broadly impractical. Episode lists are better handled, in effect, as appendices. Which structurally is what episode list articles are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahemac (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is not a game show, it is a comedy panel show with the premise of a game as a structure to build the comedy around. This article contains useful information regarding who was on each episode and there is considerable precedent for having this in WP. If information is incomplete - such as ratings - this can be added rather than removing existing good information. Due to its nature, this information would make the main article unwieldy if it were to be included there but it works perfectly well when split off into a separate article such as this. 121.44.38.245 (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite AldezD's claims to the contrary, this list not only contains information that passes WP:EPISODE but is directly encouraged per that policy. The "AfDs related to this article" constitute an apples and oranges comparison.--Laun chba ller 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is primarily an entertainment show Sheila1988 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination statement is a non-starter as this is not a game show. Lepricavark (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus that there is not appropriate sourcing to keep this article. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Sparks[edit]

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

Only reference is a broken link. Would file under BLP PROD but there is a reference regardless. Fails GNG since the reference doesn't demonstrate notability either. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The actress starred in Pizza (2005 film) (moderately notable) and the web series Squaresville (a little less notable but which has been nominated for and won several awards), and she has had recurring roles in Complete Savages, Desperate Housewives and other TV shows—so I think she just passes WP:NACTOR. But yes, sources are needed. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I stated the only reference returns a 404 error. Technically this is an unsourced BLP as such. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources do exist on the actress, though not terribly good ones. I'll add one so that there is at least one source that works, but I hope others can find better ones. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not there to establish anything. No reliable source at all really.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NACTOR with significant roles. Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A source has now been added to the article—not a good one, by any means, but at least the WP:BLP isn't totally unsourced now. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems that the broken link has been fixed, too. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't keep BLPs that lack entirely in reliable sourcing. Press releases and the like aren't coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sourcing is still the main problem with this article. If anyone has found any other sources, please do add them. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has already been relisted three times which is an unusual action but appropriately called for in this situation. While I understand the concerns about editors with unusual AfD profiles participating here, I can find no policy/guideline which would allow me to weight their views at zero - they are members of the community in good standing after all. As such I must evaluate consensus formed by the participants in this discussion and the answer simply is that there is no consensus for keep or delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Country Mobile[edit]

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

After removing all unreliable sources, several related to the linked to the same fake news network, no sources are left. Vexations (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This company is a major telecommunications company in Dubai and it has been published in several newspapers where online version is not available for them. It has well over 500,000 retail outlets, which easily makes it notable. If a page doesn't have source on the page and really if we cant read Arabic, it doesn't mean that company is non-notable. It is a definite keep, ask anyone who lives in Dubai or anyone who can read Arabic. Eddyben21 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddyben21's only contributions have been to add a spamlink for a an article that was deleted under G11 as Unambiguous advertising or promotion) and to My Country Mobile. Vexations (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My Country Mobile is a major telecommunication company in Dubai and certainly has one of the major networks and majority of their news is in print media and if the news is not available online, it doesn't mean that it is non-notable. If nominator knows someone in Dubai, he will say it is blindly notable. To give an example, it is T-mobile of Dubai. 94.204.128.4 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— 94.204.128.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vexations (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this company does not appear to be notable. The only references to the company are from its own website, from user generated content or paid PR pieces in non-reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a one of the biggest company and has several newspaper mentioned in Dubai. This company definitely deserves a space in the Wikipedia. Alanfranc (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alanfranc's only contributions have been to add a spamlink for an article that was deleted under G11 as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", and to this deletion discussion. Seems likely that there is a concerted effort to keep this page alive for advertising purposes. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there are newspapers sources, although they can't be accessed these can be considered as a valid news sources. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Company has sources in Arabic from Al-Ittihad and Al Bayan, that are clearly RS. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shashanksinghvi334, the only sources in the article are brandnewstoday.com, medium.com, popdiaries.com, ibtimes.co.in, m.dailyhunt.in, thestatesman.com, freepressjournal.in, finance.yahoo.com where are Al-Ittihad and Al Bayan? Not in the article. Vexations (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a major telecommunication company and they have sources offline newspapers, which passes WP:GNG. Patrickbetzig (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Patrickbetzig, can you cite those offline sources please? Vexations (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further discussion on offline sources and sources overall
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The test is not merely for "independent sources", newspapers, offline or otherwise. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single one of the sources contains Independent Content and this topic fails notability as per GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I am not sure what other reliable news references you cannot find it, there are sources from Deccan Chronicle, Business Standard and Times of India. link 1, link 2, link 3. I can find these links in one go, it is definitely a keep for me. 103.115.206.243 (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC) — 103.115.206.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As I've said above, the "test" for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability is more than just a source being "reliable". It must also contain Independent Content. This from Business Standard is classic churnalism, reads remarkably like the Deccan Chronicle reference, and relies entirely on information provided by the company as well as two extensive quotes. Fails WP:ORGIND. This from India Times is also based on information provided by the company - it says it in the heading and the first paragraph , also fails WP:ORGIND. Your last reference, from Deccan Chronicle has no attributed journalist, is classic churnalism and is a barely disguised ad. Much of the text is the exact same as the Business Standard reference. It has no indications of any Independent Content and also fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still a keep: So you want to say that these are not reliable articles? I am surprised that you have not even deep dived into the sources and comment. Here is a disclaimer for promotional content on India's largest newspaper 2.6 million daily circulation. So, you want to say that they should use a set template for a news that you believe will be reliable? Even on Business Standard, Deccan Chronicle are also not reliable, they also clearly publish any content with disclaimer. Neha Alawadhi from Business Standard is a Senior Reporter, Times of India is published by their own media house and same is with Deccan. Highking, are you questioning reliability of these Indian Newspapers? I need to share your feedback with them that you claim that these are paid stories. I will highly highly highly recommend to stop looking things from your perception and start looking at a broader perspective that is broadly acceptable. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even more definite a Delete - Your attempt to put words in my mouth with statements such as "So you want to say that these are not reliable articles" and "I need to share your feedback with them that you claim that these are paid stories" is an obvious smokescreen to create a diversion from the central facts. Even ignoring the implied threat with the second statement, your statements aren't even remotely close to what I said. I'll briefly recap/repeat. Being reliable is a necessary requirement but it *isn't* the *only* requirement by a long shot. So when you keep yammering on about the sources being "reliable", that simply shows that you are not aware of the requirements for Companies/Organisation which you can find at WP:NCORP. What is most noticeable is that the Keep !voters are not addressing the requirement that articles (which are used to establish notability) must include "Independent Content" ... but now I'm just repeating my first comment so I refer you to that. The articles in question have zero Independent Content and in fact meet the definition of churnalism. The articles are regurgitations of company-produced "news" and rely entirely on information produced/provided by sources linked to the company and/or interviews/quotations from company executives. The journalists provide zero "extra" info and certainly there is no evidence of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So, while those sources may be used to support facts/figures within the article (as the only requirement for that use is "reliable source"), they may *not* be used to establish notability. I highly recommend you read our policies and guidelines, especially WP:NCORP and in particular the sections WP:ORGIND because the evidence so far is that you haven't fully grasped what is required. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brand News Today is a fake news site. See: https://www.brandnewstoday.com/contact/ Vexations (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An observation: This AfD is from 19 January 2020. [49] was published February 12, 2020, 17:03 IST [50] was published February 12, 2020, 20:33 IST [51] February 13, 2020, 08:01 IST. An IP then posted he reply above on 06:11, 13 February 2020 UTC (11:41 IST) barely 3 1/2 hours later. Vexations (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So you want to say that you want to delete the page because when you have raised AFD, there were no sources, but now they have sources still it should be deleted? Look at the sources, they are best in the class and there can't be better sources than these in India. If you delete it, almost 95% of the company pages from India have the same sources that are considered reliable. Think from a broader perspective and not from just your point of view. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

Keep - article substantially changed since the AFD opened. Noted sources have been added; passes WP:GNG. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapiljaink3 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An argument has been raised that none of the references provided meets the criteria for establishing notability and that therefore this topic fails the test for notability. At the time of writing this comment, none of the Keep !voters have made more that 75 edits and most have made a single digit number of edits, mostly connected with this topic. This indicates some canvassing and raises suspicions of some possible puppetry. The Keep !votes to date are merely vague waves to our guidelines and none have provided any cogent arguments as to *why* the reliable sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My Country Mobile is one of the biggest company and they have sources from all the reliable news that passes the WP:GNG.Mrjaroli (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You say they have sources from all the reliable news that passes the WP:GNG. I say, yes, they have references from reliable sources but that is not sufficient for establishing notability. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability therefore this topic fails GNG/NCORP guidelines. All references that are in the article or which were mentioned here have been checked and none meet the criteria. If you believe a reference meets the criteria, please post a link here. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing these are the English sources I could find. Perhaps Arabic and Indian language sources may be available since it operates mainly in these regions. Gritmem (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How odd - another editor with <75 edits pops into the discussion. Anyway, you haven't provided any links to any articles in any language. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus after multiple relistings. Although there appears to be some issue with the ability to reach articles provided as sources, Wikipedia does not require that all sources be available online. BD2412 T 02:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Jita[edit]

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

Promo looking article for a non notable musician falling short of WP:MUSICBIO and general notability guidelines as subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources falls short of WP:GNG, WP:BASIC & WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The article contains a number of hoaxes. I removed the awards section from the article because the whole thing is false. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the additional refrence I provide Hello, I'm working to create the article, I did'nt finish with refrences provision, unfortunately, before I came back I found that the article was tag for deletion, I add addutional refrences to award list, I do hope you will consider my contribution when you take a look at the refrences carefully. Anasskoko (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject passes WP:NACTOR and atleast meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, I don't see the article looking promotional, although the article may looks shabby, but the references provided are reliable sources as I can see many from BBC Hausa service, Daily Trust, The Kannywood excetera. He's quiet notable as the subjects' works are in non-English settings, a reason in depth sources from English media may be lacking. The Living love 14:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Living love: Which criterion of NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO does the subject meet? Can you please answer this question. Simply saying he meets these requirements doesn't hold any weight. I went through all of the article's 14 references and only two of them (refs 2 and 5) actually contain text about Ali Jita; all of the remaining references are unreliable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK @Versace1608:!, here is my thought regarding what the subject has met per WP:NACTOR, has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. [52], [53], [54]. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. [55], [56],[57], [58], [59]. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. [60], [61], [62], [63]. I stand to be corrected. The Living love 13:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Living love: Refs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 do not work; they all say "Page not found". Refs 3 and 8 are the same exact reference. According to the source, he released his debut studio album Jita in 2009. A Google search of Jita doesn't show it meeting the requirements of WP:NALBUM. He has starred in movies such as Gimbiya Bakandamiya, Kishi, Murmushin Alkawari Zaman Aure and Garin Gimba. A Google search of these films do not bring up reviews in reliable sources. Ali Jita might be known in Kannywood but he isn't notable and doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If he was as big as Ali Nuhu, I'm sure his notability wouldn't be in question. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist before No Consensus close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: Well, first of all let me start by saying those URL links that are provided by The Living love is not provided correctly, because the URL's are not retreived, that is the reason behind the unavailability of the pages in the respective sites. but nevertherless, all the links he provided are those in the main article which he is reffering to. for example the first link he provide is this https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/ali-jita-holds-concert-launches-war-against-cancer.html instead of this https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/kannywood-ali-jita-holds-concert-launches-albums-in-abuja.html ,so you can see the differences, I do hope you are getting my point behind the threats.

