Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 September	5 September >

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 keep. While some editors feel that the stations should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (and they still can), there is a consensus the content is generally notable. A merger (which would be controversial) can still be discussed outside of AFD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits Radio North Derbyshire

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

This is one of a large number of English local radio stations which have been closed and replaced with a national network. There does not seem to be a need for a page for all these stations - a single page listing Greatest Hits Radio stations should suffice CallLetters (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has also tagged the following articles for deletion under this page. Nthep (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest demerging the nominations and dealing with each separately. If all the GHR stations were new I'd support the nominators suggestion of redirection. However, they all had a previous independent existence and the notability of each station based on its entire life, not just its latest incarnation, needs to be assessed. Doing this in one mass nomination is going to be very messy. Nthep (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as these articles are needed to address the histories of so many stations at once; a merger of their contents would be a mess in the making. The GHR rollup ended the existence of a lot of separate stations—some of which were original ILR outlets, e.g. Radio Aire, and each of which have independent notability. Notability is not temporary. Raymie (t • c) 00:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also pinging Chocolateediter as they have been doing extensive editing on the GHR pages in the wake of the September 1 network restructuring. Raymie (t • c) 00:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe it would be better to keep these articles under their original station names (e.g. Peak FM, Signal 2, Radio Wave) and talk about their history in the past tense, rather than redirecting them all to "Greatest Hits Radio [area]" and treating them as currently broadcasting stations, which they aren't (the individual stations have no staff, no programming and no independent output - they serve as translators of a national network). There can be a note on each station page saying "This station was closed and replaced with Greatest Hits Radio on [date]". CallLetters (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that we have to treat each on a Case by case basis.
- 1. Merged Radio stations like radio Aire and Pulse should should get new articles as opposed to one of the station articles being dissolved into a new Stations (I don’t have confidence/experience with big article changes but I am gaining confidence and knowledge to start to).
- 2. ‘Stations’ that are basically now a name and 10mins of content should really be in a regional article with any previous name that hold actual content be in an properly justified article. In the TFM Radio case a Hits North East article should be created which holds information on current TFM and Metro radio and the TFM article be left to history with a little note at the top to go to Hits North East for current TFM(a copy of Metro).
- 3. A simple rebrand for a proper station.

PS: I suggest a predecessor and successor line in info box(just use code from old countries info box) for content rich older stations. This can also be on regional info boxes and saves constantly referring to and listing old stations in articles.

GHR North Derbyshire keep and GHR Derbyshire created. User:Chocolateediter (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting these articles would result in the deletion of the history of all of these stations, most of whom have been on air for more than 20 years - Minster FM (now GHR York and N Yorkshire) since 1992, Yorkshire Coast Radio (now GHR Yorkshire Coast) since 1993 and Signal Radio/Signal 2 (now GHR Staffordshire) since 1983. Rillington (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would seem sensible to keep the pages under their origional station names and update them to show what has happened to the stations in te last few months. The pages would then become historical refernce to the heritage stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelican104 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chocolateediter and Pelican104: That might be the WP:COMMONNAME solution down the road where these articles are at the last non-GHR station name. We don't have predecessor/successor functionality in this infobox (because most stations we can write in one chunk of an article) but I wonder if the |above= field might be used here for "Merged into Greatest Hits Radio"... Raymie (t • c) 20:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting this would mean you have 100s of other GHR articles to delete. Plus it's deleting information about stations that still exist in some way, shape or form. Bauer Media They have just taken over a number of stations and all of these are now similar to this article. All listed here. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: Per reasons above and WP:NTEMP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original station page should be kept, there should not be hundreds of Greatest Hits radio stations on wiki as they are now all area drop outs of a national station which could be covered in the main Greatest Hits Radio page. Tod55 (talk) 13:19, 9 September 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm _Bacon 17:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Glenarvan

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

Appears to be a non-notable fictional character, has been in CAT:NN since 2011 and has been tagged as no sources since that same time. This is the fiction story he appears in, so it's a primary source. I'm finding largely mirrors and the primary source materials on Google, along with a few blogs. This apparently refers to the unrelated Glenarvon. Here's the novel again. There's a ton of search engine noise for Glenarvon, the unrelated novel of a different spelling, but I'm finding nothing for Lord Glenarvan. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lord Glenarvan has been discussed in literary criticism as a colonialist figure, and academia loves talking about colonialism. There's three pages on Glenarvan in Exotic Memories: Literature, Colonialism, and the Fin de Siècle (Stanford University Press, 1991). Roland Barthes wrote about Lord Glenarvan in New Critical Essays (Northwestern University Press, 2009). Russian playwright Mikhail Bulgakov wrote a play, The Crimson Island, that used the character of Lord Glenarvan to ridicule Western Europe's colonialism; it's discussed in Subversive Stages: Theater in Pre- and Post-Communist in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria (Central European University Press, 2017) and Comedy in the Early Works of Mikhail Bulgakov (Georgetown University Press, 1968). I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't argue with that. Withdrawing. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbarJatt. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsApp University

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

Contested CSD. Reason was "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page created by a banned or blocked user (Guy Foxx) in violation of the user's ban or block, with no substantial edits by others. See CSD G5." (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbarJatt

Reason for contesting stated as "CSD contested: sourced article, substantial edits by other editors"

The edits by other editors were not substantial, as the article history shows.

I am making a technical nomination because I think it should be discussed now. My nomination is Neutral, though I may offer an opinion as the discussion progresses Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject has been significantly covered by quite a number of sources, ToI, The Hindu, The Print, NDTV. Also covered by books such as 2019: How Modi Won India. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I.Bhardwaj, Please comment on your rationale for contesting the speedy deletion that states in the edit summary "...substantial edits by other editors" Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, I thought there were enough edits by other users to contest the CSD. If you want I can revert my edits to restore the CSD notice and withdraw my contest. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I.Bhardwaj, We are here now. AfDs must run their course. I believe you were mistaken over the substantial nature of the edits Fiddle Faddle 17:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, my apologies. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CIVSA

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. The article has been tagged as relying on primary sources and potentially not notable since 2010. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources. — Jeff G. ツ 14:03, 5 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crayons Advertising

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

A advertising agency that lacks significant coverage and fails WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE does not show in-depth non trivial coverage in reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless a good article can be created out in draft than just a stub as it currently is. Mohanabhil (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:NOTPROMO. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 04:09, 7 September 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 agreement here that the article should be deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail MacBride Allen

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

This is the extreme in one-event notability. 3 of the references are incidental mentions in coverage of a political campaign by her father. The article does not do justice in putting her "appearances" with her father in that campaign in perspective. She turned 6 some time in the year he ran for president. Then we have mention of her in her father's obituary. Then we have coverage of the lawsuit over the literary rights she inherited from her father. That case was settled in her favor 19 years ago, yet we have absolutely nothing about her since. Based on her fahter's name and her name, I assume she is or was at one point married, but no one seems to have cared about that. Being heir to a literary fortune is not a sign of notability. Keep in mind that the fortune is that of her adoptive father's some sort of pseudo-mother mentors, mother. In the time Ms. Allen has been the holder of the Laura Ingalls Wilder literary legacy, Mrs. Wilder had a major literary award unnamed after her in an example of cancel culture, yet it appears that no one in that debate thought that the holder of the Wilder literary fortune was someone worth consulting about the matter. Actually on further inspection it appears her father was chosen as the heir by Mrs. Wilder's daughter because he was his political disciple. Her father actually did things with the legacy at least, producing a TV show for example. There is no evidence Mrs. Allen has done anything with it. Any mention of her we can just include in the article on her father, but I see no reason to include much since almost nothing is known. Most of what I can find in a web search is Wikipedia mirrors, some of it demonstrating just how much influence Wikipedia having an article can have and how we need to be more deliberative about the article creation process. A show of how non-notable even in the lawsuit by the Laura Ingles Wilder Library to get control of the literary estate Mrs. Allen was, it took 10 praragraphs into the article to even name her. Beyond this, Mrs. Allen has actually turned over the control of this legacy to the Little House Heritage Trust, which may or may not have her as the sole controller. This New York Post article [1] says a little bit more about Mrs. Allen, but it says nothing about her by any normal standard, she had been the controlled of the estate for 4 years when the lawsuit was brought, yet there is no evidence she had done anything with it. We do get this short line "Miami-based MacBride suffered a fatal heart attack on March 5, 1995, at age 65, but his daughter Abigail MacBride Allen has overseen the publication of her father’s unpublished manuscripts, starting with The Other Side of the Hill (1995), Little Town in the Ozarks (1996), New Dawn on Rocky Ridge (1997) and On the Banks of the Bayou (1998). The books take Rose up to age 17 when she’s off to follow her dreams." from this source http://libertarianstvo.org/en/personalities/item/72-rose-wilder-lane, but overseeing publication of a few works is not a sign of notability, especially when they were largely written by someone else. I am reduced to scrapping up things like this [2] Amazon review of a book attributed to her father, but published under her perview, and the agreement here is her role in the work makde it worse, although this is a random Amazon review with no indication they even know what Mrs. Allen's actual role in the work was, so not a reliable source. We do here [3] learn the fact that she wrote an intro to a collection of travel diaries by Mrs. Wilder, and for whatever reason she is referred to in this reference as Abigail MacBride. There is no reason to have a freestanding article on Mrs. Allen John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her father, Roger MacBride, per nom. Unlike her father, who ran for President of the United States, Allen seems to be a private person who has neither sought, nor really received, the public spotlight. There is not enough here to warrant a separate article about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it is worth, I am less than convinced that Mr. MacBride would merit notability just for being a 3rd party candidate for US president. His clear notability pass comes from having served as a member of the Vermont Legislature (as a republican though, not a Libertarian). He was also a faithless elector, but I am not as convinced as some people are that those are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her connection to Laura Ingalls Wilder seems more relevant to notability than the one to Roger MacBride, but I think this is a WP:BLP1E case and the current contents of the page are a bit stalker-like (e.g. speculation about her location and appearance). She's not a public figure. pburka (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely delete this as notability is not inherited. Trillfendi (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following comment was added to this discussion's talk page: pburka (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of the article, I saw it as an essential piece related to the history of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Because the settings of Wilders' books are in the 19th century, there is strong cross-interest by her readers in genealogy and Midwestern history. Every year new fans ask if Laura Ingalls Wilder has any newly-living descendants. Abigail MacBride Allen is the only "descendant" in any sense of the word, since there are no actual descendants. As such, and due to legal reasons, she is the sole heir of the Laura Ingalls Wilder's literary estate. Wilders' books have sold 60-100 million copies over time, and annual sales are still very high for books published nearly 100 years ago. The TV series based on her books, "Little House on the Prairie," shows in 140 countries--even though the last episode was filmed in 1984. With this level of attention, I do not believe any "family member" (even if by legal connection) is irrelevant--especially since there is only one. In addition, this article makes Wikipedia especially valuable. There are no other sources online that have any information on Abigail MacBride Allen.

There is another aspect that concerns me with Johnpacklambert's challenge to this article. The talk discussion is a roundabout of ideas on why this person is not notable enough. One is, it is hard to find information on Abigail MacBride Allen. This is true, making the fact that Wikipedia identifies her all the more valuable. She is not notable because of her father's presidency run, he states. Also true, but the Laura Ingalls Wilder connection is. The connection to McBride the presidential candidate is an interesting aside.

