Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 June	17 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Road

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

Basically no results on the road on Google, even if it's hidden by Hollywood Road's results. There are also no significant places or events on the road, thus failing WP:N, other than existing. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Roads are not inherently notable. Also, with full disclosure that I'm not familiar with any East Asian language, it appears that only the Swedish language version cites any sources, and those are mostly from an indiscriminate database. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google-unfriendly in multiple ways, but nothing to indicate notability, either in its own right or what sits on it. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fort Lee, New Jersey. ST47 (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee

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

None of the building included in this list are notable. I recently nominated the only one with an article for deletion. Also, most of references do not come form a reliable source. Rusf10 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Fort Lee. WP:LISTN does say that the individual items in a list need not be notable for the list to be notable, but I see no evidence of this list as a whole being notable. At the very least move to "List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee, New Jersey", but I don't think that's warranted given the above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unusual to re-name as suggested to "List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee, New Jersey" as not is not standard for Wikipedia for List of tallest buildings in X", but one can understand the rationale. Please see Talk:List of tallest buildings in Gary for discussion. Djflem (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is also not unprecedented, with such examples as List of tallest buildings in Providence, Rhode Island and List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon. I'm also unpersuaded by the o !votes in the Gary talk page (although it's fair enough that it shouldn't be a categorical rule to include the state), and personally had no idea where Fort Lee was until I looked into the prose (although that might be WP:IDONTKNOWIT territory). All the same, I still think this fails LISTN, as the main external links that include it as a list also include such illustrious cities as Missoula (no offense to that city, but just something I doubt is worthy of "List of tallest buildings in...") and thus is an indiscriminate collection of such lists. Actually, per the above I'll change my !vote to Merge into the main Fort Lee article. Shouldn't be too much trouble since there are only 7 on the list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Collections of tallest buildings in geographic places are notable as well as being standard at Wikipedia as seen at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States. (One project certainly is notable, being one of the world's tallest twin-towers, but that is not necessary for lists, as is made clear at Wikipedia:CSC). Djflem (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides being irrelevant, nominator makes false claim "None of the building included in this list are notable.' Djflem (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a false claim, for the fact that only one of the buildings even has an article. And that article is currently listed at AfD as well (but I already said that above). What is irrelevant is bringing up the fact that the one building is on one of the world's tallest twin-towers, a bloated list where that building doesn't even crack the top 50. It should clearly be removed from the list.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a false claim, since the nominator has clearly unilaterally inserted their POV (invalid non-policy-based criteria for a nom) as well as decided the outcome of an AfD before it has even been completed. Irregardless, all irrelevant as per Wikipedia:CSC.Djflem (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is WP:LISTN which says either the members of the list should be independently notable (clearly not the case) or the topic of the list "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Neither is the case here. Also, did you know irregardless isn't even a real word? I guess not.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless of whether the word Irregardless is a real word, the policy is Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.Djflem (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Modern (building) has closed, so I guess Rusf10 is now prepared to admit that his claim was false? And strike is from the nomination?Djflem (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! The result of that AfD doesn't change anything. How about the notability of the other buildings on the list? How about the fact we already have a List of tallest buildings in New Jersey?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was Wrong! was the claim made by Rusf10 "None of the building included in this list are notable." since Wikipedia has determined that the statement is not true, hasn't it?Djflem (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge either selectively into the city article or perhaps with List of tallest buildings in North Hudson, etc. into a List of tallest buildings in Bergen County, New Jersey. It's quite excessive to assume any and every city in the world with a few tall buildings needs its own list of this sort. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A merge may overburden the Fort Lee, New Jersey article as too long.

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists-Wikipedia:CSC states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria: Pertinent:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)
Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.Djflem (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fort Lee, New Jersey. Actually, I don't mind a keep either since these lists are generally considered notable and provide useful repositories for information on buildings that don't justify their own article. It is a matter for editorial judgement whether a merge is the best way to go. In this case the page is only seven buildings long and I think a merge would not overbalance the target. Just Chilling (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is considered "generally notable", it has to meet notability guidelines, in this case WP:LISTN. And WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy merged into Family of Dwight D. Eisenhower. bd2412 T 20:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doud Eisenhower

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

No independent notability, and nothing that does not belong on his parent’s pages. Qwirkle (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of detailed coverage means that that the subject passes WP:BASIC. Note also that the Dwight Eisenhower page is tagged as too long and, per WP:SPINOUT, "very large articles should be split into logically separate articles." Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BASIC is, in fact, a strong reason for deletion. DE is famous for a single event, his own death, and the effect that had on his parents.
  Next, this material should not have been spun out of the parents articles to the extent it had been, if this article is correct. Qwirkle (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Article should not have been split in the first place, no notability of his own. Coverage is about Dwight's fatherhood, not Doud. If this level of detail and length of quotations is desired, perhaps there should be an "Early life of Dwight D. Eisenhower" article spun out instead. Reywas92^Talk 05:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - detailed coverage. Seems to pass WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article at Family of Dwight D. Eisenhower and merge this there. See Family of Barack Obama and Family of Donald Trump for guidance. bd2412 T 02:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ....For one child who died before amounting to anything else?
  No-no-no-ditty-effin-no. Qwirkle (talk)
  - @Qwirkle:, it is apparent that you have completely misunderstood my proposal. I'll start a draft for it. bd2412 T 16:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I understood you perfectly, but I think it is a disservice to the reader. More is not always better. Qwirkle (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge RIP, but no independent notability. Not outright deletion, though, per WP:PRESERVE. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson, Reywas92, BabbaQ, and John M Wolfson: I have started Draft:Family of Dwight D. Eisenhower, incorporating this information. Is this satisfactory? bd2412 T 18:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Escudero