Secondly, Let me prove that he stand a chance to have a page in Wikipedia as a singer and songwriter, you misunderstoodd the article or Ali jita in general, you said " He has starred in movies such as Gimbiya Bakandamiya, Kishi, Murmushin Alkawari Zaman Aure and Garin Gimba. A Google search of these films do not bring up reviews in reliable sources. Ali Jita might be known in Kannywood but he isn't notable and doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If he was as big as Ali Nuhu, I'm sure his notability wouldn't be in question" you are correct, but who told you he is an actor? did I? or you seen it written in the article? I was saying he is a singer and songwritter from the article under Music and film career, I even said " Most of Ali Jita's songs where used in the Kannywood film industry, but some of his Albums were sold out to other Hausa film Industries, His associates include Nazifi Asnanic, Fati Niger, Naziru M Ahmad......" check this [64] so he was not an actor, but he is a singer and songwritter. So dont divert him to filmography, He is in line with Hausa Northern Nigerian Singers. [65] His song was ranked Number 2 according to a report by BBC hausa in 2018. So here he is in line. so prove he is not worth as musician,singer and songwritter?

Thirdly, You said " A Google search of Jita doesn't show it meeting the requirements of WP:NALBUM" well, on this I disagree with you, what makes you said so? all those fourteen reference I provided are all in Google serch, Unfortunately, you said they are not reliable sources only two are reliable BBC Hausa and Dailytrust, According to the rules provided under WP:BAND, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SINGER Under Number one, it is stated that 1-Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself so mark that word sources that are reliable. BBC Hausa and Dailytrust are sources and are reliable, If you said they are only two, then two is plural not singular. the rest are also reliable to me and Wikipeia, since they have been retreived, so give me a reason? are they include in blacklisted websites in Wikipedia just like [Nairaland.com], or you just decide on your own, also search for Ali jita in [Bing.com] is another searching engines, I serch Ali jita there and I found more than 10 pages, each page has atleast 5 sites were Jita was discussed. So, I have the right to say he meet the requirements. If you experience difficulties in reaching Bing.com using data, use the free mode 0.freebasics.com, it will connect quickly. make the reserch and tell me how many websites you see.

Fourthly, Ali jita also launched two albums all titled Love is an Audio album with about 12 songs and a video album with seven songs in Federal capital terrotory Abuja. filmmakers, musicians and politician attend the launcing. part of them are The performing actors include Sani Musa Danja, Aminu Ladan Abubakar, Kogi-born musician Fenah and Abdul S. The event was also attended by Wife of Kebbi state governor, Hajiya Zainab Bagudu, wife of Bauchi state governor, Hajiya Aisha Muhammad Abubakar, wife of Kogi state governor, Mrs Rashida Bello and wife of Kaduna state governor, Hajiya Aisha Ummi el-Rufa’i. Other important prominant people included, a wife of former Kano state Governor, Halima Ibrahim Shekarau, and former Director of Army Public Relations (DAPR), Brig-General Sani Usman Kukasheka, Alhaji Abdullahi Shu’aibu Maje and a businessman, Alhaji Alhassan Fatuhu – who bought the two copies of albums – one video and an audio at the sum of N2 million. Also, Filmmakers including actors, Adam A Zango, Yakubu Muhammad, Sadiq Sani Sadiq, Hadiza Aliyu, director, Aminu Saira and musicians, Naziru M Ahmad and Nazifi Asnanic. Other prominant included President Muhammadu Buhari’s National Director of Music, Alhaji Dauda Kahutu (Rarara), actor, Bello Muhammadu Bello (BMB), comedian, Baban Chinedu and Executive Director, Kano state Censor Board, Alhaji Isma’il Afakallah. Check this link and read it carefully and understand it, to see what i'm saying is right, to avoid argument, [66] If Ali jita is not notable then why will all such politicians, actors, actresses and musucian attend his albulm launching? my point here is, if such prominent people will attend his launching, they most have known Ali jita as a Musician, not a local one.

Fifthly, Ali jita with other musician also visit the current president of nigeria to have a dialogue with him because of their support by singing campaign songs to him, a picture is provided in the website where Jita was potrayed next to the president by left, here is the link [67] if Jita is not a notable musician, then how can he be close to the president as a musician?

Lastly, I will like to conclude with futher refrences apart fom those ones in the main article, Ali jita had been discussed in many website, not pass by, but as the main subject of the matter, you made mention that there is no significant coverage about him, check this [68][69] Also check this link, Ali jita have an interview, he was asked about kannywood film industry, the reason why they are not kissing here is what he said as a musician and film producer in Kannywood industry,[70] Futhermore, According to WP:MUSICBIO Number 5, it is stated that 5-Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).check this URL and see his album through his songs. He was also in independent record label, where you can buy Ali jita's song online [71] and [72] Another link were his music can be download, [[73]] Versace, The living love made mention of something earlier, he said Ali jita was not in english settings, I know you are from Nigeria you might understand the most speaking language of Nigeria Hausa, I'm sorry to say this link is written in Hausa, where Jita was said to be a superstar, check it out [74] He even organise sallah celabration, click and see [75] Do you want to see his songs? click on this [76] Ali jita was also said to be a kannywood superstar, check this link. [77] He was also called hausa winning singer and a songwritter [78] According to WP:Musicbio 5-Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.So check this Link four links https://hausa.naijanews.com/2019/12/09/kannywood-ali-jita-ya-lashe-kyautan-mafi-kwarewar-mawaki-a-shekarar-2019/ http://www.citypeopleonline.com/nominations-list-for-arewa-musicians-for-city-people-music-awards/ http://www.invictafm.ng/city-people-award-2018-invicta-fm-didam-make-nomination-list/ https://procyonnews.com/2018-city-people-music-awards-arewa-nomination-list/ With all due respect check the refrences. Anasskoko (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The rationale provided by Anasskoko clearly demonstrates that this subject meets the guidelines. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is broad agreement from all participants that Bert and Ernie are notable. The question posed by this AfD discussion is whether they are notable as independent characters or only notable as a duo. Our process does permit contested (or likely to be contested) redirects to be nominated for deletion so this is an appropriate venue for the discussion. The fact that several partcipants suggesting seperate articles come in with a bolded oppose (compared to a more standard !vote of keep) is suggestive of the emotional impact this discussion has for some editors. Editors in favor of keeping point to other notable duos who have seperate articles, however those advocating merge/redirect suggest some of those duos are different by virtue of being real people as opposed to fictional characters. Editors in favor of keeping also point to independent appearences by each character, and in particular by Ernie. Some editors in favor of keeping also point to a variety of WP:IDONTLIKEIT type reasons. Editors in favor of redirecting/merging suggest that there is limited outside content which could be contained in a joint article and that notability on the whole is jointly achieved as opposed to independently achieved. Ultimately after two relistings there is enough policy based reasoning opposing a merge/redirect to prevent such a closure here, especially because there is some disagreement about whether Bert & Ernie should be merged into a joint article or whether the joint article be merged into the two seperate articles. This kind of content discussion can be had through a merge discussion involving all three articles should those advocating a redirect/merge wish to do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie (Sesame Street)[edit]

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

A notable character, yes, but does he transcend the even more notable Bert and Ernie duo? All non-trivial noteworthy things about the character are already in the duo article (WP:OVERLAP), so a merge proposal doesn't make sense. I'd BOLDly redirect it to the duo article, but I just know that would get undone due to the popularity of the character, so it's AfD then.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