A final point I would like to make is that I am concerned about Johnpacklambert's motives. I have had resistance in the past from Abigail MacBride Allen about identifying her. Is he related? Has he been asked to challenge this? We must not let Wikipedia be altered due to editors being unduly influenced to protect/anonymize a particular person. And I am certain Wikipedia would not stand for any kind of censorship. The article should remain as is. Chuck Mall 19:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The above fails the rule of assume good faith. My closest connection to Abigail MacBride Allen is that when I was little (up until maybe age 7, but I might not have been that old), my neighbor kitty corner across the street was a Mr. Ingalls. He was somehow related to Laura Ingalls Wilder, descending either from a brother or a cousin of her father. He had been on the local County Line School Board, covering parts of both Troy and Sterling Townships, in 1941 when they voted to consolidate with some other local school boards to form Warren Consolidated Schools. That was about 25 years before Sterling Heights, Michigan was made a city. My best guess is that Mr. Ingalls was born about 1905, and was about 80 when he died, which as I said was when I was about 6. So, no, I do not have any close connection to Mrs. Allen. However I would note that Wikipedia does respect the desires of non-public figures who did a few things of very minor note when they want to not have an article on Wikipedia. However as I have said I never have communicated with Mrs. Allen. I did not know she existed before I stumbled upon her article doing a review of all articles in the 1970 birth year category, mainly with the intent of removing those articles in that category for no good reason. Wikipedia is built on reliable, secondary coverage. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make people notable who are not, and we do not have the topic specific expertise to ourselves determine who is and who is not notable, so we follow published works in this manner. My dad read most of the Little House on the Praire Books to us while we were children, mentioning how they connected to our neighbor Mr. Ingalls, I do not think we ever actually made it through "The First Four Years". I knew before today that Mrs. Wilder had a daugther, and I knew that there had been another series written fictionalizing the life of her daughter. Before today I could not have told you who did that, who held the rights to this literary estate, if anyone held the rights to it, if any of these 80-90 year old books were still under copyright, in part because as I mentioned before when a Library Association removed Mrs. Wilder's name from one of their awards, no one in writing articles on it felt a need to hunt down Mrs. Allen and ask her what she thought of the removal of her pseudo-great grandmother's mother's name from the award.Assuming good faith in nominations is wise. I have never had contact with Mrs. Allen (I am not ever sure why her last name is Allen), I created this nomination because Mrs. Allen is not a public figure on a level that would constitute meeting any of the guidelines on notability that Wikipedia has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that on the official Little House on the Prairie website at [4], I can't find one mention of Abigail MacBride Allen anywhere. I would expect that if she, the rights-holder, wanted to publicize herself to Little House fans as the heir, she could do so. But the fact that she doesn't publicize herself there, nor do the people who run the Little House website discuss her on that site, suggests to me that she is a private person and we do not need to have an article about her on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability of the subject. While I am not one to shy from questioning Johnpacklambert's motives or calling out shoddy work, this nomination is a good one. To address points made above: People are interested in the Ingalls and Wilder genealogies and living descendants, but the Macbrides are heirs and passing them off as the holy descendants of the mother of American children's literature and her hack writer daughter as this article tried to do is ludicrous. Rose was eccentric and "adopted" a number of adolescent and young men when she wasn't off having other adventures. In terms of there not being other descendants, that is unencyclopedic and incorrect. There is a slew of collateral descendants of the Wilders, plus the stepchildren of Carrie Ingalls who she raised from ages c. 4 and 8. They were actually raised by an Ingalls, unlike Macbride, who came to them later. So if you're going to write fancruft or whatever they call this, get it right. I just edited the article down so it wasn't a mess of fawning over some gorgeous, mysterious heiress. The woman wishes to keep a low profile and rightfully so. The article read as stalkerish and creepy. I don't see anything wrong with citing some of these articles in relevant Wikipedia articles, but please no redirect. It's bad enough this article existed for as long as it did and will doubtless be backed up somewhere. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, has not done anything wikisignificant, looks like a case of WP:LOWPROFILE, as for the article creator saying this article being the only place on the internet with this info and makes wp valuable, editors need to remember WP:NOTFANSITE. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 6 September 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. Closing earlier per WP:SNOW, (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Badal Barsaat (1975 film)

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

Subject fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Only one cited source focuses on this subject. Most everything else I could find is a mere mention or inclusion in a database. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NFILM and WP:NPOSSIBLE. On the NFILM front, the film stars multiple notable actors, and is further noted for featuring music by a female composer, according to this article the only female composer in Pakistan; it thus meets criterion 1, 2, and possibly 3 of the inclusionary criteria section (not sure whether Pakistan circa 1975 would be considered a major film producing country). On the NPOSSIBLE/GNG front, we already have 2 online English-language sources, the source I already linked and [5]. Both of these sources attest that the film was a big hit on release (not to mention that it's still generating retrospective English-language coverage 45 years after its release), meaning that there's almost certainly additional newspaper coverage (likely in Urdu, although possibly also English) available, although it would be difficult for non-Urdu speaking editors living outside of Pakistan to find. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added 1 more reliable reference and a category. This article already has 4 other reliable references including a major Pakistani newspaper reference. This was a hit film of 1975 per the given references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources confirm notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:28, 5 September 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. czar 02:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vollee

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

Not notable (contested speedy). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless better coverage is found, fails WP:NCOMPANY = WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 16 September 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. BD2412 T 00:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev Fashion Park

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see some sources in what is presumably Ukrainian, but cannot read them and do not know the quality of the publications. The current article is terrible. The image gallery consists of 3D renders. However, the organization's web site suggests they have installed a lot of public art around Kiev so it may be notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't an actual park, which would be covered by WP:NGEO, but an organization, to which WP:NORG applies. Since we have no sources at all, it is not notable. Vexations (talk) 17:34, 15 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clark – Vancouver Television

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

Non-notable cable access channel fails WP:GNG and WP:BCAST. Deprodded in 2018; I attempted to prod, unaware of the previous prod which was removed with the message "Television stations meet the general notability guideline". This isn't a broadcast station or the rare notable local cable channel, however. Raymie (t • c) 04:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet GNG or WP:BCAST. // Timothy :: talk 19:51, 11 September 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. Passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG with adequate WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Terrace

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

While accomplished, meets neither WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or WP:NCREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs more RS to establish notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources to prove she is notable. She is the showrunner of a major show on the Disney channel and is notable as a result.--Historyday01 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does meet WP:NCREATIVE specifically the third section, as Dana Terrace created a well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical reviews.33felstark (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCREATIVE guidelines, as she created a well-known work which has been discussed in multiple independent periodicals. A Template:Sources exist or Template:BLP sources template might be better for this situation; I have begun adding more sources to address this. Emflazie (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NARTIST #3. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accordance with what @33felstark, @AleatoryPonderings, and @Emflazie have said. Perhaps it needs more sources, but what is there now is a good start! Its better than having the page be a redirect. Terrace is directing a show on the Disney Chanel, so she deserves a page, and is more than "accomplished" as the OP states. Historyday01 (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other users above. Meets WP:NCREATIVE + per WP:NARTIST #3. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because she is notable. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 01:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dunno how the subject doesn't pass WP:NARTIST, definitely notable. EverybodyEdits (talk) 05:49, 8 September 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 17:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SocialCred

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

promotional non-notable app with very little sustained independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If this is promotional, I urge senior editors to clean up promotional contents in the article just as an Admin has done on the page. There are more sources in two print newspapers and I'm learning how to cite them on the page. Asema1957(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not supposed to be for clean up purposes. Trillfendi (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding SIGCOV of the app, with much non-trivial coverage like this. and this and this. There is not a guideline which calls for "sustained" coverage in relation to a product. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons cited by User:Lightburst 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt (~~with no prejudice against draftification and requiring WP:AFC in case this really takes off, but that's doubtful~~). The WP:THREE sources listed above are glorified press releases. The existing sources in the article really aren't any better. One of them was written by a member of the company too. The first paragraph of the first source (from The Sun) reads:
The Lagos-based startup, which celebrated its third year anniversary earlier in May is reputed for providing brands and individuals with the people, products and platforms they need to effectively connect with their target audience.
Holy PR-speak, Batman! – that disqualifies it from establishing notability on its face. Everything here is the result of a media blitz by the company and doesn't establish notability. Wikipedia is not a PR mouthpiece. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deacon Vorbis. We've no reason to reward a PR blitz. XOR'easter (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Meh, WP:SALT is a rather odd suggestion for a new article which has not ever been recreated. And the word "glorified" is a rather odd adjective to use as well. A simple WP:BEFORE shows much more non-trivial independent RS, like Business Day 1, Techeconomy 2, Vanguard 3. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Salting is more than called for here. This article was, beyond a reasonable doubt, the result of WP:UPE. Your Business Day source is identical to the Neusroom source already in the article here, even though the two are ostensibly by different, staff writers. Oops, somebody done screwed up at the PR firm!

Moreover, the company in question, Plaqad was already deleted more than once, the creator blocked for socking, see also their effort at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia.com.ng, and note the not-at-all-surprising overlap in sources at that AfD and here. I've opened an SPI on the current article creator (alleging a link to the original account). This may or may not give anything conclusive, but it's worth keeping an eye on.

In any case, it's fair to conclude that the bulk of the sources provided were paid for, and are thus not independent of the article subject, and thus do nothing to establish notability. Unfortunately, I think you picked the wrong article to try to rescue this time. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the right article-I already did some minor work to the article. You can make a point by calling out press release type sources, but not the independent ones. And pointing to other deleted articles which are not this article is not an impressive tactic. The app gets much coverage in Nigeria and Africa and has understandable PR. This is only a 2 month old app so some regurgitation is understandable. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does this https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/08/socialcred-shows-why-micro-influencers-might-be-getting-more-nods-over-mega-influencers/ not count as legitimate coverage? What about the other sources mentioned already? Dream Focus 21:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. From Vanguard's advertising page:
Sponsored Post
The cost sponsored article is one hundred thousand Naira (N100,000.00) Please note that articles to be published as sponsored post must be submitted for verification and approval before payments are made.
Given the promotional nature of this piece and the host of other promotional stories all appearing, and the history surrounding previous related articles and account, it's pretty safe to say that everything here is the result of paid PR. None of this demonstrates notability. (For reference, that's about 250.33 US dollars). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: the editor is incorrect about most of the sources. The LA Times and NY Times are not the standard for this type ofNigerian app. We have several solid sources: DV has been disruptive and hostile as of late. This is a two month old app. I am unsure why the need for this tendentious editing... contesting every piece of information. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like lots of PR for this very new company in a sector where every new company can drum up PR-based coverage in low quality sources. Not seeing anything approaching WP:CORPDEPTH here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Rhododendrites and XOReaster. This is a promotional brochure. Any company can drum up the usual marketing churn and press releases, but this is an encyclopedia and not a database of advertisements. Reyk _YO! 08:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional and fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, anything promotional should be removed. However, with sources indicated by Lightburst along with some analysis, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue isn't primarily about cleanup or promotion but rather the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not a single one of the references meets the criteria. Invariably, they're announcements (or based on announcements) and other PR. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Honestly this is really just a promotional article for a non notable app created by an editor with a conflict of interest. Celestina007 (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Big God

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

Non-notable music Dronebogus (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable music artist.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable music artist. Most likely COI as well since the article creator's (probably someone who works at the company) edits are connected to this "Vineyard Records UK" label and its artists.GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HandWiki

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

This page was recently accepted through the AFC process, but the reviewer apparently did not notice that every reference that discusses HandWiki is either posted by HandWiki itself, or by Jwork.org, which according to the article is the org behind the HandWiki project. I've searched I have found no independent reliable sources, so I think this ought to be deleted per WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. MrOllie (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has not received any independent coverage. Is pretty much just a Wikipedia mirror. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs more RS to establish notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the absence of independent coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two articles cited are publication platforms (data science central and jwork) used for article posts, not related to Handwiki). I cannot establish relation of these portals to Handwiki. It is a certainly a very new project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC) — Jconwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Both Data science central posts (blog posts, so not reliable) were posted by 'jwork.org'. Jwork.org is a project of 'S.Chekanov'. HandWiki is also a project of 'S.Chekanov'. These sources are neither independent nor reliable. - MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By denying such an obvious resource, we confirm the reason for its existence (a science encyclopedia bigger than Wikipeadia for science topics, cannot be in Wikipedia, because we need a 3rd opinion?). It looks a special case to me. I cannot even find it in any place on Wikipedia (see List_of_online_encyclopedias or Wikipedia:Alternative outlets). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of passing WP:GNG. The only independent sources I could find for anything by this name were for a small, defunct and unrelated 2012 "handwiki" project of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Becoming big by making a copy of Wikipedia is not cause for notability; it just means you're a scraper. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough significant independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable at this time. Cannot find any independent coverage of HandWiki. Schazjmd (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant news coverage and does not meet WP:GNG. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:59, 8 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Hudson

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

Arunjithp (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - scrapes through WP:NFOOTY on one appearance but is an overwhelming WP:GNG fail so leaning towards delete Spiderone 12:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTY.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:ArsenalFan700/Isaiah Hudson: Would love to keep the basis of the article until he is notable. Also, was the TT Pro League removed as WP:FPL? I swear it was listed there at one point. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Soccerway says he doesn't play for Vancouver Whitecaps. Seems to have been a trial only? He did sit on the bench for the national team. Geschichte (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFOOTY. Tessaracter (talk) 14:54, 6 September 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. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makan Hislop

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

Arunjithp (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has 21 caps so more than a borderline WP:NFOOTY pass Spiderone 11:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as international player for T&T (WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:41, 4 September 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. There is a general consensus against deletion, particularly after the relist. While there's no consensus in favor of a merge, it can, of course, be discussed further outside of AFD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apokolips

