Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 July	11 July >

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 merge to Bruce Henricksen. Sufficient argument has been made to justify merging content here, rather than outright deletion. I’ll redirect the article now accordingly, any merging can be done from the article history, giving proper attribution where appropriate. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Hills Books

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

An extremely minor, short lived publishing house. It seems to have only published two books, both of which were either written or compiled by the founder of the company. By all accounts, this very well may have been just a one-person show, as a venue to publish his own work. All three of the sources currently in the article are defunct, but none seem to have been valid reliable sources even at the time - one is just brief local coverage, one appears to be a book review and not on the company itself, and the third was a blog. I have been unable to find any additional sources that discuss the company in any meaningful way. I had initially been planning to just redirect the article to Bruce Henricksen, the company's founder (and seemingly sole contributor), however the utter lack of notability for the company, and the dubious assertion of notability of the target article, made me bring it to AFD instead. Rorshacma (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, LHBs published more than two books - ie. From the Other World, After the Floods, Estuary, and Staying Blue, checking these with WorldCat, they are little known with all but 1 held by under 10 libraries (and it, From the Other World in under 20 libraries), a quick goog search hasn't brought up anything, so not looking good. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nominator's assessment appears to be right, for the reasons stated by Cool. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails gng and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bruce Henricksen (where I have added some sources). This small press certainly published books by multiple writers, Poetry: "Tumbled Dry" by Charmaine Donovan, published by Lost Hills Books won a prize. (Book Awards announced at UMD; McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington [Washington]18 May 2012.) Also here [1]. I added 2 WP:RS about the publishing company to this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bruce Henricksen, which will add two more sources to that article, I think (plus more found by E.M.Gregory here). Then create a redirect from "Lost Hills Books" to Bruce Henricksen. It looks like Bruce Henricksen has possible notability (as author or editor or publisher or a combination), and that can be tested in a separate AfD anyway. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:41, 31 July 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. Unanimity that the page should be deleted. As the nominator said "No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NPOL". Just Chilling (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Bhushan Midha

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

Originally PRODed by GSS. No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NPOL. GPL93 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Politician who has not been elected and does not hold any constitutional office. The subject fails WP:NPOL , WP:GNG. FitIndia ^Talk 04:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I stand by my prod rationale as the nominator added above. Also, please note that the author has been blocked for sockpuppetry. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the local head of a political party's local chapter in one district is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat.A.Jacobin (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete subject fails WP:NPOL, and even though subject is a local region's head of political party, still fails WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not elected from any where and is not significant person. Jaywardhan009 (talk) 16:48:15, 16 July 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 as a blatant biographical hoax. In stark contrast to the article, the source cited by the article does not claim that this person is an MLA, and gives the name as Sunil Kumar. It claims that Sunil Kumar is an MLC in Uttar Pradesh. There is indeed a Sunil Kumar listed on the UPVP WWW site, number 22 in the SP section. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Butolia

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

I cannot find a trace of an Indian politician with that name. The article says that Sunil Butolia also goes by the name Sunil Kumar and although there is an MLA bearing that name (see here), there's no connection between the two names. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot confirm if this individual is in fact an Indian politician. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources confirm that Sunil Kumar the MLA is the same person as Sunil "Butolia" — and the article was created by a user named "Sunilbutolia", as his second attempt at creating an article about himself following a 2018 version which claimed that he was notable for "creating new and editing old articles on Wikipedia" behind a redirect to online advertising in an apparent attempt to boost his SEO stats. In other words, this is much more likely to be another bullshit attempt to recreate an article about himself by making false claims of notability derived from another person than it is the real backstory of the real Sunil Kumar. So no prejudice against the creation of a new article about the real Sunil Kumar — but just moving this to Sunil Kumar (politician) isn't the answer, as that would imbue the real person with a bad/fake edit history. Bearcat (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Widefox; talk 09:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Deal