– sgeureka ^t•c 12:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the duo is notable, they are so rarely portrayed on their own it is not worth having seperate articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bert and Ernie. I agree that having two separate articles on each individual is a needless WP:SPLIT from the article on the duo, as nearly all reliable sources discuss them as a group. However, both articles would be logical redirects to the main article. That would also leave the history intact in case anything needs to be merged, though neither article is especially well-sourced, so I'm not sure how much potential merging content there might be. Rorshacma (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bert and Ernie. No need for duplicate content, but this is a logical search term. Hog Farm (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yes, this and the Bert article needs work, but I think that there's enough information out there to warrant keeping both articles. If anything, Bert and Ernie should be deleted; it contains all kinds of duplicate content. I realize that Muppet Wiki shouldn't be our model, but they have two articles with different content and no article about both characters as a duo. If they're kept, I promise to work on both articles and bring them up to snuff, although I'm busy, so it may take a little while. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and potentially merge relevant Bert and Ernie content into this (or Bert) article to resolve WP:OVERLAP problem. Agree with Figureskatingfan above. They’re separate characters and do appear independently of one another as well as together, more appropriate to have two articles than one. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both. While notable together, there's no sense in them being separate. While they are separate characters, they're also a combined skit (for lack of a better word), so pretty much all information on one will be relevant to the other. TTN (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The character is clearly notable, and even the nominator and keep votes acknowledge that, which means the AFD is the wrong venue for this discussion. A Merge discussion should be held in the talk pages instead, where a discussion can be held and a WP:CONSENSUS can be reached about whether a merge or redirect is appropriate. That discussion should take place outside of a deletion discussion, so I would suggest this AFD be speedily ended and the Merge discussion templates be added to the pages instead. — Hunter Kahn 14:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK, there is no wiki venue for discussion if you simply want to redirect something (without merging), so I consider AFD as good as any other. Re-read nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bert and Ernie. Yes, the two have appeared separately, but they are most commonly used together. What unique elements there are for Ernie can be merged into a section about that character in the duo article, and same with Bert. Its an unnecessary split otherwise. --Masem (t) 21:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Oppose. There is quite a bit in the Ernie article that isn't in the combined duo article, and it could be expanded. For one thing, Ernie sang "Rubber Duckie" as a solo, which peaked at #16 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1970. I think that makes the character fairly notable. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, "Rubber Duckie" (as the most important fact on stand-alone Ernie) was already mentioned with sources in Bert and Ernie pre-AfD, which makes/made me question why Ernie needs a stand-alone article at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it has nothing to do with Bert, and it would be confusing for people actually familiar with the characters to get redirected to “Bert and Ernie” for something that wasn't a Bert and Ernie thing? If anything, there should be a WP:SPLIT discussion about reducing the content on the “Bert and Ernie” page, possibly even just to a disambiguation page, with links to each character’s page (and having the content relevant to each of them there). They’re independent characters that don’t always exist together. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not always together, but most often together, as the reader of this article will soon discover. Rubber Duckie has to do with Bert because it has to do with Ernie, who is half of the muppet duo Bert and Ernie. Rubber Duckie is the signature prop that is employed in the skits that Ernie does with Bert. Were someone to seek information about the song, I suppose they would search for Rubber Duckie first, followed by Ernie and Bert / Bert and Ernie / Ernie & Bert, with Ernie the Muppet / Ernie from Sesame Street / Ernie (Sesame Street) being last because they are less intuitive. StonyBrook (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in the latest 26 episodes alone, Ernie appeared solo at least three times. (https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/Episode_4909 https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/Episode_4913 https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/Episode_4916) He appeared with Cookie Monster, sans Bert, way back in episode 8 of the show. Along with Journey to Ernie, which the article briefly mentions, he had another solo recurring segment. Last year Wynton Marsalis had a Sesame concert at the Lincoln Centre, where Ernie performed four songs, only one of which was a duet with Bert. They are separate characters. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Ernie just can't seem to keep that Bert off his back:( StonyBrook (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR and potentially bad publicity for Wikipedia. I don't care if there's no sources primarily about him, I don't want to see Oprah or Christine Teigen blasting us for destroying a beloved childhood character. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that Bert and Ernie is an article, right? This discussion is about the necessity of having separate articles. I don't think anyone would argue that the characters aren't notable. TTN (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Bert and Ernie per everyone else. Most of their notability comes as a pair._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and obviously leave redirects. They are mainly famous as the dynamic duo of Bert and Ernie, no need to have standalones. The individual pages have some good content, which should be saved and added into the main article. I think a straight redirect is not very useful here. If folks feel a merge discussion is more appropriate, I'd support that too and would support closing this AfD as no consensus. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bert and Ernie article only briefly mentions the characters on an individual basis and to delete the individual articles would result in a significant loss of information. Rillington (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bert and Ernie. As others have noted, the pair is most notable as a duo, not on their own. Anecdotal evidence for this comes from reading their separate articles, which mentions their partner in almost every paragraph. The standalone articles seem to bend over backwards to find unique things about them, for, it seems to me, the express purpose of ~~creating~~ retaining a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Case in point is Category:Sesame Street Muppet characters, where the subjects must appear needlessly twice. Merging is necessary in order to replace the good content that was unnecessarily spun off. A similar problem exists with the Tom Cat and Jerry Mouse articles, where a WP:MERGE (not Afd - that happened already) to Tom and Jerry (characters) discussion should be opened. A good example to follow in all of this is Tyke (character) which redirects to Spike and Tyke (characters), (the "character" in the above 2 cases is only necessary due to the existence of the Tom and Jerry and Spike and Tyke series, which does not apply here). Abbott and Costello were also most notable as a duo, but deserve their separate articles because they were people who had real lives outside of their act, while here we are talking about puppets and cartoon characters, endearing as they may be. StonyBrook (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You might could argue Bert doesn't justify his own article, but Ernie has been used a great deal as a stand alone character since the character began. Granted, most of the time, we talk of "Bert and Ernie", but the charting single and other solo work justifies a standalone article. As for the argument, I would point to Captain & Tennille, who are obviously notable as a pair, but you likely couldn't recite from memory a reason why they have individual articles; yet they do, for good reason. I could be wrong, but I think Ernie has charted higher as a solo artist than Toni Tennille has solo. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anokhi[edit]

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

Article cites no sources, and there is no indication that the subject meets WP:GNG. Not a very active user (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a popular TV show. Also no sources avialable on the internet for verifiability. GargAvinash (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bounxouei[edit]

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

Non notable singer who doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO & WP:GNG as subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only brief mentions in publications, which fails GNG. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here is Google news search for Thai name where only sites recognized by Google as news are list [79] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A cursory Google search turns up English-language coverage by Radio Free Asia [80] and Public Radio International [81]. They're based on interviews, but the include the presenters' assertion of her notability --Paul_012 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would love to see a little more participation in this. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking through the above-linked programs and amount of news coverage revealed by Google, I'm convinced that the GNG is satisfied. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability guidelines, press releases are not considered notable. Angus1986 (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist before No Consensus close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article needs a rewrite, but I've found enough sourcing to believe this person is notable. She appears to meet WP:NMUSICIAN #1, if not GNG, by virtue of the coverage on RFA is in fact "The Rising Star of Lao Pop", posted by Paul 012. And moreover she was represented Lao at the ASEAN-Japan Music Festival 2019, along with famous top singers from ASEAN countries [82]. My country Myanmar represent is Sai Sai Kham Leng, who is the Myanmar's top 1 singer and considered most successful singer in the history of Burmese hip hop music. So I think there is sufficient evidence that she meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Thanks Idolmm (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been significantly improved and expanded by me! I knew she is very notable when I was working on expand! She also meets WP:NACTOR, she have starred in the two Thai drama series as the lead roles. Moreover, She is the first UNDP's Goodwill Ambassador for Lao PDR since 2013 [83], [84]. Thanks Idolmm (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been significantly improved with additional reliable sources references so that WP:Basic is passed and deletion is unnecessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus about the significance of the coverage and limited participation after three relists. RL0919 (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reem Al Marzouqi[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Initial appearance of the page is deceptive, as the majoeirty of the refs are 404 errors, those that actually mention the subject only do so in passing. She (and some colleagues) clearly built something that appears to be a car with foot controls. This all occurred in 2013, and nothing since. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Patent is the protection of an idea and does not mean the idea has been applied to make a notable impact. PenulisHantu (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are way, way too many patents given out for getting one to be any sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The patent itself isn't notable, and the article definitely needs some work (the patent link is just to the PCT, not even the granted patent, which has since been granted in Japan and abandoned in China and the EU it looks like). Notability instead comes from media coverage, such as www.thenational.ae/business/technology/expect-more-emirati-women-in-engineering-young-uae-inventor-says-1.317487 and www.arabianbusiness.com/lists/391091-2018-arab-women10reem-al-marzouqi.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tidied up the refs a bit and added a couple more, but the artcle needs proper copy editing really. I also found nipc-gulf.blogspot.com/2014/12/reem-al-marzouqi-emirati-inventor.html but figured might not be a suitable reference for the main article. Kj cheetham (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist before No Consunsus close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as improved. Consensus is now clear. BD2412 T 04:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baitus Samee Mosque (Houston)[edit]