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 27 August 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} 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Apokolips is a planet that is highly integral to the Superman franchise in multiple forms of fiction. Just the many reviews of the film Justice League Dark: Apokolips War gives coverage of Apokolips, considering that is where much of the plot takes place. Similar coverage can be seen for the video game Superman: Shadow of Apokolips. There is also coverage such as Batman v Superman Deleted Scene Links Apokolips to Justice League (2017). Deleting this article would be similar to deleting the article on the major Superman villain Darkseid, and practically all coverage for that villian would have coverage on Apokolips, the planet that he rules over. SL93 (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of saying WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES can you link to articles that contain non-trivial (non passing, in-depth) discussion of this setting that go beyond plot summary? The first link you provided is a collection of reviews of a game that feature this location, that's a fail of WP:NOTINHERITED. The second links is a mention in passing, and again, the fact that this was a setting of a notable movie does not make the location notable. The source very clearly does not go beyond trivial plot summaries. As for Darkseid, let's discuss it at his own AfD, if he gets it one day (given his current article is a pure plot summary/list of appearances), WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not going to change my vote and responding to every keep vote rarely helps matters. SL93 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: I proved Darkseid's notability easily after only three minutes of searching on Google and I added those sources to the article on the character. I would potentially understand merging the article to Darkseid, but deleting the article entirely doesn't make any sense. SL93 (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Piotrus: At this time I have no objections to merging this article into Darkseid's. Characters tend to on average more notable than locations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkseid per WP:ATD-R. This is definitely a valid search term that should take the reader somewhere relevant. I could be persuaded to go keep if good evidence is brought here, but I don't have the energy to go looking for it. Maybe someone highlighted the design somewhere... For now, I just wanted to at least state that outright deletion is not necessary. -2pou (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important location in the DC Universe for decades and has been depicted in multiple media. I think it is best for users for this to remain as it's own page, rather than be redirected to Darkseid. One other possibility, and this is just a thought, is to merge with New Genesis considering their histories are so intertwined and they are often depicted in stories together. Sources about Kirby's creation and design of the planets could also be added. Rhino131 (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - Being a prominent setting is not indicative of coverage in sources. Wikipedia is no longer a site that covers fiction for the sake of covering fiction like in the 2005-ish era. Sources need to be provided to meet WP:GNG and fulfill WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly pivotal part of both Superman and Jack Kirby's Fourth World lore, and integral to the topic of comics. Dark knight 2149 11:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Darkknight2149: WP:ITSIMPORTANT being what it is, are you seeing any good sources for us to review? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some analysis of the location in the book Superheroes of the Round Table: Comics Connections to Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Chapter 2 is specifically about Kirby's fourth world. Unfortunately not all pages are available in the preview (I wish I could see page 71- I bet there is some good content). At any rate, even if the page is redirected to Darkseid this would be a useful source for that article. Rhino131 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhino131: Good news is that you can read page 70 on Amazon: [6]. But I don't think it helps much, it is more PLOT summary, through at the bottom there are two sentences about aesthetics and such, but it is still more description than analysis.PS. Ah, you meant 71. No, that one is not available as well, but since it doesn't come up in the search at all for "Apokolips" it may have no relevant content. It could be just a picture, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: I think you are right and it is a picture. I can read page 72 from the Google preview and it looks to start up right where page 70 ends. And I'd give a bit more weight to the source than you do; anything associated with Jack Kirby will get more attention than the average comic location. There is a difference between Apokolips and something like Tamaran, for example, which is truly minor. Rhino131 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Rhino131: Based on a number of recent AfDs comments I am thinking Kirby's article needs some additional expansion (even though it is a GA already). Or perhaps Fourth World (comics) would be a good place to discuss this. Or maybe a new dedicated article about impact / reception of his works in general. But the sad truth is most of what we have is pure plot / appearances fancruft, and most of the reception we find is both in passing and not in our articles anyway. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Piotrus: I could get behind that idea. The Fourth World article could use a good impact/reception section- there is certainly real-world information out there about the concept as a whole, if not all the individual characters and locations. Rhino131 (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as lacking real-world coverage to pass the WP:GNG, and also create something that's WP:NOT#PLOT. This location can be covered in the context of the stories in which it appears, and does not support a stand-alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - planet is integral to DC Comics storylines and has been depicted in fictional media already.Valkyrie Red (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those issues is relevant to being included in Wikipedia, per NFICTION. 99.99% of things that have "been depicted in fictional media" should not be on Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Hell Hath No Furies", a two-page article in The Collected Jack Kirby Collector, Volume 1 (TwoMorrows Publishing, 2004) about the gender power balance on Apokolips. Yes, before you say that it's plot information, it does include descriptions and explanations of fictional material — and then it reflects on that material, doing textual analysis on a particular theme. That's what you do, when you write analysis of fiction. Similarly, the article "Love of Anti-? Life" in The Jack Kirby Collector #71 (2017) analyzes the meaning of several major Fourth World concepts, including Apokolips. Check out page 30: "No one on Apokolips evolves spiritually because there is no love. It is a stagnant society, its inhabitants living in ignorance, the legacy of oppression." This is also not plot information; it is lit-crit analysis. For my third of WP:THREE, The Comics Journal #175 (March 1995) has an article about Kirby's work and influence. I can only see a snippet view, but the snippet of page 76 shows the first part of a passage that looks like analysis: "Kirby tells us what the citizens of Darkseid's realm feel about their lot in life: 'Apokolips is an armed camp where"... I think there's a good chance that that passage is going somewhere significant. I believe that this demonstrates that analysis of Kirby's work focuses on Apokolips as a significant concept. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toughpigs' convincing analysis. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed, on rethinking this, it looks like there is enough sources, and this is a major concept in the comic univerise - Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An IDONTLIKEIT nomination bolstered by failure to expend the effort required to review the many print sources where extensive coverage can be found. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to maybe Fourth World (comics)?. This is a major setting that has appeared in at least a dozen series as well as a handful of cartoons and games. Easily passes WP:NCOMIC. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 16:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. I see some short mentions here and instead of arguing about whether they are trivial, there is enough to write a few sentences in another article, with the potential for expansion if more sources are found. Archrogue (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkseid as it is only notable in the context of that character._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:05, 8 September 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. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Hinkson

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

Arunjithp (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as international footballer. Giant Snowman 11:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per that last comment. Ivan Milenin (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International player, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:42, 4 September 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. There is a general sense that the topic may be notable but should be rewritten/salvaged/or split before being mainspaced. Opinions differ on whether TNT and the like appliy here, but most people agree that it should not be in the mainspace as is. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berber separatism in North Africa

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

The article is complete nonsense masquerading as a real article while having both WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems. Characterising normal anti-colonial wars/battles, normal political struggles and normal political protests as seperatism is pushing a far-fetched POV. I can't find in any of these sources a clear mention of "Berber separtist/separtism" or "It started to make an ethnonationalist Berber country", etc. Nothing just tribes fighting colonial forces or cultural activists protesting against their countries (for linguistic and cultural rights). The only separtist movement in this article is the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad who founded a short-lived state from 2012 to 2013. TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quite a few of the issues appear to be dealt with in Berberism. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a massive content fork presenting 100 years of sporadic Berber rebellions against large numbers of different governments as some sort of grand struggle for Berber independence, clearly original research and synthesis. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or alternative possibility Split into three articles (while keeping Berber separatism in North Africa as short overview/disambiguation page or merging into Berberism) - though i'm also the author of this page, let's use logic to decide whether this is a "nonsense" or an actual topic, which is differing enough from Berberism to have its own page.

First of all, Berberism page is about ethnic/sectarian nationalism, this being parallel to Kurdish nationalism, Assyrian nationalism, Sahrawi nationalism. Those three other examples also have related, often prolonged violent conflicts, associated with nationalism. In Kurdish case, there are three notable conflicts - Kurdish separatism in Iran, Kurdish rebellions in Turkey and Iraqi–Kurdish conflict; In Assyrian case, we have Assyrian genocide and Simele massacre; In Sahrawi case, we have a single prolonged conflict - Western Sahara conflict. Using those examples we can see three main arenas for prolonged Berber/Amazign separatist struggles:

- Rif Conflict in French and modern Morocco By Riffian people (from 1920 Rif War up to modern to Hirak Rif Movement);

- Geographically sporadic Tuareg rebellions by nomad/semi-settled Tuareg people communities across most North-Western Africa from 1916;

- Kabylie Conflict in Kabylie, Algeria, initiated in 1963 by Kabyle-dominated Socialist Forces Front and restarted from 1980s by Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylie (the Berber Spring, the Black Spring (Algeria) and minor more recent events);

Secondly, is there an reliable source for grouping those three military/political struggles into a single topic and is this notable per WP guidelines? The answer here is purely technical: the Economist claims so and we have research on this topic in the academic (see Contested identities: Berbers, ‘Berberism’ and the state in North Africa,North Africa’s ‘Berber question’) and general literature (see The Berber Cultural Movement in the Maghreb: Contemporary Issues in Transnationalism);
Thirdly, is there a violent and notable Berber separatism movement to execute Berber nationalism? The answer is clearly yes - there are three such nationalist, and often clearly separatist, movements;

Given above explanations, I would suggest creating two new articles Rif Conflict and Kabylie Conflict about specific Berber conflicts (in addition to Tuareg rebellions page, which is to be expanded into full article) in any case, whatever the community consensus on the discussed article in this thread.GreyShark (dibra) 08:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark09, I'm not opposed to splitting the material, as I think that could solve the issue of presenting it as one long struggle, but a problem is that much (not all) of the material is a content fork from articles that already exist. Zoozaz1 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, you're pushing a "separtist" view of cultural/ethnic nationalism and anti-colonial struggles.

1."First of all, Berberism page is about ethnic/sectarian nationalism, this being parallel to Kurdish nationalism, Assyrian nationalism, Sahrawi nationalism." Well that's your POV. We should never never equate nationalist movements with each other. It's wp:or and nonsense. Berberism =/= Arab nationalism, Assyrian nationalism =/= Slavic nationalism, Kurdish nationalism =/= Assyrian nationalism =/= Sahrawi nationalism =/= Berberism =/= Arab nationalism..... We're not here to make new concepts and synthesize different ideologies in a single one.

"Using those examples we can see three main arenas for prolonged Berber/Amazign separatist struggles:" That's the problem you're using hints of nationalism and some separtist movements as a basis for a wide multi-faceted permanent separtist struggle that started from the times of "Tuareg guerrillas". Any reliable sources where an author is clearly connecting these wide ranged topics as a single struggle?

"Rif Conflict in French and modern Morocco By Riffian people (from 1920 Rif War up to modern to Hirak Rif Movement)" Any sources that connect these different struggles/anti-colonial war in a single separtist movement?

"Geographically sporadic Tuareg rebellions by nomad/semi-settled Tuareg people communities across most North-Western Africa from 1916;" Any sources that connect these different struggles/anti-colonial war in a single separtiist movement? (why not create an article about Tuareg nationalism?)

"Kabylie Conflict in Kabylie, Algeria, initiated in 1963 by Kabyle-dominated Socialist Forces Front and restarted from 1980s by Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylie (the Berber Spring, the Black Spring (Algeria) and minor more recent events);" Any sources that connect these different struggles/anti-colonial war in a single separtist movement? (you can develop the already existing article Kabylism)

2."Secondly, is there an reliable source for grouping those three military/political struggles into a single topic and is this notable per WP guidelines? The answer here is purely technical" It shouldn't be "purely technical". Do you really have a source that connects all of these movements/guerrilas/anti-colonial groups and says that they're all a single "Berber separtist" movement?

see Contested identities: Berbers, ‘Berberism’ and the state in North Africa,North Africa’s ‘Berber question’) Where is "Separtist" or "Separtism" in the work? I can't find a single word about Separtism in the work.

"see The Berber Cultural Movement in the Maghreb: Contemporary Issues in Transnationalism);" Can you point where "Separtism" is mentioned in the chapter?