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

Dab with ~~one valid entry~~ (or arguably zero valid entries as all being WP:PTM) 1. primary topic Brexit negotiations#The "no deal" scenario where the redirects No deal Brexit, No-deal Brexit target (there's no lowercase no deal). Two other (sub) entries but all the same topic. Dab title is malformed as titlecase, with 1 ~~valid~~ entry, and linking to the other entries is at the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC target either as normal links, or hatnote see also. Suggest deletion (readers inputting "no deal" aren't even obviously wanting the Brexit topic, they may desire the general concept so search is preferred with only WP:PTM). Widefox; talk 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Widefox; talk 21:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn (per comment below). Widefox; talk 09:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine to just redirect to the same place as No deal Brexit. The title may seem malformed but it is a common spelling. —ajf (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, that's how I originally created it, as such a redirect. So obviously I have my bias here. :) —ajf (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (edit conflict) In my opinion what a bloody stupid place to claim No Deal should redirect to as primary topic mainly for the reason its not in the greatest place in the middle of a negotiations article. My impression is Widefox's tinkering with such as is making a mess a bigger mess; though to a degree I created the mess that is Brexit – immediate outcome of no-deal exit. There are also issues over No-deal Brexit. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF / WP:CIVIL ignored. Normal day in the office for me - routine cleanup of dabs - check my history. This dab is bad in pretty much every way, and should be deleted. It actually misleads readers who are after "no deal Brexit" into thinking there's three topics, rather than giving those readers what they want, which is the primary topic. Why on earth readers would be typing "No Deal" (titlecase) when they want Brexit is beyond me, can you explain. It's a dab with title issue, and no valid entries. Widefox; talk 21:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and move to No deal, with the capitalized version redirecting there). There are at least two significant meanings, one being the concept of a no-deal Brexit, and the other being "No deal" as an aspect of gameplay in Deal or No Deal. Although it is not specifically a title match, it does meet WP:DABMENTION. bd2412 T 02:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have added a third meaning: "No Deal", a song written by Townes Van Zandt and recorded on the 1983 Guy Clark album Better Days. bd2412 T 02:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, dab has valid entries now, nom withdrawn. Widefox; talk 09:06, 11 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emax (musician)

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. References given are song directories, social media, and an interview with a website that does interviews with anyone that asks them. ... discospinster _talk 19:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in reliable sources - and a clear self-promo article to boot. It was written by one author who likely has a COI. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:16, 17 July 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. Unanimity that this site comprehensively fails WP:NWEB. Just Chilling (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World of Words

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

Fails WP:WEB. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability under NWEB or GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable although it's hard to find online sources because the phrase "World of words" is pretty common. Pichpich (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, Per all above does not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lets not Beat a dead horse here, blatant violation of the WP:GNG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fail passes WP:WEB - MA Javadi (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Binish Desai

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

Article about a subject that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. At this point it serves only to promote as i could only find passing mentions and nothing in depth. Lapablo (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Binish Desai is a notable personality by his work. I found many online news references that are reliable and independent of the subject. And these resources justify the notability of the subject. Here are few references which are reliable and independent of the subject: Forbes 30 under 30, DailyPress, NDTV, Rotary.org, Firstpost, TOI, ChicagoTribune, and TedX. I also added few new references which are reliable and independent of the subject: ThebetterIndia, DeccanChronicle, Times of India, TOI, Firstpost, LittleIndia, Book — Preceding unsigned comment added by FXBeats21 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 24 July 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 Davis Cup. Randykitty (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Davis Cup participants

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and isn't referenced, only reference is the official website and searching thru the Davis Cup website doesn't show any obvious place where this information is located. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't tell This gets more unclear the longer I look at it. On the plus side:

There's nothing here that outright runs counter any of the guidelines at WP:NOTSTATS. This table seems to bear about the same relationship to Davis Cup as the pair provided as an example at that page - Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 vs 2012 United States presidential election; and table has plenty of notes and mouse-overs to explain categories and individual entries.
I don't like it much, but WP is by now kind of comitted to carrying these Ye Grande Sports Almanack data-dumps. Davis Cup itself is pretty heavy on the stats tables, and that's not getting into football (shudder). Precedence is certainly there.

On the minus side:

Isn't this just a table variant of all the material already presented at Davis Cup#Records and statistics? (as in, literally the entire section) Seems needlessly duplicative - either have one whopping table with all the info, or separate sub-sections that summarize parts. This would suggest either replacing the section content with the table, or deleting the table as surplus to requirements.

It clearly isn't just a variant. It contains ALL participants and ALL tiers of competition, not just the world group related stuff like it's mostly the case with DC article.Setenzatsu (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is decidedly insufficient. This is like citing a description of the climate of Hoboken to usgs.gov - the data are presumably in there somewhere but it's of no eartly use to the reader. But that could presumably be spruced up.

Then you have a problem with most of the national DC team articles. They (most of them) have team page at DC's official website listed, and not even as a reference but as an external link. So I would be right if I were to go and delete every DC national team article because it references nothing and directly breaches several wiki policies. I could even call out WP:OR. (90% of wiki admins don't understand the meaning of "original" but that's for another discussion). So those really don't follow rules but I don't see anybody AfD them. Setenzatsu (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Threats by author to flip out if things don't go their way are not helpful.)