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

As a physical building, this fails WP:NBUILD. The mosque has no historic, social, economic, or architectural importance other than being a place of worship. As a religious organization, this fails WP:NCHURCH as it only receives mentions in local news coverage (see WP:AUD). And even then, most of the local news coverage does not consist of significant coverage in my opinion. Bait30 ^Talk? 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-[85], [86], [87], [88], [89]--that is plenty of third party coverage.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as nom: The third link is not third-party. The fifth link is a blog. The first, second, and fourth links are all local coverage of a singular event thus, it also fails WP:SUSTAINED. And in my opinion, those articles do not provide WP:SIGCOV as the mosque is only mentioned in passing as the victim of a crime. If those articles are enough to establish notability, then this random restaurant which is also a victim of a crime also passes WP:GNG per [90] and [91]. Bait30 ^Talk? 06:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual American religious congregations are rarely notable, even though they hold events that get a little coverage in the local media. I see no indication that this one in notable.IceFishing (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [Was: "Merge", probably to List of mosques in the United States#Baitus Samee, or "Keep" outright.] This mosque, by its photo alone, appears to be a relatively significant mosque in the United States, and there is a row for it in the List of mosques in the United States already. I haven't checked all the sources suggested above, but if consensus is that this mosque is not clearly individually notable, it still can/should appear in the national list-article. And if further sources become available, the redirect left behind can be re-expanded into a full article. Merge/redirect complies with Wikipedia's policies to credit contributors, and our obligation to consider alternatives to deletion (wp:ATD). For the redirect to work, I am setting an "anchor" in the table row. This article should not be deleted outright, because this good alternative to deletion exists. --Doncram (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The user who created the Baitus Samee Mosque (Houston) article is the same user who added the mosque to the List of mosques in the United States article. I feel like using that list article as an indicator of notability would lead to some WP:CIRCULAR troubles. If anything, the mosque should not be part of the list per WP:LSC and WP:CSC. The photo also shouldn't be used as an indicator of notability. Religious buildings tend to very beautiful and ornate, but it still fails WP:NBUILD. Bait30 ^Talk? 07:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's fine as an item in the list-article, as determined by the list-article's principal editors so far, including me. Editors at a list-article are allowed to determine the list-item-notability criteria there. Or do you wish to fight that, there? If so then this AFD should be closed as an administrative matter, pending resolution there, say by an RFC which will take longer than an AFD usually runs. But actually the sources, one of which is a 15 minute documentary that the deletion nominator dismisses, do serve to establish some significance, so I am leaning towards "Keep" outright now. --Doncram (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The 15-minute documentary is not independent of the subject. Baitus Samee Mosque follows the Ahmadiyya branch of Islam. The 15-minute documentary was produced by Muslim Television Ahmadiyya International, which was founded by Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the fourth Ahmadiyya Caliph. Bait30 ^Talk? 17:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I grant that the current version of article is short and all its info could be presented in one row in the list-article. So keeping it split out is not necessary for size reasons. But the mosque exists, and it does appear to be notable to me. I am not sure that the documentary is too closely associated with this mosque for it to be dismissed in terms of establishing notability (it is not produced by this mosque itself, it was produced by a national or international organization). In any case, it is fine for Wikipedia to use substantial, non-controversial info from the documentary to develop the article. Since "list of mosques" is valid topic, then by size reason it is valid to split out a (longer) article on this mosque. --Doncram (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. A mosque does not deserve its own article simply because it's on List of mosques in the United States. Bait30 ^Talk? 23:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the idea of merging because it appears not to comply with the usual practice. At least, similar lists such as List of Greek Orthodox churches in the United States, List of Buddhist temples, and so forth only list blue linked articles, with the exception of, for example, the inclusion of Old Methodist Church (Daphne, Alabama) on the List of Methodist churches in the United States because it is an old, wooden building listed on the National Register of Historic Places and, therefore, could have an article if some editor undertook to write one. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that Wikipedia keeps lists of non-notable buildings or institutions.IceFishing (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure, you are wrong. If what you mean is that you think lists can only consist of items that are individually Wikipedia notable and can have separate articles. No, list-item-notability can be a lower standard and often is. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Well I know from my role in creating many of those and developing in almost all of them, that it is okay for there to be a "black-link" item to be targeted by a redirect. There are indeed a number of redlink items in several of those lists which assert their topics are individually notable. But it is also okay to cover a topic without splitting out an article.
- And it is in fact listed there, so it makes better sense to redirect there than to delete outright, which is what IceFishing voted for further above. Note it would of course be reasonable to create a new redirect to the row in the list-article, while it is simply better to keep the edit history in place, to be restored and expanded if/when more sources are available. This is more compliant with Wikipedia policies on crediting contributors.
- However, "Keep" remains better, as adequate sourcing has been found and more is likely available. See here is another source, this one not about threats to the mosque. It is from the Houston Chronicle and is about the visit of Mirza Masroor Ahmad, "a worldwide spiritual leader of Islam, to the mosque in 2018. (I have accessed too many articles there so can't see the full article.)
- Also by the way there exists Islam in Houston too. --Doncram (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Houston Chronicle article that you linked only mentions the mosque in passing. The article is mainly about how the fifth Ahmadiyya Caliph was visiting Houston. The mosque is only mentioned in a "btw this is where he spoke" sort of way. It is not WP:SIGCOV. Bait30 ^Talk? 06:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the Caliph is a VIP, and the fact that in their visit it was arranged for them to visit this mosque is some indication of relative importance or size or something about this mosque. And although you have not acknowledged it, the mosque is in fact covered in the list-article, and it would be tedious or stupid or something like that to refuse to allow a redirect, at least, to where it is covered in Wikipedia. And, I still don't agree that it is not individually notable; I think there is likely to be more coverage on-line which could be found by better searching (not requiring exact match on narrow name) and more coverage off-line as well. At this point, I would rather see some independent person's view about the Houston Chronicle article, too. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yup, as I surmised, there is plenty of on-line coverage found by searching "Baitus Samee Houston" from numerous news sources. I've added some to the article. As I inferred from the photo alone, this is a major mosque: it is one of 5 major mosques planned by its world-wide community to be built in the U.S. The fact of threats against it appears to me to relate to its great prominence in interfaith efforts, its size, and other importance. --Doncram (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Bait30: IMO it gets tedious if an editor comments in response to every single other comment made which does not perfectly agree with the editor's stated position. Maybe it is more tedious if the editor is the deletion nominator. It is also more tedious if the editor does not concede an iota, ever, about any point at all, IMO. Please let a consensus emerge from others' discussion. --Doncram (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good point. I will abstain from commenting from now on. Bait30 ^Talk? 01:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Doncram and the new sources. MB 16:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because sources have been added.IceFishing (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC) confirmed sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass GNG with sources provided.Djflem (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Marcus L. Rowland. RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diana: Warrior Princess[edit]

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

This article on a commercial product has had only one source for the last 15 years. That source (Pyramid) is not WP:INDEPENDENT as it is published by the product's manufacturer / distributor, Steve Jackson Games. A standard BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) finds no further RS. If significant RS exist in more obscure repositories and can be demonstrated, I will be happy to withdraw this nomination. Chetsford (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of Nom the nominator has incorrectly asserted that the Pyramd review is not WP:INDEPENDENT as it is published by the product's manufacturer / distributor, Steve Jackson Games. While this mistake is understandable, the actual sequence is that (1) the game was initially published in 2004 by Heliograph, Inc.; (2) it was then reviewed by Pyramid, in 2004; (3) it was re-issued by the author in 2007, distributed by Steve Jackson Games (the publisher of Pyramid) among other venues. The review is therefore an independent as well as reliable source, per NBOOK; along with this review by Timothy Brannan, the GNG is satisfied and the Nom can, in good conscience, withdraw this nomination. Newimpartial (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate you clarifying the sequence of events in respect of Pyramid and agree with your conclusion in that regard. Unfortunately, however, the other source you point out - a review by "Timothy B." in the purchaser reviews section of the ecommerce site "dmsguild.com" - is not a WP:RS (we don't, for instance, count purchaser reviews at amazon.com, newegg.com, etc. as RS either). I will, therefore, have to maintain my nomination to delete. I appreciate your input and feedback, however. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford] (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your hesitation, but Brannan is an established reviewer], per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only know that the ecommerce review site review is by "Timothy B.", I don't know his last name is Brannan and there doesn't seem to be anything there establishing that, and even if it is the same person as Timothy Brannan I see no RS establishing him as an expert. Prolific writing does not establish someone as an expert for our purposes. Unfortunately, the purchaser reviews sections on ecommerce sites like dmsguild.com and amazon.com are not RS. Chetsford (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem a fine point, but the review on dmsguild is not a "purchaser" review but rather a "featured reviewer" review. The identity of the reviewer (Timothy Brannan) is documented here; I know the Nom has difficulty finding this information himself. Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this seems to be similar to the "Verified Purchaser" icon on Amazon, differentiating them from "Purchaser." I still would maintain that buyer reviews on ecommerce sites are not RS, however. We may have to agree to disagree on this one - thanks! Chetsford (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, it is the qualifications and reputation of the reviewer, and not the platform, that determine the reliability of self-published reviews. If Ken Hite were shown to leave an RPG review on Amazon, that would be a RS, but not if you or I did so. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, an RS has to establish the author is a SPS, not individual WP editors by declaration. An RS would have to say "Timothy B." is an expert on roleplay games. We can't simply declare that, in our opinion, he is an expert or - because he's published 12 reviews on "rpg.net" "Timothy B." has crossed the expert threshold. "Timothy B.'s" purchaser review on an ecommerce site is not RS. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that Timothy Brannan] is reliable as a reviewer on the basis of the dmsguide reviews, but based on his body of work. The claim that "An RS would have to say that "Ken Hite is an expert on roleplaying games" for Ken Hite's self-published reviews to count as RS is, ahem, unsupported by policy. What matters is the body of work and the respect in which it is held. Newimpartial (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An RS would have to say he is respected to qualify under SPS, not a WP editor by counting the number of articles he's written on "rpg.net" and independently arriving at that conclusion. "Timothy B.'s" purchaser review on an ecommerce site is not RS. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems that the nominator may have misinterpeted some of the sources initially in the article, but with Newimpartial's helpful clarification it is clear that this article has sufficient (albeit scant) reliable sourcing to support notability. The article is far from WP:Featured Article but it meets our guidelines for inclusion. Michepman (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood the discussion. "Some of the sources" (plural) imagines that there are multiple sources. The sources in the article are one (1). I agree the one source in the article, on second reading, is RS; I don't agree that a single source constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Another commenter has proposed that a product buyer review on an e-commerce site can be used as another source, a point to which I will have to agree to disagree (disagreement is not a synonym for misinterpretation). Chetsford (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Chetsford, sometimes disagreement is a synonym for misinterpretation. Reliability of SPS is determined by the standing of the author, not the platform. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be general agreement above that there is at least one RS for this article, the one currently cited in it. While that is not enough by Wikipedia standards to justify keeping a standalone article, it is quite enough - if no further suitable sources are identified - to justify a selective merge to Marcus L. Rowland, the article on the author, which currently lists Diana: Warrior Princess among his works but gives no further detail. The verified information in the article would easily justify an extra paragraph of a few sentences there. PWilkinson (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Marcus L. Rowland per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PRESERVE applies to content within the article, not the existence of the article. Articles have to demonstrate WP:N through WP:SIGCOV. A review on an ecommerce site is not SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do recognize a valid Merge argument when you see one, don't you, Chetsford? Your copypasta suggests otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial -- I think that seems needlessly harsh. While I personally think this article should be kept, I think it is fair to say that Chetsford, who has been on Wikipedia for over 30 months, is familiar with valid Merge arguments. Just because they disagree with us doesn't mean that they don't recognize valid arguments -- it just means that they disagree on this one. Michepman (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:SIGCOV isn't a valid argument against a Merge !vote. I hope we can agree on that, at least. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My response was to the "Keep" portion of the !vote, not the "or Merge" portion. I apologize if that wasn't clear. Thank you for your kind and measured reply. Chetsford (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors disagree not on the existence of sources as much as whether this is a good way to organize information, while policies and guidelines don't clearly address this particular case. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hughes and Margo Montgomery[edit]