3."Thirdly, is there a violent and notable Berber separatism movement to execute Berber nationalism? The answer is clearly yes - there are three such nationalist, and often clearly separatist, movements;" That's true but why creating a WP:OR non-WP:STICKTOSOURCE article with copied material instead of expanding the already existing articles (Berberism, Kabylism) -TheseusHeLl (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. I know that the question is not strictly relevant to whether this should be deleted, but I find it difficult to proceed with looking for sources if it isn't answered. Why "in North Africa"? Does Berber separatism (or indeed a significant population of Berbers) exist anywhere else? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, there is a large Berber diaspora community in Europe and there is a mixed Berber-European ethnic heritage in the Canary Islands.GreyShark (dibra) 10:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an argumentative essay with OR issues, and needs to be nuked from orbit. There may very well be a notable topic regarding Berber separatism, but in order for a good article on that to be written this needs to be removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to facilitate breaking out sub-articles from salvageable materials in the article. BD2412 T 00:53, 21 September 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. General consensus is that this, while an interesting topic, has not been discussed enough to be notable, seems to be both OR and an essay. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive nomenclature

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

Not verifiably notable. This essay has been unsourced since its creation in 2006 by an editor who has not edited since 2011, and has been tagged as unsourced since 2007. I came across it while stub-sorting because another editor had labelled it recently as a Stub, which it certainly isn't.

While the phenomenon discussed undoubtedly exists, there is no evidence that it has been recognised as a named entity, or given this name (which does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, while terms such as "retroactive continuity" and "retroactive inhibition" are included). Google search seems only to produce mirrors of this article, including a couple of YouTube videos of the article being read out by computer, and the option to buy a 92-page paperback book of the article for $67.53 from Australian Amazon, but no other use of the term. This suggests that the term has no notability, or indeed existence beyond Wikipedia. The talk page shows a couple of grumbles about the article from 2010 and 2011, but no-one seems to have suggested deleting it until now. Although there is no inter-wiki link in the left sidebar, Wikidata shows that there is a Spanish wikipedia article ... created by apparently the same editor, in April 2009 - one of his only 10 edits on that Wikipedia, 2006-2009.

Some of the content, if sourced, might fit into Anachronism, but that article has no mention of this phenomenon (on a quick scan for "nomenclature" or "name").

It's slightly sad to see an interesting article disappear, but there seem no grounds on which this article ought to be appearing in our encyclopedia. I suggest that the time has come to delete it. PamD 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PamD 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The strongest argument for deletion is OR, which this article certainly is, given the available Ghits. Google Ngram comes up with zero occurrences. That's sufficient grounds for a deletion. Also the article is also completely unsourced as you might expect, a dictdef at best (if the term even existed outside of wikipedia), non-notable, its examples are a mess, and -- that seems like enough said. --Lockley (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic of the article itself seems encyclopedic, maybe it is simply the title that is problematic? I feel like I have come across discussion on this when reading about how people tend to refer to Roman emperors and other historic figures.★Trekker (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a bit tricky. As the nominator notes, the phenomenon definitely exists (the example that immediately springs to mind for me is Octavius/Octavian/Augustus) and I agree with the comment above in that I think it is most likely notable, even if this term might not be used. The lack of use of this specific term of course makes it difficult to search for sources. Of course, WP:Notability depends on the existence of sources and not whether they are actually cited in the article per WP:NEXIST, and I'm inclined to give this article the benefit of the doubt in this regard (because I too feel like I have come across discussion on this, though I cannot recall exactly when or where). I don't think this qualifies under WP:DELREASON#6 as a neologism, because the article is about the concept as opposed to the term. It might however qualify under WP:DELREASON#7 (Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed). Even then, I am tempted to go with an WP:IAR keep, because I honestly think that the existence of this article improves Wikipedia (even in its current, unsourced state). It might be appropriate to change the title, but I have no suggestion as to what the new title should be in that case. TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search did actually turn up a few uses of the term that are not from mirrors of this article. These uses are not all necessarily from WP:RELIABLE sources (such as this forum thread where somebody says Back in my day, we called it "hard rock." Hair metal is a retroactive nomenclature. We didn't call it hair metal then, but it sure is called that now.), but I would like to draw your attention to this source, which says We can look back on past actions of others and interpret what they did as an act of self-improvement, but if the concept of self-improvement did not exist yet, can what they did accurately be characterized as self-improvement? (Bochner, 1994) Nevertheless, this type of retroactive nomenclature says something about the attitudes that have prevailed since the beginning of the Twentieth Century. I also found not one, but two uses of the term "retroactive nomenclature" to mean retronym. TompaDompa (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After some further searching, I found this source which discusses at some length the use of the name Augustus to describe Rome's first emperor before he was called that, including Virgil's use of the name in relation to the Battle of Actium (4 years before he was called that) and Horace's use of the name in relation to the Battle of Philippi (15 years before he was called that). TompaDompa (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a common thing with the Roman imperial people, they're often known best by a single name but had many during their life (and a lot of the time some of their names were also the exact names of at least one of their relatives, which leads to a heap of confusion, hence why historians tend to stick with their best known name even if its anachronistic).★Trekker (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, while I initially agreed with TompaDompa comments above - that while this appears to be a concept that does exists, there are examples of it.....and the sort of thing there should be a page on. However I tend to now agree with other editors, the problems is, there isn't actual published discussion of the concept, and this article tends to be synthesis of different examples, with no overall commentary on the concept published. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay with valid sources for each individual cited case, but no source which covers the topic in a general way. While the phenomenon certainly exists, no source has been presented that support its WP:notability, and the non-prevalence of the term "retroactive nomenclature" already has been shown. So it is genuine OR. Changing the page title won't change this, only reliable sources could do so. –Austronesier (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully. I agree that this stuff is a) interesting and b) descriptive of a real phenomenon, as demonstrated by multiple examples. However, as long as there is no outside treatment of the topic under a unified term, we can't go ahead and collect these examples and assign a name to them. There's some overlap with retronym and maybe some of the material could be treated there, but again that would require someone (not us) explicitly and verifiably making that connection. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:03, 10 September 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. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judah Hernandez

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

Arunjithp (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as international footballer. Giant Snowman 11:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, international player that meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:42, 4 September 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. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neveal Hackshaw

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD does not have a reason. I have left a message on Arunjithp's talk page. I an not enamoured of cleaning up after careless AfD's --Whiteguru (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as International player for T&T. Giant Snowman 11:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International players, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:43, 4 September 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. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Dillon

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as international player for T&T (WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International players, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:FOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:50, 4 September 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. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean de Silva

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, played for the national team of his country, has received considerable attention in newspapers in his country as well (e.g. here and here), and (at the moment) no deletion reason is presented (which, if not changed, makes this a speedy keep candidate). Fram (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasoned mentioned by Fram, should be kept- and speedy kept if no deletion rationale is given. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played international football, easily passes the threshold for WP:NFOOTBALL and if the article is cleaned up, sources added sure GNG would also be set. It's a strange nom as nothing is stated in the nomination which appears to be a disruptive nomination. Govvy (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable. Nominator has clearly not checked the relevant guidelines or the article before nominating. Giant Snowman 11:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY; nominator does not seem to have provided a rationale for their nomination, and may not have checked the criteria for inclusion. Eagleash (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International players, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, passes WP:NFOOTY Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:44, 4 September 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. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Norville

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as international player for T&T (WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International players, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:46, 4 September 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. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Noreiga

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he appears to have 7 full caps [7] [8] Spiderone 11:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as international player for T&T (WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International player, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep nominator has provided zero rationale for this article's deletion and it clearly meeting WP:NFOOTY.--User:Namiba 14:20, 4 September 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. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Noel

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as international player for T&T (WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International player, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 4 September 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. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Oliver

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played in the USA A-League, which is WP:FPL, so meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. professional player in fully-pro league, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 4 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony O'Garro

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and wP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on below - looks like my reading of FPL was wrong and he does indeed met NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GiantSnowman Spiderone 11:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now passes NFOOTY Spiderone 17:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, doesn't pass NFOOTY or GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Keskkonnakaitse demonstrates O'Garro passes NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets NFOOTY, made 18 appearances and scored a goal in the USSF Division 2 Professional League, which is a WP:FPL. As this article mentions, he scored the first goal in AC St. Louis history. @GiantSnowman, Spiderone, and Mvqr: I don't know if this information would lead you to change your votes, but contrary to them the player does meet NFOOTY. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For starters this is procedural keep, as User:Arunjithp didn't even provide a reason to delete it. Could they say something here? Secondly, it easily meets WP:FPL. This should probably be withdrawn. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My sincere apologies for not having quoted the reason. Preliminary research did give any info to verify notability. However, after a thorough search, found that article meets NFOOTBALL. Please count my vote as KEEP. Arunjithp ^talk 01:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: might be eligible for 'speedy keep' as the nominator has voted keep Spiderone 10:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:20, 9 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then She Was Gone

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

Non notable short film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. No full length reviews. Simply promotion from one of multiple SPAs dedicated to promotion the director. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independant RS for this film. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Don't think those awards are "major" enough to meet WP:NFILM. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:02, 6 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Peltier

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and wP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman Spiderone 11:58, 4 September 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) IceWelder [✉] 10:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanne Group

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

The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The three non-primary sources presently used are already WP:RUNOFTHEMILL articles rehashing press releases. A WP:BEFORE resulted in no source that could match GNG's "significant coverage" requirement. Furthermore, half of the article is unsourced and written non-neutrally. IceWelder [✉] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is company listed on the London Stock Exchange; it is part of the FTSE 250 Index and has some 1,800 employees. See WP:LISTED. But I agree it could be improved and expanded. Dormskirk (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dormskirk, the section reads:

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations ... are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.

(emphasis mine)

The company might be on the LSE, but there are no sources that could be found at a glance that provide independent analyses of the business, as opposed to the press release rehashes (WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:NEWSORG) that are currently used in the article. Listed status and employee count alone do not make for notability. IceWelder [✉] 11:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but the fact that it is a significant company means that we should try all the harder to find some material which would be useful to the reader. I have added a bit and am working to find more. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have trawled through some of the independent analysts' comments and although I have reflected some of the material, I have no wish to turn this article into an advert for the company. However, there was some criticism of signing up shareholders secretly, the high floatation costs and poor succession planning all which I have added. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have improved the article (there are now some 16 reliable sources) please can we get the nomination withdrawn? I don't believe there there is any need to emphasis in WP:LISTED but if there is, my emphasis would be as follows:

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations ... are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.

Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. I cannot speak for the reliability of each source, but the sheer amount seems to satisfy a bare minimum for GNG. Withdrawing... IceWelder [✉] 10:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for dealing with this so professionally. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:27, 5 September 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. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Pacheco

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played at international level for T&T, clearly notable. Giant Snowman 11:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International player, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:49, 4 September 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. No reason given for nomination Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Atiba Charles

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK #1. No rationale for deletion has been given. (And, if it turns out that Charles has received the Chaconia Medal, there's a decent case for WP:ANYBIO in any event.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as international player for T&T. Giant Snowman 11:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International player, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:49, 4 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Franks

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

wife of Jethro Tull frontman Ian Anderson, but doesnt seem very notable in her own right Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a wife to a somewhat notable person does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Misogyny is not (yet) one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Dismissing nearly fifty years of a creative person's career because she was briefly married to a notable male singer is offensive, biased, and stupid. Her ex-husband had noting to with her starring as "Miss Julie" in a BBC tv production, writing a play staged in Manhattan, making documentary films, etc. This AFD is an embarassment and a waste of time. Stick a flute in it and close it; it's done. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is, sadly, a lot more in the article about her husbands than about her achievements. Rathfelder (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's not nearly as famous as her first husband, but she's sufficiently notable as a filmmaker[9] and playwright[10][11]. pburka (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Improve This has nothing to do with who she is married to. Jessamyn (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw this now there are some decent references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 6 September 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 Open Source Physics. Sandstein 10:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tracker (video analysis software)

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

Product page for software. Fails WP:NPRODUCT Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been referenced in a couple of papers. That tiny drop of notability makes me want to give it the benefit of the doubt. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment in which papers did you see this product being discussed in great depth? Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge verifiable content into Open_Source_Physics#Sub-projects, where it is mentioned. Tracker itself has coverage in several books and papers [12], [13], [14],[15]. There is probably enough depth for marginal notability, and keep is a reasonable outcome. But if the consensus is that it doesn't reach GNG, there is still plenty of verifiable material. Our policy WP:ATD states that if possible, verifiable material should be preserved, not deleted. In this case,Open Source Physics is a notable project, having won significant awards, and Tracker is one of its main subprojects, so a selective merge and redirect is a reasonable alternative. Outright deletion goes against policy and is the wrong outcome in this instance. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 10:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect into Open Source Physics - while the sources fall short of GNG, the content seems generally rescuable and, per Mark viking, seems a good fit for that target. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:20, 14 September 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 Emmanuelle in Space. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Michael Robinson

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

Non notable actor. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, secondary, substantial sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Emmanuelle in Space. He's really only notable for that one role. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed just to redirect—not really anything substantive or sourced to merge. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. I wouldn't say this was even worth a redirect. Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 10:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per AP. I don't see how a redirect isn't worthwhile, they are WP:CHEAP, after all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as noted above, to the one noted work. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:34, 13 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Real NZ Party

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

Non-notable political party. The current sources only have one independent source that mentions it, and that is only a passing mention. I was not able to find any other independent sources that mention it. HenryCrun15 (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.