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

Insufficiently notable minor comedienne. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery

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

Non-notable local medical center. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Inheritance (film)

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

Non-notable film. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niger Delta Museum

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

Non-notable museum. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

London School of Samba

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

Non-notable local dance school. Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that this article does not meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deep trance identification

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

Insufficiently notable to merit an article (WP:GNG). Alexbrn (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on a single fringe source, treating it as fact. The article quality is lacking as well: Even if the topic would be notable the article would have to be rewritten completely. --mfb (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While it appeals to more notable things, literature about this particular "DTI" is scant. If we can't find reliable sources that confirm or falsify some hypotheses presented here like that hypnosis allows people to recover child-like learning abilities, it's non-notable... —Paleo Neonate – 14:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Uncritical presentation of the theory's claims in Wikipedia's voice. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article may be in bad shape, but AfD is not cleanup. I see a few references in reliable sources to this concept. Ex. "Voluntary possession, on the other hand, seems to be much closer to what is known in the literature as deep trance identification, that is..." [1] or " I also had a number of very unique direct encounters with Virginia Satir through an Ericksonian technique called deep trance identification." [2] and otherwise a few Google Scholar hits which imply this is a bit more than some hoax (through I haven't looked into whether those articles are really reliable). Now, I have no objections to removing all uncited/unreliable content from the article, but as far as notability of the concept itself this may be an ok topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this suppose to mean Learning under hypnosis. At least, that is what Vladimir Raikov (noted on the page) was trying to do. If they succeeded is a little controversial, but that is definitely something notable and can be reliably sourced [3]. Probably the best course of action would be to delete this page and create "Learning under hypnosis" if anyone cares. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UT Models

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

Unreferenced since 2009 Rathfelder (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a bit google unfriendly under the Unique Toys name, but while there were lots of mentions, almost all content was in non-independent sources, thus WP:NCORP not established. I considered some redirects, but I don't think any of them are clear-cut. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Hurwitz

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

UPE Promotion for Non notable musician. Award is not major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but most are not independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. Only reasonable one is is a short Variety piece but one is not enough. Claims a hit on the Hot Singles Chart but a search for that came up empty. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Lecaro

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

UPE Promotion for Non notable individual. Just another working radio host/journo. Award is not major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but most are not independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of her. Best is the first, a single local puff piece on a "Local radio host and music journalist" appearing in Glendale News-Press, Not LA Times. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sorry, but we need more than "the article speaks for itself" before we can keep an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Keleher

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

Mitzi.humphrey has moved on from writing about her relatives to now writing about a colleague of (presumably) her relative Thomas M. Humphrey, Bob Keleher. The Forbes piece is a mere mention, the Official Congressional Directory is run of the mill routine listing and the "monetary approach" book is Keleher's. With the remaining three sources, I don't think WP:GNG reaches that low. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:PROF. Based on this page, I estimate his h-index at about 9 (someone please correct me if I am wrong). This page lists the 2645 economists with the highest h-index; the highest in the list is 91, the lowest is 14; Keleher is far below that, even though he co-authored some work with a notable economist, Thomas Humphrey. His citations and h-index as lead author are much lower (highest cite 19, h-index about 5). Mitzi.humphrey, would you please refrain from editing or creating pages on topics where you have a conflict of interest – this page should have been created as a draft and submitted through AfC. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article speaks for itself. Mitzi.humphrey 13:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
delete I don't see the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG. My search at Google Scholar didn't show me anything that convinces me he's a noted academic. The COI bothers me, but isn't relevant to this discussion.Sandals1 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards for academics as pointed out by both Sandals1 and Justlettersandnumbers. Like them I also share deep concerns regarding COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, the article includes primary sources it needs more independent sources. Another huge problem is COI which may include original research.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 00:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madhusudan Patidar

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

While I'm willing to accept the record of 22 hours at the summit of Kilimanjaro, I'm not sure that qualifies for notability. The other claim to notability (youngest person from Madhya Pradesh to summit via the North Ridge) seems like a very narrow record to hold. creffett (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’m not sure whether 22 hours on Kilimanjaro is a record or not, and even if it was, I’m not sure if it would be a notable record. But looking at the sources I can understand (English) it looks like we only have his word for it that he ever did this, or that it is a record. The whole article just looks like breathless self-promotion. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 00:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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