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

No evidence of passing NFICTION/GNG, BEFORE only shows mentions in passing. And in general, we don't need THREE articles about two fictional character (through it seems one is already a redirect). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. The Survival of Soap Opera: Transformations for a New Media Era: "As soaps entered the height of their fantasy phase in the early 1980s, Tom's and Margo's love story became one of the greatest examples of the action-adventure and fantasy romance of soaps during this period." Also coverage in Staying Tuned: Contemporary Soap Opera Criticism, Broadcast Writing and As the World Turns: The Complete Family Scrapbook. I'm sure there's more. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NEXIST. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge WTF, we do not need an article covering a fictional couple when both fictional characters already have their own articles: Margo Hughes and Tom Hughes (As the World Turns). If NEXIST, put your sources on their pages...or merge those into this page...or trim them all down, what a ridiculous violation of WP:NOTPLOT. (Along with many of the 60 other articles on the show's characters). Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the way the page is written, then WP:FIXIT; the deletion process isn't meant to solve that problem. The question here is whether this couple is notable or not, and the sources show that it is. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I'd be happy to prune/merge/redirect all this excess plot silliness. But yes, you are allowed to suggest something in an afd besides deleting a page outright or keeping it without change! Just because the sources discuss their relationship as List of As the World Turns characters, they do not mandate that we must have three article for two characters – preposterous! The sources could just as easily be applied to the unreadably long History of As the World Turns. This is already wholly redundant to the plot cesspits of the character articles where you can put your sources too. Reywas92^Talk 08:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine, I agree that it's not a good article and definitely needs improvement. I'm saying that people shouldn't throw something into AfD with "no evidence of passing GNG" when a 15-minute search on Google Books finds a reliable source that shows it's a notable subject. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere relevant. This is such a bizarre way of organizing information. It could be useful if both characters have articles so full of their own information that even beginning to cover the relationship would be impossible, but that seems like it'd be an extremely rare occurrence. TTN (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a supercouple is very important in analysis of soap opera narratives; it's not bizarre at all in that field. See Luke and Laura for the most famous example. Also Soap Opera Supercouples: The Great Romances of Daytime Drama, Soap Opera Confidential: Writers and Soap Insiders on Why We'll Tune in Tomorrow as the World Turns Restlessly by the Guiding Light of Our Lives, Worlds Without End: The Art and History of the Soap Opera, the chapter "The Siren Call of the Super Couple: Soap Operas' Destructive Slide Toward Closure" in Staying Tuned: Contemporary Soap Opera Criticism, Serial Monogamy: Soap Opera, Lifespan, and the Gendered Politics of Fantasy and Screen Couple Chemistry: The Power of 2. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But we are not discussing the deletion of an article on the concept of supercouple.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to TTN's claim that this is "a bizarre way of organizing information." Reception theory for soap opera narrative often looks at the appeal of a particular couple in a way that is separate from their impact as individual characters. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: What do you think about merging articles about individual fictional characters who are supercouples into their supercouple article? I don't think we need three articles, and splitting information like this is also a disservice for the reader. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for asking. I don't think that any of the three articles are well-written according to Wikipedia standards. As you say, there's lots of plot and not enough real-world info or analysis on these articles, and this is sadly true for many soap opera related articles. I think if someone wants to do a proper job of clean-up and improvement on these articles, it would be very welcome, and they could determine the best way to present the information. This AfD process is probably not the right place to kick off an improvement drive; the merge would be done "under the gun" without taking due care. (See WP:NOTCLEANUP.) I think this process should focus on whether the subject of the article is notable. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist before No Consensus close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources found by Toughpigs indicate there is at least some amount of notability with this subject. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Both Keep and Delete rationales have policy-based rationales, and there is no consensus for either. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Price (television producer)[edit]

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

After an online search, I can’t find any reliable substantial sources that demonstrate notability. There are some passing mentions of his work but nothing substantial. NOTE: The US programme Tomorrow People has a character named Roger Price, this appears to be completely different to this producer of the UK Tomorrow People Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing more than passing mentions, as Shellwood has pointed out. This Price isn't right. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TV producers are run of the mill. Nothing here indicates otherwise. Bearian (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Price was the creator of The Tomorrow People, not just its producer. It was a long running and popular British Television series, which was revived in the 1990s, inspired the American remake and a 2000s audio series by Big Finish Productions. Indeed I think people who are calling him a television producer are being a little disingenuous as, as well as producing and creating the series, he also wrote and co-wrote stories and directed episodes of the Tomorrow People. Cardiffbear88 mentions the character in the US TV series - my understanding is he was named as a direct tribute to the Roger Price who created the series and is the subject of this article. If deletion is decided upon it might be worth moving some of the information about Roger Price to The Tomorrow People. Dunarc (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dunarc, this is all really useful, but do you have any secondary independent sources to back up these claims? If so could you please place them in the article so that we can all see them. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Cardiffbear88 for a prompt response. I am afraid most of my knowledge comes from articles Cult television /SciFi magazines read a some time ago (and which I mainly looked at for article on Doctor Who and other series). I have had an awareness of The Tomorrow People, but it has never been a series I have had more than a passing interest in. There seems to be little on the internet other than his credits at IMDb (where he is down as Roger Damon Price), so I am not surprised people are having difficulty. I think Big Finish used to have more on their website when they were producing the audio series, but they lost the license to continue this. I note that the The Tomorrow People article seems to be based on material produced for the 2000s DVD releases of the series, but it also references and interview with Roger Price link here which has some useful info. There is this on Youtube, though I doubt it would be usable as a source. Possibly people with a greater interest in the series and readier access to relevant books could fill in the details - I would suggest adding this discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy as editors viewing that would be better able to help than myself (I would do this myself, but I think it is beyond my editing ability). Dunarc (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a DigitalSpy article from 2013 which mentions Price as the creator of the original UK series and the facts that an Audio series and the US series were based on it (it also mentions comics and novels which I was not aware of, but a google search reveals there were novels based on the series written by price and others). Dunarc (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then a redirect to The Tomorrow People seems the thing to do. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps those that "don't know", should be slimed. Passes WP:CREATIVE for his body of work as creator, director, producer and writer. Yes, the article does need references and other improvements. StrayBolt (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Waterdeep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undermountain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This fails to establish notability. AfD from a decade ago turned into a dogpile "It's important." No real sources have been added since. There seem to be at least two supplemental books (Undermountain: Maddgoth's Castle and Undermountain: The Lost Level) that should be able to discuss the entire context of the fictional location in the wider context they provide. TTN (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient RS to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV Chetsford (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems to paraphrase as, "It passed AfD once. Since then, here are two additional sources specifically about it, and each of those sources is itself notable." Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you want to disingenuously claim that material can source itself to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://in.ign.com/neverwinter/137082/news/playable-gith-coming-to-dungeons-dragons-mmorpg-neverwinter and https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/07/09/the-next-neverwinter-module-uprising-will-arrive-on-pc-august-13th/ talk about the expansion for the game Neverwinter. Back when it was just a role playing game, pen and paper days, did it get any reviews? Perhaps just redirect it to the current game at Neverwinter (video game). Dream Focus 00:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide on a redirect, I think The Ruins of Undermountain might be the better target, as it was the first product to focus on the location.Rorshacma (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nom. mentions two related pages. There is at least one more: The Ruins of Undermountain (as mentioned above). Not ready to make a determination on this one yet as I want to look at notability more closely, but it seems that a merge, at least, is called for. Previous AfD mentioned merging but seems to have forgotten about it. Also I don't quite understand the keep comment (apologies). What is the keep reason being asserted here? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Waterdeep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Waterdeep, as Undermountain is closely related to Waterdeep, and there is sourced content in this article which could be merged. Not a very active user (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Waterdeep per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of League of Super Evil characters[edit]

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

Another long, sprawling list of fictional characters. It's essentially unsourced and consists mostly of original research presented in an in-universe style. Reyk _YO! 08:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing that looks worth merging, so deletion seems like the best case. The list seems to have been written like something found on Fandom. The main article is sufficient to describe core characters without going overly in-depth like this list. TTN (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (A–F)[edit]

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

This page and the other 3 related to it are unnecessary given that we have lists by year, e.g. List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1966). I originally substantially expanded List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War until it grew ridiculously large and it was then split out by year into new pages in 2010, however the alphabetical list remained and was split into these 4 pages. This is unnecessary duplication, with some Users revising and updating the chronological lists while others update the alphabetical lists. We don't need to keep these 4 pages Mztourist (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they list the rest of the operations alphabetically:

Mztourist (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for working on this interesting topic and recognizing the problems with duplication. You could just redirect them to the main list yourself, but they're not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 10:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks but then each alphabetical page would have to redirect to all of the11 chronological pages. Mztourist (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems straight forward to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary duplication.--Staberinde (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Capalaba, Queensland. The redirect cannot be deleted as the content from the article was merged into Capalaba, Queensland. For attribution purposes, the redirect (and all of its attendant history) must be retained. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capalaba Park Shopping Centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG. Gnews just reveals passing mentions. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Capalaba, Queensland. Bookscale (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be another run of the mill, non notable, shopping centre. Ajf773 (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have moved some content into the Capalaba page (and found a couple of extra sources which are not suitable for a sole page but ok for a suburb page). Bookscale (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely. Entirely ordinary non notable typical shopping facility. Totally agree with Bookscale's merge. No need to leave a redirect, not a likely search term in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, without a "redirect" to Capalaba, Queensland in line with above editors, shopping centre does not meet WP:NGEO (significant coverage) for an article. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot. Nominator blocked as sock, no other "delete" opinions, but not much discussion either. Sandstein 19:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Energy FM (Isle of Man)[edit]

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

Unsourced for at least 8 years - no obvious notability Gogolwold (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources I added makes the article good enough to pass WP:GNG. Other than that, the article needs some cleanup. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parked (website)[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB and whole article just feels like a low key advert. Searching for sources didn't turn up much, but with the generic name it's hard to sort through it all. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that it "feels like a low key advert"? All of its claims are sourced and verifiable, and the website's notability within a marginalized sport is well established. If we want scholarly sources for articles on disc golf, Parked is likely where they will originate from. I'm open to suggestions for improving the article. Iketsi (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search on parked is unusable; searches on parkeddiscgolf and Parked A Disc Golf don't find any coverage in independent sources, much less significant coverage. The sources in the article are from the site itself and its owner, two brief mentions, and the PDGA Innovation Grant announcement. Doesn't meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foo creature[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG, as it cites no non-primary sources. A google search finds no non-primary sources discussing the creature, just the usual mix of fan wikis, forums and other non-RS. It also fails WP:PLOTONLY, as it provides no real-life context other than the publication history. Not a very active user (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, non-notable monstercruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GAMEGUIDE and this has no notability outside of the game guide. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnD cruft, hopefully this year we can de-MonsterManual Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT Chetsford (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There do not appear to be any reliable, secondary sources regarding these creatures, so it fails the WP:GNG. These depictions of the creature are too minor and unnotable to be useful as a redirect to Chinese guardian lions, which is what they were based on. Rorshacma (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crysmal[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG, as it cites no non-primary sources. It also fails WP:PLOTONLY, as it provides no real-life context other than the publication history. Not a very active user (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons mentioned above and also because this stub has no potential to become a full article WP:ARTDEV Sulfurboy (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GAMEGUIDE and this has no notability outside of the game guide. Also to note I appear to have a very similar username to the above editor. I though it was me for a minute! Oh dear! -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnD cruft, hopefully this year we can de-MonsterManual Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT Chetsford (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor creature with virtually no sources outside of the primary sources already being used in the article. Fails the WP:GNG by a wide margin. Rorshacma (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Many of the sources come from the company that made the game, which mean the article is primary sourced. From Analog Horror, (talk to me) 20:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Analog Horror[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 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Blom[edit]