Cautious delete Never registered, doesn't look like its going to run candidates, so fails notability, and any relevant info can be included in the Outdoors and/or Public Party pages. But nomination day is 18 September, so IMHO we should wait until after then for the cull, just to be sure.--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate info has confirmed they are not running anyone, so I support deletion.--IdiotSavant (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that caution; wait till nomination day and see what happens. Schwede 66 08:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your reasoning, but the possibility of notability in the future doesn't confer notability now. Perhaps we should move this article to a draft somewhere, an move it back to the mainspace if and when it becomes a notable subject. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Moffett, the name linked to the party in the only independent reliable source provided. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to draft space~~ per HenryCrun15.-gadfium 09:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete as they are not running any candidates.-gadfium 08:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft Not notable and unless something changes I feel is unlikely to be. So as it stands now, I'd delete~~, if someone is happy for draft space then fine with it going there as well.~~ NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT // Timothy :: talk 20:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a consensus to delete (or maybe draftify) given the comments about Sept 18, relisting to see if opinions change after that date has passed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to incorporate into David Moffett article NealeFamily (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Article does not meet WP:GNG , looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unregistered party with no candidates doesn't meet the general presumption of notability for political parties. Doesn't appear to be significant coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of M-1 Global events

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

Could be merged to M-1#List of Recent and Upcoming M-1 Global events as an ATD, but I think that would make the article too long. Recent ones are already covered there, so this is partially a duplicate. This doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The events are already listed by year, see Category:M-1 Global events. In my opinion the article should be split into each of the sub-articles by year, then deleted once completed (or redirected if there is a plausible target). Ajf773 (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

11:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:58, 4 September 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 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Center NYC

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

basement store no more notable than any other walk-in store in NYC. does not pass GNG. Sources primarily about Stockman, (like e.g. the Texas Tribune source) only mention the center in passing. Sources like IBTimes are unreliable. The UCLA source only mentions the center in passing in two sentences. the mention in Reason Magazine is just a short three minute snippet, it is not significant coverage. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem to pass WP:NCORP to merit its own article. Graywalls (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:58, 11 September 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 Compassion & Choices. And/or elsewhere as desired. Sandstein 20:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compassion & Choices of Oregon

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

WP:NORG failure. Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Having not done much research besides looking at page histories.) This seems like a good candidate for merging. It was created by a COI user. I pruned out the text of the Death with Dignity Act back in 2012, and as of 2015 the org is defunct and not much has happened with the article in terms of expansion. Local branches of national orgs don't seem particularly notable unless there are multiple reliable independent sources mentioning it. Notability is not temporary. This was likely not notable to begin with. Valfontis (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

response @Valfontis:, and I'm not so sure if the target on its own meets WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect' into How to Die in Oregon. Not notable on its own. --Lockley (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
if we're gonna merge, I'd say Compassion_&_Choices is a better choice per WP:BRANCH. Graywalls (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:57, 4 September 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. There is consensus he is notable, at minimum, for his work in academia. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Canova

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

Fails WP:NPOL, no notability except in connection with multiple failed political campaigns HouseOfChange (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have decided that major party candidates for US house are not default notable. This applies doubly to people who failed to even win a primary election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep has non-routine coverage that meets GNG. This feels less like a credible deletion, and more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(footnote that Quidster4040 is the creator of the article.) Please cite 2 or 3 examples of coverage unrelated to his failed campaigns. Is there anything post-2016 aside from embarrassing Seth Rich speculation? HouseOfChange (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are multiple, independent, non-trivial sources that covering this person in detail. Whether he won office or not is irrelevant. Many people are notable without winning office. The sources, not their actions, dictate notability.--User:Namiba 16:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canova's campaigns for Congress have received substantial national media attention, particularly his first campaign, when he was endorsed by Bernie Sanders and ran against the DNC chair. Canova also probably meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." Canova was the Betty Hutton Williams Professor of International Economic Law at the Chapman University School of Law. The school is rated 111th best law school out of 198 law schools. TFD (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPROF specifies a "major" institution, i.e. implies rank well above the 50% percentile. Although Chapman did better than his current employer, which apparently lies somewhere between #148 and #194. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, a "major" institution, in the US context, is an R1 or R2 university, which includes Chapman.--User:Namiba 17:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPROF specifies: "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity." If our benchmark for excellence is as low as Chapman's research ranking of R2 or the 111/198 ranking of its law school, then our benchmark for excellence is very low. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsuccessful political candidate fails WP:NPOL. The article is mostly supported by trivial mentions, local/regional reporting, and election-related coverage. KidAd talk 20:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to meet one of the criteria: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." TFD (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Likely mets PROF, but definitely meets GNG. Plenty of non-trivial coverage. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per User:Editorofthewiki. Meets WP:PROF as he held a named chair appointment at a major institution. Paisarepa (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep under WP:NPROF rather than WP:NPOL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham: and Paisarepa Both Chapman (scoring 48/100) and its law school (ranked # 111th of 198 law schools) rank BELOW the median level of quality. NPROF specifies a "major" institution. Would any RS call Chapman a "major" institution? HouseOfChange (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that every ABA-accredited law school is a major institution. "Major" and "better than average" are in no way equivalent concepts. Would you argue that the Gorilla Monsoon Professor of Folding-Chair Throwing at Vince and Linda's Wrestling College is "major" because it's better than its one competitor? That Dartmouth isn't a major institution because it's below average quality in the Ivy League? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So many straw men, jammed in so closely together! Did anyone claim that "'Major and 'better than average' are equivalent"? No. Did anyone raise the topic of what it would mean to be above or below the "average" of a tiny unrepresentative group? No. Also, and importantly, "median" doesn't mean the same thing as "average." Chapman is below the median for all law schools rated by US News -- not because someone took an average of law school "quality" and Chapman had less -- but because when ranking all law schools from the best down to the worst, more than half of all law schools are better than Chapman. (And fewer than half of all law schools are worse than Chapman.) Being below the median of a large representative group of one's peers is not exactly a position of honor. This does not imply that a law school at or barely above the median would be "major" in the sense of having "a reputation for excellence or selectivity." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep as less confident about it now, but still a keep. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting NPROF as holder of a named chair. Keep as meeting the GNG due to extensive national coverage in 2016. Tring (very credibly) to knock the chair of the DNC out of Congress was a major front in the battle between the Clinton and Sanders forces and was covered as a major news story. There is no excuse for the out of hand dismissal as just another unsuccessful candidate; that's just IDONTLIKEIT denial of the real world. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting NPROF: "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity." That is a higher bar than accreditation. The "extensive national coverage in 2016" was for Sanders v Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not for Tim Canova. Redirecting his name to the 2016 Senate election (and adding more specific info if needed to DWS's article) loses nothing of value to our readers. (Do we have an article that covers Sanders v Clinton proxies in local races? That could be interesting and useful, I think.) Responding to IDONTLIKEIT, this nomination is not about Tim Canova's politics but about his notability. I argued to keep Marquita Bradshaw and Saikat Chakrabarti in Wikipedia, because MB is notable and SC is notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're just talking nonsense. There's no disputing that the subject received enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. It's IDONTLIKEIT to nevertheless deny notability without a principled, generally applied reason -- which is conspicuously absent here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: You say there's "no disputing" TC passed GNG. I am not the only person here disputing that he passes GNG. The principled, generally applied reason I gave when I nominated this article for AfD: "Fails WP:NPOL, no notability except in connection with multiple failed political campaigns." If you disagree, give URLs of 3 independent in-depth RS that are not "in connection with multiple failed political campaigns." (And The Intercept is not an independent RS when promoting a Sanders-backed candidate.) HouseOfChange (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a much better idea. You, @HouseOfChange:, should stop talking until you understand the GNG and stop arguing that a failed proposal to modify notability guidelines should inexplicably be enforced. The GNG has exactly nothing excluding coverage related to "failed political campaigns". Not one fracking word. Exactly the same is true of NPOL. Not only that, the attempt to add that standard to NPOL in a recent RFC has gone down in flames, meeting overwhelming opposition while receiving minimal support. And it's fracking uncivil of you to issue demands that other editors comply with your policy delusions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Multiple editors in many AfDs have said that routine coverage of a failed political campaign is not equivalent to the kind of press interest that rises to GNG. For example Bearcat:"the fact that some routine local campaign coverage happens to exist is not a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL: every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of local campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always get the exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore." Can you link to an RfC where that sensible idea was rejected? I still have not seen "multiple independent" in-depth interest in Time Canova, even within the 2016 campaign coverage. And I take it you have given up your claim that Chapman Law School is a "major institution" as described by our policy. I am glad to hear you dislike behavior that is "fracking uncivil" and hope you will apply that standard to your own contributions. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell cares? Editors present lots of lousy, non-policy/guideline-based arguments in AFDs all the time, just like you do here. And why you need assistance in finding the relevant RFC, when it's in plain view on the NPOL talk page, I have no alternative but to ascribe to the arrogance of indolence. You also never responded to my substantive argument about what constitutes a major institution, preferring to repeat your original position, unsupported by policy language. Arguing that a school with a Nobel laureate on its faculty must be minor strikes me as insensible. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: If you missed my earlier policy citation, NPROF defines what it means by a "major" institution: "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity." Considering what a high bar NPROF sets with the other 8 possible criteria e.g. "a highly prestigious academic award at a national or international level," it is unlikely they intended to drop the bar so low as Chapman Law School when specifying a chair at a "major institution." Having antique Nobel laureates on the faculty is associated with a wealthy institution, not necessarily one that has a reputation for excellence or selectivity. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You created an article in 2018 about Gina Ortiz Jones, who had won the Democratic nomination for Congress and subsequently lost.[16] She is trying again this year. While her campaign received local coverage, it was not covered in national media. Even though she got further along in the process than Canova, just being nominated does not guarantee notability per WP:POL. Why do you think she is notable, while someone who received far more media attention is not? The main difference I see is that Canova took on the party establishment while they supported Jones. But that's why he received more coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @The Four Deuces: for another example, of which you can see more in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gina_Ortiz_Jones. Jones herself, not the race she had run in, met the criterion of 'A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists' described in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_note-note6-8. Unlike Canova, where "running against DWS" got significant coverage, in the case of Jones it was SHE, the candidate, who got significant coverage for being an unusual candidate of particular interest, in (among others, and talking only about sources I found in 2018) Harvard Political Review, Huffpo, Ozy (magazine), ABS-CBN, news stories that include long quotes from the subject and in-depth material about her life, with shorter articles in Teen Vogue, and Time Magazine.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] If there were similar number and focus of stories in-depth about Tim Canova, I would not have nominated this article for AfD. IMO, the GNG exception to NPOL is when a CANDIDATE is notable separately from his/her campaign, not when one got multiply mentioned in the context of a notable contest. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any real difference. Take your reference to "U.S. Rep. Will Hurd gets first major Democratic challenger for 2018" in the Texas Tribune. It's a brief article in a local paper saying that Jones is challenging Hurd. There are numerous articles about Canova challenging DWS. Your article from ABS-CBN is an opinion piece,[32] which cannot be used to establish notability. Meanwhile, Canova has received in depth coverage for example in the Miami New Times ("Inside Tim Canova's Bernie-Fueled Bid to Upset U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz".) Also, the focus of the coverage on articles about Jones is her sexuality, with little or no coverage of her political views, which is an important element in biographies of politicians. And it goes over the jobs she has held without saying what she accomplished in them. Accomplishments are also a major part of any biography. You could say that Jones is notable because she is a lesbian challenging a conservative Republican in Texas, while Canova is notable because he was a progressive challenging an establishment Democrat in Florida. TFD (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is not in routine local coverage, which both got. The difference is national interest in GOJ's unusual characteristics. She did not get national coverage as "a lesbian." HuffPo and TeenVogue were inspired by her hardscrabble background ("A first-generation American, Ortiz Jones and her sister, who is currently serving in the navy, were raised by a single mother who worked multiple jobs after emigrating from the Philippines."[33], "Trump’s plans to gut education and housing aid hit too close to home for Jones, as someone who relied on reduced-cost school lunches and subsidized housing when she was a kid being raised by a single mom in San Antonio."[34]) HarvardPolitics and emphasized the role of her military career as "a path to the American Dream."("For Gina Ortiz Jones, the military was more than just a career...Ortiz Jones won an ROTC scholarship to study at Boston University; after graduation, she served a total of more than 15 years in the U.S. Air Force and the national security sector." [35]) Despite much more coverage than TC ever got, GOJ's first AfD closed as No Consensus and the second closed as "Redirect." (although Sandstein restored the article in June 2018.) Clearly GOJ got more coverage and more widespread GNG-caliber coverage than TC, and yet GOJ was not a slam-dunk "Keep." Neither is TC a slam-dunk GNG Keep, and I would like to see examples of in-depth coverage of TC rather than examples of routine local coverage of GOJ. That one local article cited by TFD is one in-depth example, although very closely tied to the a single campaign. For GNG, TC would need two more. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost a requirement for U.S. politicians to have hard-scrabble backgrounds or service in the armed forces. Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden, Harris - all claim hard-scrabble backgrounds. TFD (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sophisticated political insight. My point was multiple RS covered GOJ for multiple reasons; this was in response to your suggestion that being "a lesbian" was her only notable feature. But let's get back to the topic of whether or not Tim Canova passes GNG, where are some in-depth sources supporting GNG? HouseOfChange (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said that HuffPost and TeenVogue were inspired by her hardscrabble background~~, not her sexuality~~. But the HuffPost article says in the title, "Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones would be the first lesbian, Iraq War vet and Filipina-American to fill a U.S. House seat in Texas."[36] Similarly, TeenVogue says in the title, "If elected, Ortiz Jones would be the first openly gay Congresswoman of color from Texas."[37] TFD (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC) (Striking the part of your comment where you attribute to me a claim I did not make. To say that they were inspired by X is not equivalent to saying they failed to mention Y.) HouseOfChange (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Let's set aside GOJ, saying merely that national-level coverage of GOJ was much more than the national-level coverage of TC. (The national-level coverage of DWS in 2016 was probably more than the national-level coverage of GOJ.) But the topic here is the claim that TC meets GNG, for which we need two more independent sources that are in-depth about TC. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: Here are two: [38] and [39], plus a recent mention establishing some enduring notability: [40] Js2112 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Js2112: Thank you for your courteous addition of information. (Although the Bernie-boosting, Hillary-hating New Republic is hardly an "independent" source per GNG.) So, if profiles by partisan boosters plus campaign coverage suffice to make failed candidates "notable," as others have claimed, then you have established that Canova does reach to that bar. In my opinion, the 2016 campaign created very temporary interest in Canova--and aside from that BLP1E he remains not notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canova received far more national coverage. More importantly, they were not just Human interest stories like the TeenVogue article about Jones, but discussed his political views, which is important in articles about politicians. TFD (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still no links to in-depth coverage of Tim Canova? HouseOfChange (talk) 15:39, 11 September 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. Been open for over a month now, three relists and no additional input since 27 August. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fyodor Gavrilov

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

Apparent WP:NARTIST fail. I cannot find anything about this painter, and there is no equivalent in the Russian Wikipedia. I don't know how to back-transliterate this name into Cyrillic, so perhaps those who do can find something. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate gives the Cyrillic equivalent as Федор Гаврилов, which appears to have some hits, but I am not in a position to evaluate them. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, that is correct. The Russian disambig Гаврилов, Фёдор only lists two other people. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this artists, and Wikidata links to a europeana entry that doesn't exist, beut has his name as Fedor. The Kalinin Regional Picture Gallery is probably the Tver Regional Picture Gallery https://gallery.tverreg.ru/ (Tver used to be called Kalinin) I searched their catalog but came up with nothing. I suspect that Nikita Kozhin is Никита Иванович Кожин, but not ru:Кожин, Александр Иванович, also know as Nikita, apparently. Still, I came up empty. Maybe the creator User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao knows more? Vexations (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations:, @AleatoryPonderings: this source contains an entry for him, stating pretty much what's in the Wikipedia article; that there's a portrait by him in the Tver gallery. A little more searching last night found a couple of other dictionaries with similar entries (I didn't make note of their names - I'll try to find more links later). I doubt very much there will be more to say about him, which then begs the question of whether or not he's worth writing about in the first place. I think he is, largely because of the fact that we know his name at all - how many Russian painters of the 18th century, working outside the main urban centers, can we say that about? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the text you cite is translated by Google as "GAVRILOV, Fyodor (2nd half of the 18th century) - painter. A portrait of his work is available in Tver Regional Art Gallery." (I don't speak Russian, so I depend on machine translations) That's not quite what the article says, and I find it a bit odd that the Tver Gallery itself has a lot of work online by Russian painters of the 18th century, working outside the main urban centers, but not this artist? I'm OK with keeping the entry, but only if we can verify that there is indeed such a painting, and where he worked. You seems t assume he worked outside the main urban centers, but we don't really know that, do we? To answer your question: I can find several: Grigory Ostrovsky and Vasily Tropinin for example. Vexations (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: The painting exists. It is illustrated in the book cited in the article, which was published in 1976 (we have an article about the exhibition curator, Savva Yamshchikov.) Why this particular painting was not digitized, I do not know...I find, though, that oftentimes smaller regional museums, both in the US and abroad, don't bother digitizing much more than the highlights of the collection. (Something which has frustrated my research many a time over the years.) I will try and scan it tonight, but can't guarantee a good copy. I'll update and smooth out the article tonight - I suspect part of the problem is that it's based on an outdated (i.e. Soviet) source. As to the point about the other two artists - I actually created Grigory Ostrovsky using the same source. :-) (He is particularly interesting to me because of the fact that 17 of his works were found at once, in one location.) And Tropinin is something of a special case, in that while he did live outside of the urban centers for much of his life, he was educated in Saint Petersburg, he wasn't an itinerant, and he ultimately lived in Moscow. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 23 September 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Pointe Tower

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

Fails WP:NBUILD. The claim about being the first skyscraper in South Beach is unsourced, as are the claims of notable residents. Even if these were true, I don't think they'd confer notability on the building. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's lots of coverage of this development in journals such as Architecture, Architectural Record and Progressive Architecture because it was quite intrusive and the work of a controversial developer, Thomas Kramer. There are lots of plans to build giant towers in my own neighbourhood now and they certainly cause a stir. See books such as Fool's Paradise for a general history. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed I did the original tagging for notability and sources. Couldn't this information be in South Beach before it gets separated as its own article? I'm surprised there's not a separate section about the architecture along with the history. I have been noticing several articles for Florida skyscrapers can be one-two sentence stubs. I know stubs are cheap but still... – The Grid (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Not opposed to a Redirect if material is added to the parent article (but there's nothing to merge, as there's no sourced content). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know where this "lots of coverage" is, I couldn't find any. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:48, 12 September 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kismat 2

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

Non notable film, nothing except youtube videos and film database sites showing up in a WP:BEFORE search. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:I am also nominating the following related pages because both films fail WP:NFILM - hako9 (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment as nominator of the sequel, I support hako9's nomination of the original film. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article without sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the original and the sequel. Does not pass GNG or NFILM. // Timothy :: talk 20:09, 11 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kashana Home

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

An article that is about a WP:NORG failing organization that is only covered in the context of one event which fails WP:NEVENT. W 42 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. W 42 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. W 42 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage that isn't within the context of the one event. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The girl's death (around which most of the sources revolve) occurred around 8 Feb 2020. There are sources dated March 1 as well as Dec 2019. I haven't looked very closely but there appear to be two different events for which this has been in the news. Not sure if WP:NEVENT is applicable as such. SD0001 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fixed and updated all the existing references. This article only needed some clean up work. It already had 6 references from newspapers and major Pakistani TV News websites in addition to a Government of Punjab, Pakistan reference. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. killer bee  14:50, 7 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George S. Elrick

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. There is an obit in the Chicago Tribune ([41]) but that's all the sustained coverage I could find and since he was from Chicagoland it's arguably local coverage. Not to be confused with George Elrick. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I haven't been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources or any indication he meets any of the WP:AUTHOR criteria. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wanted to vote keep on this but couldn't find anything. I remember General Whitman's Adventures, they were always in the waiting room at the doctor's office. // Timothy :: talk 20:33, 11 September 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. Interviews are generally not considered sources which establish notability. However, there is clearly enough dissension that closing as delete would not be appropriate. No prejudice to a renomination in hopes for a broader discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasandra Nyker

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." The article has been expanded since, but I am afraid this still fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject received a minor award and is a CEO of a minor company, the coverage is in passing and not in-depth or is obviously written by the subject or her representatives like the bio-blurb at [42] (a site of a company she works for). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the references in the article aren't sufficient to establish notability, she had some sort of role at the World Economic Forum. As far as I know, that's like a super exclusive event, presumably only for notable people. But I've been unable to figure out how relevant it might be in establishing notability. Can someone more enlightened than me give some sort of analysis on this? Hmanburg (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- World Economic Forum is not a super exclusive event, it has plenty of sub-events which are conference style and have hundreds of attendees if not thousands (for example, you can read about tickets FAQ to one such related event here: [43], this news articles says there are 3,000 attendees and maybe ten times as many people who attend side events, official or otherwise...), and anyway, attending an exclusive event is generally not sufficient to become notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED and the already cited ANYBIO above). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus Thanks for the clarification! Had just put out a random thought I had so that it could be discussed and not left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmanburg (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - She did more than just attending. In the 2012 she was chosen as a Young Global Leader. Although, hundreds of people have been given this distinction over the years, there are less from Africa: "Of the 192 YGLs announced in the class of 2012, there are 22 young leaders from Africa from fields ranging from business and civil society to media and politics." Also, she was a speaker in one of the discussion panels in 2017. Even though I think this participation at the World Economic Forum is good evidence of notability, I don't think it is enough to establish it. I'm still doing some research before casting my iVote. Alan Islas (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete World Economic Forum and Young Global Leader are just the upper-class equivalent of top 20 whatevers, a vehicle for publicity, not importance or anything that corresponds to any realworld or wp standard of notability .In the absence of other factors, I tend to think even including them in an article an example of promotionalism . When it's the most that can be said, it's a demonstration of both promotionalism and non-notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if we disregard everything related to the World Economic Forum, I believe the sufficient notability of this subject can still be argued. Concerning the basic criteria of significant coverage in WP:BASIC, there are now 23 sources in the article. Conceding that most of them (or even all) do not provide very in depth coverage, the policy allows for this situation: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

On the additional criteria in WP:ANYBIO, I believe that applicability of point 1 could be debated, depending if the awards are "minor" or not. Perhaps grounds for point 2 ("a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field") are stronger, with the specific field being the renewable energy industry in Africa. Not sure about the historical record though, maybe too soon to tell. But in anycase, the additional criteria is not mandatory, but can help to a degree. (This is to ensure parsing by the AfD stats bot. My iVote is Keep ) Alan Islas (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 17:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per [44] (video interview by the BBC), [45] (brief mention in Atlanta Black Star), [46] (brief profile in an engineering trade journal). I place particular weight on the interview by the BBC. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @AleatoryPonderings: BBC is reliable, but video clips are rarely useded as references (I am not sure what is the policy on video and sound materials?), but WP:INTERVIEW in general suggests interviews are rarely good sources, as they are usually the subject talking about him/herself and so not an independent analysis. Logically, interview is just a fast and dirty type of autobiography... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wary about placing weight on an interview. But, in this case, it's from one of the world's largest and most respected news organizations. Concerns we'd ordinarily have about a publicist getting free advertising from a periodical through an interview do not appear relevant when we're talking about the BBC. I see no particular reason why a video from a respected news organization should not be used as a source, although I agree that it's not fantastic. In sum, I read the fact that she was interviewed by the BBC as an indication that a reliable, third party media organization thought she and her work were sufficiently important to devote a substantial segment to. But, again, I agree that it's not a great source—hence why my keep is still weak. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per AleatoryPonderings - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 12:56, 6 September 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 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania#District 17. The arguments for notability as a politician are weak. The arguments for keeping as an author are stronger, but there's still rough consensus that he's not quite over the threshold of notability independent from his book. The "redirect" closure recognizes this. Editors are free to change the redirect target to the book if there's consensus for that. Sandstein 10:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Parnell (Pennsylvania politician)