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

I cannot find much of anything in terms of sourcing. The three included sources are an event announcement, an article with a passing mention and a page for his art dealer. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, doesn't pass GNG or NARTIST. I could not find any significant coverage in reliable sources, only blogs and gallery listings. Netherzone (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the paywalled article in Aftenposten looks like it might have some decent coverage of the subject. It mention sales of about $150,000 (1.5 million Norwegian kroner), which is not exceptionally high, but at least professional. Blom's own website lists some press as well: https://www.kennethblom.com/press/ Some of those I was able to find: https://mnaves.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/kenneth-blom-at-jason-mccoy-gallery/ is listed as "Naves Mario, City Arts, New York’s Review of Culture, February" http://www.theartwolf.com/news/kenneth_blom.htm is "The artwolf.com. Kenneth Blom Exhibition at Sotheby’s Gleadele, Colin. Sotheby’s,Christie’s" It's not great, but there is some coverage. There's nothing listed on his website that was written after 2010, even though https://www.stayinart.com/kenneth-blom/ appears to have been published 2020-02-06. His gallery doesn't list anything either. It's all pretty marginal. Vexations (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity. BD2412 T 04:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity Sponsored Ministries[edit]

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

Advertising. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising with only one (primary) source. Puddleglum ^2.0 00:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity.Jahaza (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)~~The sources I've pointed to at AFD for the main article should make it clear that there are plenty of sources to support such an article.Jahaza (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
- If you mean Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity, there are enough sources there to justify that article... barely. But the content here, even if totally rewritten and sourced, could easily fit within a section of that article. There definitely aren’t enough WP:RS in that article to warrant two standalone articles. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that there are "barely" enough sources to justify Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity. There are a number of independently published books about the congregation as I noted there. Regardless, that article has been kept and is a good merge target for this one.Jahaza (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article would have to be wholly re-written to meet standards. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to template, this could be a template at the bottom of each page. The template could include some discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to propose a merge into Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity, but upon review, there are literally no WP:RS here and all of the content is promotional in tone and/or improperly formatted for Wikipedia (a list of affiliated health care facilities with embedded external hyperlinks is not consistent with the WP:MOS), so there’s nothing appropriate to merge. An above commented added sources to the parent page, but not this one. Delete, and if someone wants to create Wikipedia appropriate versions of this content, they can do so within a section on the parent page until a WP:SPLIT discussion warrants a separate page just for this activity. I suspect it’ll be awhile before enough content accrues to justify that. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity as this has extra reliable sources references now and so is mergeable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If true (and I haver no reason to believe it is not) this is a particular medical ministry of the order. I have no idea whether this work covering several US States is large enough to be notable or not. Large hospitals are often notable, but smaller clinics are usually not. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity. Clearly, the material would fit, and it is not notable enough to stand on it's own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing per buidhe's collection of sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 08:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan M. Milner[edit]

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

The subject has had a few well-cited publications, but I don't think we have enough to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. Like many biographies of academics, the citations available are bios published non-independently by universities that they've worked at, interviews that give little context about the subject, and works written by the subject, none of which add up to GNG. An internet search turned up more articles written in newspapers by the subject, but not secondary coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Subject easily passes Criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. A simple search of news articles on google show that subject has co-authored articles appearing in NYT and NBCNews. Subject has been quoted as an expert in his field in NYT, Washington Post, Wired, Vice, The Guardian, etc. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR via multiple, substantial reviews of his books. Here is just a sample: [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] b uidhe 07:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page could certainly use some bold cleanup to ditch the promotional tone, adding reviews/reception of his books, and so forth, but AfD is not cleanup. b uidhe 07:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuddle duddle[edit]

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

This article covers a single politician's gaff which had little to no lasting impact. No sign that "fuddle duddle" carries any significance beyond this one event, has not entered normal usage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems sufficiently well-referenced, and still referred to in contemporary media. [97] and [98]. At worst could be renamed to be more specific, but I see no need for that. SportingFlyer T·C 04:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A phrase that is still referred to nearly 50 years later, well-known to older Canadians (such as myself). That's notability with a fuddling capital N. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, those were gentler times when we could be so easily shocked by politicians' utterances. Now, we've got Trump. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lots of reliable sources; it's significant to Canada. Toughpigs (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope you know that this came from the prime minister. SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is still being referenced here in Canada, and the phrase was said by the leader of the country at the time. Haseo9999 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the incident and its lasting impression are extensively covered in every biography of Trudeau available on Google Books. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to just cover this within our article on Trudeau? –dlthewave ☎`

Keep. As trivial as this may seem to the uninitiated, it really did generate enough coverage to clear WP:GNG — and it did have a lasting impact, as demonstrated by the fact that the current prime minister referenced the incident in a speech 44 years later and people still knew what he was talking about. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Ama Eshun[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:ANYBIO. She only received media coverage after her death. She wasn't a notable nurse while she was alive. Per WP:ONEEVENT, the article needs to be deleted. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, likely made by a sock. Obviously the media coverage provided is mostly the same info, with a small article size. BEANS X2 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a tragic, senseless death whereby WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON applies. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Nu Kidd[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources cited in the article do not show the subject's career being discussed. As a matter of fact, he doesn't have a disc jockey career to speak of. Wikipedia is not free promo. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - There are reliable sources about him cited in the article. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)~~ Okay. Here's what I would do: I would withdraw this nomination, then addd a CSD G4 template. Cheers![reply]

@Minecrafter0271: The sources may be reliable but they do not discuss the subject. In order for a subject to have a separate article, they need to be discussed in reliable secondary sources. I must also point out that this article has been speedily deleted in the past; proof of this can be seen here. I am confident the article's creator is a sock master. I am going to be reporting them for sock-puppetry shortly. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 11:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of article has not been discussed in reliable sources with in-depth. Also voicing Versace1608, Per WP:MUSIC subject also does not scale through.Celestina007 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable disk jockey who fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Romulans (band)[edit]

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

A band that appears to fail WP:NBAND. Their only claim to notability is the fact that Paramount Pictures once unsuccessfully tried to sue them due to their name. The only source being used here is the court document regarding that case. Searching for further sources brings up a few very brief mentions of that course case, but that is it. There is not nearly enough for this to pass the WP:GNG. It was deleted once by PROD, but was then Refunded. However, there have been no improvements made since then. Rorshacma (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for sources and could not find any. It seems they were only ever with with a record label called Susstones, which seems very indie. That said, I'm listening to one of their songs right now and I do like it. Antrocent (♫♬) 02:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:1E applies as the band only received reliable media coverage due to the lawsuit. As for their music, because they started in the early 80s there may be a shortage of online sources, but they seem to have reunited in the Internet era and there is still no significant and reliable coverage online or elsewhere. I tried searching for the band name in conjunction with various members' names and found nothing beyond basic listings of their existence and modern social media attempts to drum up interest in their obscure history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National handwriting day[edit]

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

no evidence for notability of this publicity device by the manufacturers' association DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep until someone can show me that it isn't a national holiday. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)~~ Okay, now delete per below. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is claiming that this is a national holiday. Do you know anyone working in America who gets the day off on this day? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a wreck but the event is certainly notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a CNN article on the subject during a WP:BEFORE search but every other source discussing this subject is a blog (not reliable) meaning the topic does not pass the WP:GNG as it does not have significant, non-trivial coverage in many reliable sources. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 13:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass GNG as all sources are either not independent of Writing Instrument Manufacturers Association, or not reliable. Wikisaurus (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plough Quarterly[edit]

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

A non-notable magazine issued by a minor religious organization My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This magazine is notable based on several of the criteria for Media notability. First, the magazine has historical importance based on its influence in the UK peace movement during World War 2. This section was recently removed from the article. Second, The magazine is notable based on its status as one of the most significant intellectual Christian magazines with a circulation outside a particular denomination (i.e., it is significant in a non-trivial niche). Third, the magazine is notable as authoritative, as shown by frequent citation in peer magazines. I agree the article is too brief on these points, but the solution is to improve the article, not to delete it. Should keep. --Grec man (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite any third party WP:RS which tell that the magazine is "one of the most significant intellectual Christian magazines with a circulation outside a particular denomination" or received significant awards? The content was removed because it was not properly sourced. For example, the statement about awards was sourced simply to this [99] which does not say anything about awards. I also noticed that this page was created by you. Based on your editing history [100], you may be affiliated with the Bruderhof Communities. Do you? If so, please check WP:COI. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Working on citing third parties in the article. The statement about awards was sourced to a link which you removed because it was dead; next time just put in a bit of effort to find the archived version. The better solution to poor sourcing is to add sources, not to delete all the content.--Grec man (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, you now included this ref to the page. OK. It appears that Library Journal did include "Plough Quarterly" to their list of new "High quality production" magazines in 2014, saying that "After ten years of having only an online presence, Plough Quarterly is back in print". OK. Is it really an award? Is it enough to establish notability of the magazine per WP:GNG? I do not think so, but leave this to other contributors to decide. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep; Based on recent updates from Grec Man, seems to address notability concerns with adequate 3P references.”86 Joe (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comments by blocked sockpuppet accounts are striked. My very best wishes (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2020 (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)} 14:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any relevant coverage in reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on 21 Jump Street[edit]

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

A list of guest actors that appears to be either indicriminate (redlinks and no links) or with unclear inclusion criteria (guest actor according to whom?), with no indication that the list itself passes WP:LISTN. 21 Jump Street#Guest stars already lists the more notable names (yet with a {{refimprovesect}} banner). I see the real solution in naming the relevant actors in List of 21 Jump Street episodes; however, the episode summaries don't even name the guest characters, making me reluctant to merge them there in any fashion. Note: List of 21 Jump Street characters does not exist, likely due to the nature of the show. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:54, 27 January 2020

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:20, 29 January 2020 (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)} 14:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge to 21 Jump Street (or other suitable list, if available)/Oppose deletion as it passes both WP:CLN and WP:AOAL. Doug Mehus T·C 21:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 02:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Whitmore[edit]

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

Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains Sources can easily be improved. The subject of the article is a newly elected Teachta Dala, meaning the subject is a sitting member of Ireland's Parliment. This means the subject has just been elected to the highest level of political represenation in the Republic of Ireland. This makes the subject extremely notable in the context of Irish politics. I would vehemntly disagree with the deletion of this article. The article has only just been created and should be, at bare minimum, be given the time to be improved instead of immediately deleted. But more generally it shouldn't be deleted, period, as the subject has just become notable and will remain notable because of their office CeltBrowne (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This is not the correct forum to discuss a page move (or fork as this user calls it), and furthermore, pages should not be forked in this way, as the edit history is not preserved. Redirecting 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak to 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.

Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves for how to correctly move a page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak[edit]

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

This article is a forked version from 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak per WP:SUBPOV. I am AfD'ing this article to put my SUBPOV argument into contest. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep 2019–20_novel_coronavirus_outbreak and delete 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak The SUBPOV-fork argument is that "Wuhan" here refer to the province of Wuhan. Just like we won't call this a "China" outbreak if we are in China, and we won't call this a "Earth" outbreak if we live on Earth, it's a questionable subject calling this concept a "Wuhan" outbreak because only people who are not in Wuhan will call it a Wuhan outbreak. Therefore, I challenge the subject 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak having a POV bias, and ask either keep both articles or remove the Wuhan one. I am open to be convinced. (COI: nominator) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak and delete 2019–20_novel_coronavirus_outbreak. This has been discussed at length already in the move debates. Now an end around has occurred. Crazy. As discussed the common name for this outbreak has been Wuhan coronavirus. Similarly geographically named such as the Spanish flu and Ebola viruses were also name for their geographic outbreak areas (though Spanish flu was a bit of a misnomer).Krazytea(talk) 02:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krazytea: thanks for joining that discussion. I argue WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to this debate because I am challenging the POV. If your use Spanish flu as an example, see it's Spanish Wiki version is called es:Pandemia de gripe de 1918 which is not "Spanish flu". Historically English was not used with this global adoption back when Spanish flu outbroke, it's OK that all people who spoke English at the time call it a Spanish flu. Nowa days with English spoken in even Wuhan, it's failed to represents NPOV being called a "Wuhan outbreak" in English xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 02:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with @Krazytea: The name Wuhan coronavirus is in conventional use. You are free to suggest a name change by showing how else it is conventionally referred to in the media, but the only other name I am aware of is just "coronavirus", which isn't suitable. Commonsense suggests calling it by the simplest and most easily recognisable name in English. English is not spoken very fluently throughout most of mainland China, so for most of the Anglosphere, "Wuhan" is a clear designator. IBE (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2019-20_novel_coronavirus_outbreak and delete 2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak The term 'coronavirus' refers to an entire family of SARS-like viruses. The novel coronavirus identifies the specific strain of the virus in the outbreak. I suppose you could also merge the two titles if one ever so desires. 201020132015hawks (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@201020132015hawks:, hopefully merged onto 2019–20_novel_coronavirus_outbreak, we will see how this discussion goes. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 02:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately restore the redirect. It is not appropriate to fork like this. Deleting the original page would hide the page history. If you want a new name, use the normal move procedures. --99of9 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectively disagree, I am arguing a fork. The previous redirect happen to occupy the forked destination, and the nature of forking require it occupy what was previously a redirect. In the example of SUBPOV. If "Creationism" is forked from "Evolutionism" or vise-versa, when forking it will have to include the step of overtaking one of the redirect links. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 02:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing for a fork, what is the nature of the alternate POV you advocate covering? --99of9 (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you want a fork, why are you requesting deletion of the original? Even if you have a good POV option (which I'm yet to hear), the deletion request should only be about that, not about the original page. --99of9 (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maths Doctor[edit]

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

Orphan; effectively an SPA. Wildly shy of GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The SPA aside, what about the Forbes and HuffPost articles? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm unsure this constitutes 'significant' - and curiously, the two Forbes and one huffpo blog post are all by the same author, suggesting a pseudo-independent PR tactic? Rayman60 (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three articles in the Huffington Post and Forbes by "contributor" Andy Robertson, Family Gaming Expert on TV, Radio and blogger. "I've been set-up to try out a service in the UK called Maths Doctor" he writes. Did Forbes pay him and reimbursed the cost to maintain editorial independence? Doubtful. Forbes andthe Huffington Post have no editorial oversight on their blogs. Vexations (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. The three provided are bad as per the other comments about them. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pearson (priest)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. Uncited for 9 years. Almost an orphan article. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am leaning towards delete, but this article is less of a stub than many I have seen. Not notable as a priest - which is to say that per WP:GNG, priests are not considered notable for being priests, but could be notable for other reasons. He could be notable for his missionary work in Uganda, but so far I find no evidence for this. Have you done a WP:BEFORE? What were your results? So far I have found this biography but the only source given is Crockford's and that is just a list of all clergy, so does not meet WP:ANYBIO. I will come back again after I have done some more research. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dictionary of African Christian Biography actually lists three sources for their biography, not just Crockford's:

Crockford’s Clerical Directory. 1906.
Obituary, The Bucks Herald, 28 June 1917.
Pearson, Ralph. 1990. “The biography of Charles William Pearson”, unpublished MS.

This manuscript is in the collection of the Royal Geographical Society [101].

Jahaza (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I read the start of bottom line of that and did not notice all the sources were all on one line - my bad. Yet these sources don't add much. They support that page, making it a reliable secondary source, but the page itself does not count as WP:ANYBIO, and neither does the Royal Geographical Society manuscript. There are other ways to establish notability of course, and the mission to Uganda is definitely pertinent. Yet I cannot convince myself that it is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I searched for more sources and found mention of Pearson in a book on Sudan, A Biographical Dictionary of the Sudan: Second Edition[102]. This is only a short biographical paragraph though confirming the missionary work in Uganda. I also found this book on Spanish Amazon which lists him alongside other Ugandan missionaries. The book is not in any way authorative. The publisher is Books LLC - "Books LLC is an American publisher and a book sales club based in Memphis, Tennessee. Its primary work is collecting Wikipedia and Wikia articles and selling them as printed and downloadable books". All names listed have a Wikipedia page, but an argument based on what else we have is WP:OTHER, and in any case it is clear that several of these are somewhat more notable. None of the other pages actually mention Pearson, which is interesting, and the James Hannington page really should if he is notable. Perhaps there is a case for merge of some of this page into James Hannington (and if there is no such case, because Pearson's mission was not sufficiently relevant, then there is our answer about notability - a full page here would then be WP:UNDUE. Sorry, still not quite ready to say my final opinion, but I don't think I can support an unambiguous keep. -- Sirfurboy

(talk) 10:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Further research is just not yielding anything. Again, worth noting that our article on Church of Uganda does not even mention him in the history section. He is just one of the other missionaries. He was an early missionary to Uganda but was neither the first nor the most successful, and neither was he martyred. An editor may wish to add a paragraph about him in the Church of Uganda article, history section, but this does not pass WP:GNG for a full bio. -- Sirfurboy

(talk) 14:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing from the nom. on this, and no mention of a WP:BEFORE. I am not altogether convinced about the notability, but withdrawing my delete. I am neutral on this one. -- Sirfurboy

(talk) 21:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he qualifies for notability as leader of one of the earliest groups of Christian missionaries in Uganda. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-three reliable, independent sources: this journal article, this book, and this book. Along with the external link on the article, that's four sources, more than enough.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Epiphyllumlover (talk · contribs). Still, the question is whether these meet WP:BASIC which is clear that coverage of the subject of the biography must be significant. It is not enough to be mentioned as being on the mission. There must be something that shows the subject is significant to meet WP:GNG. The journal article is the best. The title is "The Instructions Issued in 1876 and 1878 to the Pioneer C.M.S. Parties to Karagwe and Uganda: Part II", so the article is very clearly a close look at the missionary party that Pearson was on. Indeed it describes that he led it, although speculates about why he was chosen over the other two. This is clear coverage of the subject, but the article itself is extremely niche. It is looking at a largely unsuccessful missionary expedition to Uganda that otherwise is all but forgotten to history, and Pearson is a player in that. Again, he qualifies for treatment in any article about the mission, but how does this say he qualifies for a biography? The books appear to again just tell us he was on this missionary endeavour. If the endeavour were more notable, so would he be, but then we find little evidence that it actually was, which is why he and this mission don't seem to get any mention anywhere else. I would be grateful for your thoughts on that. Have I misunderstood what constitutes significant coverage? -- Sirfurboy

(talk) 08:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the Dictionary of African Christian Biography passes WP:ANYBIO. It's a substantial scholarly project by a worldwide group of university professors. I think not seeing it as such is American/European bias. He also appears in this biographical dictionary of the Sudan[103]Jahaza (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO actually says "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." I don't think it is American/European bias. It is what the biography is attempting that is pertinent. Yet if the nominator is not going to chip in on this at least (having presumably carried out a WP:BEFORE ) then I am not going to keep questioning this. -- Sirfurboy

(talk) 18:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am guessing the Dictionary of African Christian biography counts for notability (I also feel the same way on those who have entries in The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, but I have not persuaded people to keep articles on that ground. I think having an entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Sudan is an even clearer sign to keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- His career as a missionary is certainly notable, as one of the early attempts to create the (Anglican) Church of Uganda. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources above, especially having an entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Sudan, point to notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shareware. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postcardware[edit]