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

PROD declined. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. He spoke at the 2020 Republican National Convention last night, but that's not a notability criteria. He's an underdog in the November general election. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I DISAGREE. We should at least wait until after the election to decide whether or not to delete this page. After all, if he gets elected then he will be notable enough that we'd just have to recreate this page if it's deleted. - Seanr451 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. If he's elected, then he gets a page. He doesn't get one as a candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would normally say delete per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES, except it seems plausible that this person meets WP:AUTHOR, no? There looks to be substantial coverage of his book, Outlaw Platoon, like here in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and here in Kirkus Reviews. Marquardtika (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marquardtika, Outlaw Platoon has its own article. Why would the author need one? John R. Bruning doesn't have an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he "needs one" per se, just that I see a plausible notability argument being made under WP:AUTHOR rather than WP:POLITICIAN. Some merging could take place, too. Maybe there should be a Sean Parnell article but no Outlaw Platoon article, for instance. I'm not totally convinced but think this is a more complex case than the usual WP:POLOUTCOMES, where I almost always vote to merge into the relevant election article. Marquardtika (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point. I personally see AUTHOR#3 as overly vague and problematic. In a case like this, I don't see why the book and the author should both have articles if the notability is only based on this one book. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I’m sorry but I don’t know how to do this... I’ll read all the primers when I get back to my desktop and can also log an account. The fact the ADMIN writes “underdog” shows bias right there, and the fact he requested deletion just hours after the RNC speech is suspicious, sorry. I saw the speech, a day later heard something on-air so decided to google sean parnell, and couldn’t find a wiki page. The fact that he was a scheduled 5min speaker, when AOC only got a minute, he wasn’t some fly-by video testimonial, and his speech was indeed about inclusiveness, something this ADMIN deleted in his biased showing of non-inclusiveness. I respect the ADMIN’s Grand Wizard wiki mod-status but please stick to sticks & balls... (again MY APOlOGIES for newbie errors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7400:66CA:4588:D34A:1923:3AA1 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OMG comment above is from me. Question,,, as part of my update that Sean is a relevant topic given his speech at the RNC Convention, I also tried to include a link to the PBS video and the aforementioned one-sentence description of the speech. Question to the Admin making changes, If a link and "approved" description of OutLaw Platoon can be included, why can't a link and description of his speech? Lastly, the webform said article "edits" were not required to have a summary of changes, so I didn't on three subsequent small edits correcting name and some character deletions which for some reason the Admin didn't seem to appreciate (about to read primers now but adhd is already kicking in at the prospect,,, :( LucaGrauman (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In recent years, I am an infrequent Wikipedia editor. I created this page, not because I'm especially interested in the topic, but because I saw this person giving a speech at the 2020 RNC and wondered to myself, "who the hell is this guy?" I turned to Wikipedia, as I usually do, but when I searched for the gentleman's name, I found an article for an identically-named Alaskan politician, and spent more than several seconds, somewhat confused, wondering, "who the hell is this other guy?" Once I realized that there is a second living American politician with an identical name, I set out to fix this issue for the next reader. If readers can more easily access relevant verified knowledge, Wikipedia has been improved. HiDrNick! 01:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins. It is not Wikipedia's job to maintain articles about as yet unelected candidates in future elections: the rule is not that all of the candidates get articles now and then after election day we delete the ones who lost, it is that we wait until the election is over before we start articles about any of the new winners. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for aspiring future notables to publicize themselves or their campaigns — and simply having spoken at the convention is not in and of itself a notability criterion either. Anybody who watched the speech and wanted to find out who this guy is will find his campaign materials and campaign coverage on the web as it is, so there's no need for us to suspend our rules in order to curate that content for them. We don't do "temporary notability pending the outcome of a future event that may or may not erase it" — we wait until his passage of a permanent notability criterion has already been secured before he's allowed to have an article, and for politicians that means holding a notable political office and not just running for one. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People do not become notable for becoming party nominees for election. They become notable for being elected to office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably more notable as an author/military veteran than political candidate. Not a huge fan of Fox but here is a profile. Here is a US Army profile. Interview with the Daily Signal. Here is some Pittsburgh coverage. This isn't even including the book reviews. All in all, I think there is enough coverage for a page, and we don't even have to consider him as a candidate. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a consensus forming that the subject does not meet WP:NPOL, but is he notable as an author?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to either the RNC or the election in which they are running. Muboshgu is absolutely right in their response to SeanR451. If Parnell wins election in November, we can recreate the page, but to have the article right now not only provides WP:UNDUE, but also doesn't meet WP:NPOL. As for whether he meets WP:NAUTHOR, I don't see that at this current time.Bkissin (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain how the article violates UNDUE - there's no rule stating that candidates cannot have articles. A redirect to the RNC would not make sense, and while a redirect to Outlaw Platoon would be better than deletion, he has written several other books. He meets NAUTHOR as well as GNG. I don't understand the enthusiasm for deleting candidates articles. Perhaps a move to Sean Parnell (author) since he is not technically a politician? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Candidates get articles only in one of two specific scenarios: either (a) it can be properly demonstrated that they already passed another inclusion guideline independently of their candidacy, so that their preexisting notability renders the fact that they haven't gotten over NPOL yet as irrelevant, or (b) it can be properly demonstrated that their candidacy is much more special than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. The mere fact that a candidate has some campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, because every candidate always has some campaign coverage — which means that every candidate would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to be measured against NPOL at all anymore. But even WP:NAUTHOR is not automatically passed just because his book exists — notability as a writer requires things like noteworthy literary awards, and/or considerably more critical attention being paid to the books than either his BLP or the book's article (which is sourced two-thirds to primary sources and podcasts rather than reliably sourced evidence of notability as a book) is actually showing. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An important piece of Bearcat's argument is nod only made up, but has recently been rejected by the community. There's a recent RFC on modifying NPOL to incorporate the "independently of their candidacy" standard, and that proposal has gone down in flames, meeting broad opposition while gathering no more than token support. When such a proposal has been clearly rejected by the community, it's very hard to see why a good faith user would present it as though it were part of a policy or guideline. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - While I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to say your interpretation of the guidelines is the only correct interpretation. In particular, the 10 year test is highly subjective, to be almost worthless. I can say people will care in 10 years, and you can say the opposite, and neither of us can be absolutely right. And I never claimed that NAUTHOR was passed simply because the book exists, that is you putting words in my mouth. The book has been reviewed in several notable newspapers/periodicals that it deserves an article. And Parnell has been profiled in several reliable sources owing to his military/writing career to deserve a page. In short, he is not a typical small-time candidate, like a lawyer or city councilman, whose only claim to fame is being a candidate for office. And I don't support keeping this article because I agree with his candidacy, since I oppose the majority of Parnell's political positions, but rather on the sourcing that exists on the man. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Outlaw Platoon The question in my mind is whether the subject meets WP:Author. Outlaw Platoon is a memoir, which is increasingly citied in academic works (from a review in "The Army Lawyer" to being used as an exemplar of military narrative in the Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies). Certainly all of this points toward the book being notable. While in certain cases it is possible to separate the book from the author, the memoir format of the subject's work and the fact that the subject is the author of three additional works published by William Morrow and Company makes the subject notable for being an author (see this review). --Enos733 (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets both WP:AUTHOR and the GNG. We certainly have a vocal contingent of editors who believe that Wikipedia's coverage of politics should be less extensive and comprehensive than its coverage of wrestlers, lingerie models, and professional Super Smash Bros. players, but the vociferousness of those proponents should obscure the fact that it is a remarkably stupid idea in the context of building an encyclopedia. And the argument that notability of a candidate must be establised "independently of their candidacy" is just plain fraudulent: it's never been part of any actual policy or guideline, and a recent proposal to add it to NPOL has gone down in flames, with nearly unanimous opposition. The !votes embracing this principle are groundless and should be discounted by the closer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to election page/sub-section. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 20:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unelected person. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Just noting that this page should not be deleted as the redirect to Outlaw Platoon is clear and obvious should he not be found notable as an author. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to restoring if he gets elected. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect here. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after John E. James being kept, a politician needing to be elected for inclusion on Wikipedia isn't much a requirement, and in some ways Parnell has been given more weight over James with his placement at the RNC. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Lampoon's Funny Money

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

Per WP:NTV: " the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone[...]a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage." Extensive searching on newspapers.com found only TV Guide listings and "buzz" articles about Jimmy Pardo that only mention the show in passing. Likewise, the two sources I linked at the bottom of the page are also a "buzz" article on Jimmy Pardo that only tangentially mentions the show, and a Variety blurb mentioning an episode count in the greater context of GSN's scheduling.

Everything else I found is merely directory listings (TV.com, IMDb, etc.), message boards, parenthetical mentions in articles about Jimmy Pardo, or Z-list comedians' websites/social media accounts mentioning that they got their 15 minutes of fame by performing on this show. In short, this show seems to have come and gone without anybody noticing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The show has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Television Shows. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network, where it is already listed - The entry in the encyclopedia mentioned above consists only of a short paragraph summarizing the basic premise of the game show, which is not particularly in-depth, and provides no real information demonstrating notability. Pretty much all other sources are the same - very brief mentions of the show that prove it existed, but no actual coverage that could sustain an article. I was initially going to just vote to Delete as I could not find an appropriate place on any of the National Lampoon-related articles that would make sense as a Redirect target, but then I noticed that it is already included in the list of shows broadcast by the network it was on, which seems like it would work as the target of a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article which seems quite adequate and so there's no need to find some great tome on the topic to "sustain" some hypothetical, huge screed – "Enough is as good as a feast". The professional encyclopedia demonstrates that a brief entry for this topic is sensible and appropriate and there's no particular need for anything more. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except, you know, passing the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It easily passes GNG as there are plenty more sources such as Cable Television Prime Time Programming, 1990-2010 and Variety. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I can't agree that a single sentence and the schedule for what time it aired can be considered significant coverage. That book is one of the items I was referring to when I referred to sources that have brief mentions that do nothing but prove that WP:ITEXISTS, without actually indicating any notability. The Variety article was also already mentioned and argued against by the initial nomination, so I was already considering that when I made my comment.Rorshacma (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming per Rorshacma, the sourcing is all blurbs, TV guide listings, and buzz pieces surrounding the start of the show. Not quite WP:SIGCOV. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network: per above reasons // Timothy :: talk 14:18, 21 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kumar Pandey

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

The sources seem to me a PR material, and nothing such which may count towards GNG. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete: I did a reference check, and third-party sources provided [47][48][49] are partnered content (paid spam article). Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the references look like press release, but some don't. Even the ones that look like partnered content may not be, because it doesn't have some of the PR type formatting. I added more web references from the google news to the article and rectified the partnered content. This personality could be significant in Patna as he is nominated for SAARC Awards which count towards GNG.[50] reljohnn (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)(— realjohnn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. )[reply]

@Realjohnn:, Did you read WP:GNG? A single award nomination has nothing to do with GNG. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AaqibAnjum:, yes i read WP:GNG and did a research on this. He got ‘Startup of the Year in Influencer Marketing' award [51] and nominated for SAARC Awards[52]. Also, i can see he formed bihar's first influencer marketing agency [53] which may count towards WP:GNG.There is also an IMDb page of him stating he worked for Khajoor Pe Atke movie. [54]- reljohnn (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Realjohnn, Well, IMDB makes no sense, it could've been helpful if there was a case of WP:NACTOR, but the subject fails NACTOR from toe to head. Coming to SAARC award nomination, it is a too soon case. Bihar's first influencer marketing agency and it has just WP:ROUTINE coverage - nothing in well, reliable and reupted sources. No pass of WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 09:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: I have improved the article with reliable references and information. - (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC) striking suspected sock vote Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete right away. Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. -Hatchens (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep Qualify WP:GNG to a certain extent but a bit lack in WP:SIGCOV. -Patrickmee (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC) strike sock vote -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrickmee, and you failed to see that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV have same target. A subject failing SIGCOV (significant coverage) fails GNG right at the moment. Don't play hocus-pocus. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found few reliable references such as Navbharat Times [55] I believe the article does meet the general notability guideline - only businessmen of a certain reputation and stature would be nominated for SAARC awards.-ThePediaGeek (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)strike sock vote -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : All the references are spam because there is no editor name mentioned. All of it says "Partnered Content". Fails WP:GNG. The keep votes are from the socks, I have already reported them for SPI. This needs to be deleted. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 13:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusMEOW: I’m sorry if you think my account is a ‘sock’. I’m very surprised to see your response. Coming to the article, what i have shared is the ‘NAVBHARAT TIMES’ article with an editor name as ‘Ankit Ojha’ . I didn’t saw any partnered content as of now. ThePediaGeek (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC) strike sock -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cross-wiki spam and promotion. --IWI (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to qualify WP:GNG and all the links are from PR - Tatupiplu'^talk 14:39, 23 September 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. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbo Ka Beta

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

Previously WP:PRODded and PROD withdrawn. An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMdb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search failed to find even so much as the plot, which the article lacks. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NFILM, particularly for films > 30 years old. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cami Dalton

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. The two reviews are by defunct and apparently unreliable sources, and the award for which she (he?) was nominated is from Reviewers International, for which I can find no trace. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Romantic Times closed in 2018, but for decades they were one of the premier publications covering the romance novel genre and hosted a large industry-wide convention every year. Being nominated for a Romantic Times award was a big deal. Road to Romance was likewise a well-known and respected publication focused on romance novels. Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Karanacs's well reasoned and well researched argument. Archives of Reviewers International (which also seems to be defunct) can be found here. pburka (talk) 13:23, 5 September 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 19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmersbach Rhino Force

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Update of article previously deleted at Afd and rejected at Afc. Highly promotional. scope_creep^Talk 04:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was previously deleted under the title Rhino Force; AfD here (if someone knows how to manually add the "previous AfDs" box at this point, please do). Sourcing somewhat more expansive now than last time, from what I remember, but still far from great. Seeing that Hemmersbach seems likely to survive the current AfD, I'd suggest merging there, but then the single paragraph already present in the article looks to do the job just fine. Hence, just redirect to Hemmersbach might be okay. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DRV considered the draft version of this article suitable for main space: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 7#Draft:Hemmersbach Rhino Force. I'm pretty sure this article was created in draft before Rhino Force, the article that was deleted.Thincat (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was non-consensus or rather a very rough consensus generated via absence of discussion. The references in the article are junk. They are a mix of press-releases, YouTube videos that nobody is watching, run of the mill business news, passing mentions and tangentially linked information. On top of that, it is almost a NLP article, with even section names being branded in NLP style of Hemmersbach Rhino Force. scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi all, I have added in more articles from respectable journalism organisation Welt, DW and Pheonix. All are large German news agencies. Pheonix is a free-to-air channel on National tv in Germany while the other two are sigificant newspapers. Please note for the one from Welt I also referenced the jouranlists post as it is in english and the Welt.de article is behind a paywall. If you want more articles I can search for more. Please let me know and i'd be happy to do so. MichaelDubley (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More Youtube videos that nobody is watching and a [56] a press-release. scope_creep^Talk 08:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Scope creep:, The youtube video is a direct upload by a major German news broadcaster, Pheonix[57]. That is evidence for notability and a good reference. Does wiki not permit videos as references? The other article is a written article by DW a major German journalism organisation[58]. Why did you remove this? Finally you are right regarding the South China Morning Post. I have just read the wiki guidelines to notability and note press-releases hold no weight for notability and this discussion. However, wiki does allow press releases to be included so can we please keep it? While it seems Hemmersbach did pay for the post I am sure South China Morning Post does not allow all articles to be posted just because someone has money. I think it thus hold value to the reader. It doesn't make sense we keep deleting each others changes so I'll wait for your reply or someone else's judgment before restoring the changes you made. Many thanks! MichaelDubley (talk) 03.06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No one is watching it. It has 500 odd views. It is non-notable and non-RS scope_creep^Talk 11:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Scope creep:, I agree the video is not notable for the youtube views. But rather the live-televison views as Pheonix is part of ZDF which makes up a 15.5% of the audience share for German TV, as of 2018. I cannot find current statistics but in 2014 it had 13% audience share and was the most watched channel. I would argue that one of the top German news channels making a full-length program on a Rhino Force project is notable. Do you agree? MichaelDubley (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:06, 24 September 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) 01:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs previously broadcast by 2nd Avenue

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

A programming list of syndicated non orignial programming. Fails WP:LISTN, WP:NTELEVISION. Meets WP:NOTTVGUIDE // Timothy :: talk 04:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Raymie (t • c) 04:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced, mostly non-original programming. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention it has been unsourced for at least 8 years. Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, a Redirect to 2nd Avenue (TV channel) could be another option. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of who was a local distributor of various content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 4 September 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 Adam Maxwell. Redirect as WP:ATD. If the author is not notable, we can discuss that at a separate AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dial 'M' for Monkey (short story collection)

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

Article about a book that does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. MapleSoy (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MapleSoy (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination, references do not meet WP:NBOOK. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There does not appear to be any actual reviews or substantial coverage from reliable sources at all on this book. I was going to suggest a redirect to the author's article, but upon looking into that, I don't believe the author is notable either. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adam Maxwell. I've also been unable to find significant coverage of the book, but I don't think the author is so plainly non-notable that a redirect wouldn't be useful (see the profile in the Evening Chronicle cited in this article, and the profile in the Northern Echo cited in the biography), especially if a sentence or two on the book can be added to the author's article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:30, 6 September 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. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O Garaxe Hermético

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

This private school with no evidence of coverage or being accredited or such seems to fail WP:NORG. Previously prodded by User:PKT in 2012, deprodded by the creator, hasn't been improved since. Other languages are a bit longer but not much and the coverage is either missing or, from what I can Google Translate, very sparse too. Can this be rescued? Also, the biography of the school creator, Kiko da Silva looks very bad but it, at least, has better interwikis (if anyone here speaks Spanish etc. and would care to comment on whether that bio should stay or if it needs its own AfD, that would be appreciated too). But as for this school, at best, I think we could redirect it to his bio? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need third party sourcing to justify an article. Especially one that claims something is a first of anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 7 September 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 European Aviation Safety Agency. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 11:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ky

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

Does not pass WP:NBIO- notability is not inherited from the CEO position. 1292simon (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a to-be-created "Leadership" section in European Aviation Safety Agency. Doesn't appear notable independently of the agency, but it could be some nice context in the article on the agency. (Fwiw, he has gotten some decent press in his role as CEO: e.g., [59]). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 19 September 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. Tone 08:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.30 Walker

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

Looks like a non-notable cartridge. This is in no way a reliable source. This book is compiled from Wikipedia. This site just links you to Wikipedia for the full description. The mention here is in a list that may well be copied from Wikipedia. Another forum here. Literally everything I'm finding is either in forums or appears to be mirroring this article. It appears to actually exist, but I can't see any way this even gets close to notability. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can find nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 08:19, 13 September 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) 01:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yixi Chen

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

It is conceivable that his company is notable, but clear that he individually not. 30 under 30 is a pr award, and does not indicate even importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (its a she, not he); Fails WP:GNG; Forbes -under-30 listing is not sufficient for notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 14:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paid spam. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 22:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 14:35, 10 September 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. That's a hell of a thorough nom statement, and zero opposition to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drishtipat

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

One of over a million charities in the US.[60] Human rights in Bangladesh is a worthy cause, but that doesn't make the charity notable.

Of the cited sources, only Star Weekend Magazine is significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source. The Christian Science Monitor contains only one sentence about Drishtipat, which profiled itself (note the use of "our" and "we") and responded to facile interview questions in Culture Connect, the magazine that is the main subject of the CSM article. The Daily Star doesn't mention Drishtipat. The remaining four sources are written by Drishtipat or its executive director, Asif Saleh. (Coincidentally, the Wikipedia article was written by an Asifsaleh.)

Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest, found brief mentions, but only one other piece of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source: India West published an article on 8 February 2002 about a fundraiser in the San Francisco Bay Area, attended by about 200 people, that raised $9,000.

Drishtipat's tax exempt status was revoked in 2014 for failure to file tax forms for three consecutive years.[61] Its 2010 filing showed revenue of about $54,000. By contrast, notable human rights charities Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International respectively reported revenue of $42 million and $37 million that year. It seems Drishtipat never got big enough to attract significant attention by the world at large.

Promotional article containing much unsourced content about a well-meaning but non-notable organization. -- Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's extensive and well reasoned rationale. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:52, 12 September 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) 01:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threespheres

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

1) Fails WP:NOTABILITY, 2) the history section is just a quote (the link to which is dead), 3) a before search turned up zero sources, 4) the official page link under external links is dead. Kingdom(Hearts)Come (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kingdom(Hearts)Come (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kingdom(Hearts)Come (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nada. Nothin. Big fat zero. That's how many casual mentions I found, except I did find the dead link at [62] which is an interview with the band The Desert Fathers, which operated this label. I certainly found no in-depth, independent, reliable coverage anywhere. The label has had no roster of notable artists, no indication they've had any regional or genre impact on the arts. Therefore not "one of the more important indie labels" according to NMUSIC #5. Fails NCORP, if you think that applies to record labels, and fails GNG. Oh, and by the way, the article is 90% a copyvio of said archived link, it is a verbatim quote from that article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing is even remotely close to being reliable and 3rd party. This is a huge problem we have with record label articles. With my current limit of 1 article nomination per day, I could spend the rest of the year nominating articles on record labels sourced only to the webpage of the record label and or social media cruft, and would not even scatch the surface.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 7 September 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. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 20:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely Memory

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

Non notable film, nothing found to support it's notability claim in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites. PROD removed because of "Notable actors, notable director, notable production company Suevia Films (etc.)", but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search found no significant coverage, and there's no indication how this would meet WP:NFILM. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources in the article? czar 05:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like further views on czar's question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of the sources in the article, two are on Google Books: [63] (passing-ish mention), [64] (same). The most in-depth sources I found were [65] and [66] (a very retrospective review in El País). There's also [67], which is decent but not fantastic. There are some passing mentions elsewhere too. There's not a huge quantity of in-depth coverage, but just enough for NFILM/GNG, it seems. If this is kept, I'd suggest moving to Bello recuerdo because I don't think it's really ever known by the English title. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if the article is kept, it should stay under the English title per WP:NCFILM, which says if the film has an English title (which this does), it should "Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers" Donaldd23 (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it relevant that the film was not released or distributed under the English title? I couldn't really find anything under "Lovely Memory", though maybe I missed something. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AleatoryPonderings' sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AleatoryPonderings' sources, I will also add this is a film by a notable director starring notable actors.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:34, 14 September 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. BD2412 T 01:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Blackford

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH as a collegiate wrestler. His unfortunate death as a passenger in an automobile accident (afternoon, speeding)[68] fails WP:VICTIM. Article has been tagged for 10 years. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very notable wrestler in life and notable in death. Death was covered by ESPN here and many other national news like the LA Times here, Chicago Tribune here. He was a 3 time NCAA Division 1 All American. 2000 Pac-10 Wrestler of the Year, Two-time Pac-10 Champion (2000, 2001) here He has a wrestling tournament named after him here Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His death was mentioned in articles about his more-famous girlfriend who was charged with careless driving in causing his death. If she were not an Olympic medalist, his death would not have been reported like this. Notability is not inherited. MB 01:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No reliable sources given. As above, notability is not inherited. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with User: Lightburst below.Knox490 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The article asserts that he was a three-time All-American. Has anyone checked to see if that's correct? If it is correct, that would seem to establish presumptive notability under WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, verified with one of the sources above. I added two references. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this should probably be closed as keep based on the fact that this person was a 3 time all-American as Cbl62 has said. The person has a WP:NCOLLATH pass. contacting Whiteguru Knox490 MB Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with the three time All-American award meeting WP:NCOLLATH. Vote changed to Keep --Whiteguru (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' The keeps all assume being a NCAA all-American meets WP:NCOLLATH. I'm not convinced that is true. All-American in NCAA wrestling is one of the top 8 finishers in a weight class, so there are 80 All-Americans each year in wrestling. This doesn't seem like a "national award" per WP:NCOLLATH#1. #4 (Have won multiple NCAA Division I national championships as an individual in an individual sport) seems much more applicable to me, and all we know is that he apparently finished in the top 8 three times. There is no indication he was won a single championship, let alone three. Furthermore, this guideline is a presumption of notability suggesting there should be sigcov in independent RS. But no one has found any, further suggesting he is not notable. MB 02:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct and a better summary than I drafted. In recent years, there are 8 national champions and 80 All-Americans -10 weight classes with 8 AAs in each.2018. Nationally he finished 4th/165# (1999), 3rd/165# (2000), 5th/165# (2001). See pages 4/5/7. He fails the WP:NCOLLATH guideline on items 2, 3, 4, and 5. Item 1 says "national award" rather than "All-American." About 1 in 30 Div I wrestlers are AA, whereas it's about 1 in 120 for football (read NCOLLATH's football callout). Anyhow, it's a guideline. Are there sufficient RS citations prior to his high-profile death in the car of a female Olympic wrestling medalist for GNG? UW Dawgs (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable wrestler with ‘National Award’ . Although stub template should be placed. ThePediaGeek (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, - Per above, he has achieve national award, meets WP:GNG . It would be better if some more information, such as his background, life, education, is added.
Keep - article needs improvements but is within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 20 September 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.