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

Non-notable injoke. Most of the sources go no further than proving that WP:ITEXISTS. A search on Google Books reveals a few passing references eg [104] but none from particularly reliable sources and none which discuss the subject "directly and in detail" as required by WP:SIGCOV. Amisom (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a real thing once. It sits on the historical timeline between QSL cards and shareware, with actual money being transferred. It's a minor thing, but still part of the historical development of the open source movement. I might even have a few of the cards involved - I remember a nice one from a group at MIT who'd taken stock postcards of MIT (the dome) and overprinted them specially as postcardware thankyous. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:ITEXISTS? Amisom (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would match the nomination of WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not denying that your !vote is WP:ITEXISTS. Good. NB my nomination is very far from WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE as you'd know if you weren't being deliberately disruptive. Amisom (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:GNG is not a blunt instrument. The likelihood of a book being published on a specific license type (except for something extremely famous like the GPL) is basically zero. Therefore, we must apply more reasonable standards lest we delete an entire category of encyclopedic articles. Modernponderer (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy says that? Amisom (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amisom, that would be WP:IAR – which, by the way, is not just ordinary policy but a fundamental of Wikipedia. Modernponderer (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernponderer: I would question whether having an article on a non-notable subject which is basically just an internet injoke (and a fairly minor one at that) counts as improving the encyclopedia. You could use WP:IAR to argue "keep" for every single AfD if you were so inclined. I could make an article about my wife. I could make an article about my cat. "Hey, but you can't expect a book to have been published about my wife or my cat, so we have to apply a reasonable standard and keep the aritcles anyway." Nonsense. The notability policy is a policy. Amisom (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amisom, that argument is highly disingenuous. Biographies are an entire genre of books – why could there not be a book about someone's wife if she were indeed notable? In contrast, how many books about the GPL (probably the most notable license in existence) even are there? Other licenses, even entire categories, simply don't stand a chance! The comparison fails completely. Modernponderer (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I could invent a new form of licence myself ("Menorahware: everyone who uses this software has to buy a menorah for me and ship it to me") and create an article about it, relying on WP:IAR, because nobody would ever write a book about any such thing? That would be OK by your reasoning, Modernponderer. The real issue here is that you're deliberately misreading WP:SIGCOV, which says nothing about there having to be "a book about" the subject at all. Amisom (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Amisom: Sigh... it's obviously an example used to illustrate a point – in this case, that applying the exact same notability standards for all types of articles leads to highly undesirable results (certainly from the perspective of Wikipedia readers). Modernponderer (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernponderer: It's a silly example and it's meaningless. The general notability guideline is just that, general. The notability policy applies to the whole of Wikipedia. There's no exemption just because you like the article, or topic area, in question. Amisom (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Amisom: First of all, I am not asking for some sort of "exemption", and second, my argument is certainly not based on "liking" something. What I am saying is that the notability policy (like all Wikipedia policies) should be interpreted with common sense, not necessarily even on a case-by-case basis (which would likely lead to inconsistency) but certainly depending on article type. That, in fact, is exactly what WP:IAR (core policy) is all about. Modernponderer (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) ‘Interpreting’ a policy which says “a subject must have received significant coverage in reliable sources” to mean “a subject needn’t have received significant coverage in reliable sources” isn’t common sense. It’s wilful distortion. Also, there is no reason at all, in principle, why this subject needn’t have been covered in reliable sources. The fact that it hasn’t been covered indicates that it’s non-notable. Amisom (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIC. Wiktionary has this entry, so it is covered there, the appropriate wiki project for this and this answers Modernponderer's point above. Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, for a word to be the subject of an article it must be the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. The guideline also says "As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information". -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sirfurboy: This article is not a dictionary entry, so I'm not sure why you think it can be replaced with one. Nor why you think that could remotely cover my point about notability standards on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, if you agree that it is a valid term, just not notable, your !vote should logically be "redirect" – not "delete". Modernponderer (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the "entire category of encyclopedic articles" that you fear could be deleted are entries that describe specific words (whether they be license types or something else) that do not meet WP:GNG on their own. These are more appropriately defined in wiktionary (where this one can already be found). Cheers. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On your second point: we cannot redirect to wiktionary. I would be happy with redirect to an article on license types where this one is listed, if such an article exists. This would be compliant with WP:CHEAP -- Sirfurboy (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sirfurboy: Per your own link (section WP:POINTWIKT), we most certainly can redirect to Wiktionary. There's even a specific template for that!

In any case, there's significantly more information on these types of pages than a mere dictionary entry could feasibly have. (And a single article "collecting" these types of licenses may well be deleted per WP:NEO before even getting to individual notability concerns.) Modernponderer (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POINTWIKT, "it, it is possible to effectively "salt" them with a soft redirect to Wiktionary." I am not sure salting is what you want, but would be content with that, yes. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sirfurboy: salting is effectively possible, not required according to that page. The template documentation has a much more precise list of instructions, but does not even mention salting – which would not even make technical sense for a page that actually exists! Modernponderer (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the wiktionary redirect template page[105]: "Do not place it on every possible word. Soft redirects to Wiktionary are to dictionary definitions, and generally Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Only use it when:

There is no scope for a Wikipedia article at this title, and
There is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect, and
There is a relevant entry in Wiktionary, and
Readers search for it on Wikipedia."

The first and third condition are apparently satisfied (but you would probably have to retract your 'keep' to agree on point 1). The second one needs exploration, and I see no evidence that the last is true. So maybe no cross wiki link is called for. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sirfurboy: Just to be clear, I am arguing about your position – not mine. My own "keep" opinion remains unchanged as of now. But I'm explaining why your reasoning actually supports "redirect", not "delete".

Regarding the individual points: I am not aware of any current page on Wikipedia that this could be redirected to, and as I wrote above, if one were made it may well be deleted for a somewhat different reason; as for the last point, it absolutely is a valid search term – just look at this very AfD for starters. If anything, the other bolded terms in the article should also be made redirects per your reasoning. Modernponderer (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are confused. I have no objection to redirection, but that still involves deletion of this page per the policy reasons I have cited. Redirection is an adjunct to deletion. I do not propose redirection as I do not find a suitable redirection target, but am clearly not opposed to redirection in principle. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sirfurboy, redirection is absolutely not an "adjunct to deletion"! Deleting a page is an administrator action that leaves nothing behind. In contrast, a redirect can be made by any editor, and (critically) preserves the page history for potential use – including on other projects, like Wiktionary. Modernponderer (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is actually only one of visibility of the history. Deletion also preserves the history, but it is not visible to (determined) editors. If what you are worried about is preservation of the page history, you might wish to nominate a suitable redirect target. I am not sure Wiktionary is ideal. Perhaps shareware as in the suggested merge below? If we can agree on a redirect target, I am happy to change from delete to redirect. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sirfurboy: No, there's also the other difference I pointed out: deletion is an admin action, and therefore a more serious step than a redirect. We don't allow ordinary editors to delete pages for a reason.

"If we can agree" – your opinion shouldn't depend on those of other editors, only on the arguments presented. If you think the proposed target is fine for a redirect, you should change your !vote to that regardless of whether I agree. Modernponderer (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting confused with merge which is a user action initiated through WP:MERGE and delete as a result of AfD in which a redirect is established because the deleted content is a valid search term that can reasonably be resolved to other existing content. Per my response, my view is that this page should be deleted because of WP:NOTDIC and because it does not meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Thus I believe the result of this AfD is that the page should be removed (but optionally replaced with a redirect by the admin closing the thread or any editor who wants to create a new redirect with the page name after the page is deleted). If you want to persuade me that I should, in fact, change my view to keep so as to allow a merge discussion and a merge, then you have gone entirely the wrong way about it. Note that a vote to merge is a vote to keep, as it is not the responsibility of the closing admin to initiate a merge. Instead of telling me what you think my view should be, you should be focusing on why there is content here that goes beyond a dictionary definition and constitutes mergeable content with a suitable merge target. I am open to persuasion if you have policy based arguments that merge is better than delete, but as above, my view based on my analysis of this page and understanding of the policy is that this one meets the deletion criteria. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sirfurboy, the claim that "a vote to merge is a vote to keep" is so "out there" that I'm not even sure how to respond to it. But I'll try anyways: whether or not the outcome is "the responsibility of the closing admin" is a technical matter. The close is fundamentally about judging consensus, no more no less – and a consensus of "merge" is completely different from one of "keep"! (And as a side note, we don't vote here – we !vote. It's a small but significant difference.) Regarding your "delete" opinion, you still haven't presented any argument for what is so blatantly wrong with the history of this page that it actually needs to be deleted (again, an admin action), and could not simply be redirected to a target of your choice. Modernponderer (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Voting merge at AfD: Unlike other deletion processes a merge close does not result in an immediate effect to the article. Someone still has to complete the merge" from Wikipedia:Merge what?. The closing admin does not do this. You can either request a merge and wait up to two years (or more at my last look), or you can do it yourself. Either way, the closing admin does not delete or change the article (well, not unless they are feeling exceptionally generous). -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to shareware. Injoke? I guess that is one way to say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But this is a verifiable form of shareware license [106], [107], [108] (the last is a blog, but by an expert, so I consider it reliable for the assertion of postcardware). Per our policy WP:ATD, for verifiable material, alternatives to deletion, such as a merger, are preferred over deletion. In this case, shareware is a reasonable target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could support a merge to shareware. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to shareware. Per Mark viking above. This term has too narrow coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article, but it may be a nice addition to the Shareware article. Certainly a viable search term. Pavlor (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge convinced by @Mark viking:, the term has a narrow coverage in RS about could be a nice addition to Shareware. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge also convinced by Mark viking. Not a standalone topic, but a worthwhile addition to the shareware article. Lepricavark (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=oct2119/state055

[1] Wood, Robert E. (1969). Martin Buber's Ontology: An Analysis of I and Thou. Northwestern University Press. ISBN 978-0-8101-0650-5.

[2] An Analytical Interpretation of Martin Buber's I and Thou. Barron's Educational Series, Incorporated. 1975. ISBN 978-0-8120-0505-9.

[3] Horwitz, Rivka; Buber, Martin (1978). Buber's Way to I and Thou: An Historical Analysis and the First Publication of Martin Buber's Lectures Religion Als Gegenwart (in German). Schneider.

[4] Totton, N. (2003). Body Psychotherapy: An Introduction. Berkshire, England: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill House. ISBN 0-335-21039-2 (p.28)

[5] Heuer, G. (2005). “In my flesh I will see god”: Jungian body psychotherapy. In N. Totton (Ed.), New Dimensions in Body Psychotherapy. ISBN 978-0335-21592-8 (pp. 102–144). London: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill. (p.106,107)

[6] Caldwell, C. (1997) 'Dreams and the dreaming body. Amy and Arny Mindell' in C. Caldwell (Ed.) Getting in touch: The guide to new body-centered therapies. Wheaton, IL: Quest. ISBN 978-0835-60761-2 (p.61)

[7] Totton, N. (2003). Body Psychotherapy: An Introduction. Berkshire, England: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill House. ISBN 0-335-21039-2 (p.107-108)

[8] Audergon, J.-C. (2005). The body in Process Work. In N. Totton (Ed.), New Dimensions in Body Psychotherapy (pp. 153–167). London: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0335-21592-8

[9] Young, C. (2011). The history and development of Body Psychotherapy: European collaboration. Body, Movement and Dance in Psychotherapy, 6(1), 57–68. doi:10.1080/17432979.2010.545189 (p.65)

[10] Payne, H. (2006). Tracking the web of interconnectivity (Editorial). Body, Movement and Dance in Psychotherapy: An International Journal for Theory, Research and Practice, 1(1), 7–15. DOI: 10.1080/17432970500468117 (p.9)

[11] "Modern Body Psychotherapy". bodypsychotherapist.

[12] ttp://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=oct2119/state055

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]