Overall, I don't think it's a delete by virtue of failing basic guidelines, but I question its usefulness. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I PRODded the article while reviewing new pages. It seemed like a clear NOTSTATS failure to me, along with an unlikely but possible WP:OR (I think this table probably exists somewhere, but I can't find the source.) We typically delete stats articles if they don't have any contextual prose, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1957 African Cup of Nations statistics, and the lack of a source is the other major issue. Didn't expect this one to be controversial at all. SportingFlyer T·C 01:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You could definitely look at it like a stats article but it's a more comprehensive, detailed LIST like a Lists of 100 best books or List of films with LGBT characters. It contains every country that ever participated, every country that ever appeared in the WG, every now dissolved participants and some additional information that are a starting point. For example, if you are to look for information on which countries played 200+ matches how much time it would took to look for that? You have lists inside a list. Of course you could always look at it like a stats article (which list is by definition) but as it contains every participant ever, summarizes information in one place that is otherwise scattered it could serve as a reference point or a starting point of DC universe. Sure, you could separate it into sub-sections that summarize parts but you would increase bytes, wouldn't change the nature of the article and would loose cohesiveness. It's not like this table contains some ludicrous categories (column headers) - it's all standard basic information to give overall information and it's mostly contained in info boxes of each team's article. (forgot to sign it) Setenzatsu (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Davis Cup. To be specific, clean up the table a bit and stick it in the Davis Cup records and statistics section. Stat articles are kind of a grey area, but after some digging around I don't see this meeting the list sourcing and stand-alone notability needed to be its own separate article. See also: WP:OSE. ZettaComposer (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Davis Cup. I agree, it could be added to the stats already there. Dream Focus 19:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was part of the DC article, but few of your kind deleted it and one I believe proposed to be made into it's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setenzatsu (talk • contribs) 10:24, 15 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Yadav

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

This page is about a random civil servant in India who works in waste management. The article is clearly self-promotional, written by someone with a COI, and does not pass WP:BIO. Overzwotan (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and WP:SALT Heavily. This article has already been deleted twice already. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GPL93. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks enough independent, in-depth coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per everybody above, and salt. Also, in India one cant hold the position of collector, and magistrate at the same time as claimed in the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a guy doing his job, which happened to get some banal media coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nanjala Nyabola

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

Résumé-toned WP:BLP of a writer and activist, whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. The footnotes here are entirely to primary sources, such as pieces of her own writing being used to metaverify its own existence, audio clips of her speaking in podcasts, and a press release announcing a speaking engagement, with not even one source representing any sort of reliable source coverage. You do not make a writer notable by citing her writing to itself as verification that it exists; you make a writer notable by citing her writing to other people producing media coverage about her writing, such as news articles about her, critical analysis of the writing in book reviews, and on and so forth — and you don't make a person notable as a public speaker by referencing it to audio or video clips of her speeches, you make a person notable as a public speaker by referencing it to journalism being done by other people about her speeches. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work verifies its own existence: people earn Wikipedia articles by becoming the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More citations have been added, and the situation described in the nomination no longer applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book reviews carry her past WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep additional citation of her work in the Financial Times added. The style and structure of the article could be improved through normal editing.Moira Paul (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extra citations carry article over WP:GNG and WP:Author. Nom no longer applies. Stinglehammer (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SNOW? Too early I guess except for the nominator Victuallers (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems reasonably referenced and certainly notable. I get the impression that this writer is not about to disappear into obscurity. Poltair (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abbottabad Cricket Stadium

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

Delete per WP:TNT even if topic is notable. Otherwise, it fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am reluctant to delete anything about cricket in Pakistan because the sport is so important there. What did the nominator discover while doing [WP:BEFORE]]? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seems to have been hijacked and details replaced with another local ground. I restored content to old version, the single ref shows that the ground has hosted multiple first-class / List A games, so passes WP:CRIN. Spike 'em (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has hosted first-class and List A games, passes CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep. Just Chilling (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with post-credit scenes

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

Per WP:SALAT, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". Many, many movies have post-credit scenes (see [2]) and it is not a defining trait of a movie, so maintaining an incomplete list of post-credit scenes is not useful. Films with post-credits scenes that are particularly groundbreaking can be mentioned at post-credits scene, whilst most post-credits scenes just belong at the article for the film itself. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 18:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 18:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree. The amount is not that extensive and, although they existed in smaller numbers before, PCSs only began to be a real trend with super hero movies in the last years. It's interesting to document how they grew in number and changed in form over time. - Alumnum (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The link I gave lists almost 350 films, more than triple the amount that the current version of our list includes, and I think triple the length of what we have is really too long for a list. The fact that it's becoming an increasing trend plays into my argument, as the number 350 is going to increase significantly over time, and we're essentially then going to be maintaining an incredibly long list of mostly superhero movies. The right place for covering post-credit scenes is at Post-credits scene, where we can detail the origins of it, some key films including it and then comment on how the trend started and increased in recent years. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The post credit scenes always get mentioned in film reviews. This is notable. Dream Focus 21:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Should definitely stay. Wonderful page! MaskedSinger (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Usful information.Vincelord (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please keep. I find this extremely interesting and a good place to find this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.22.99.182 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets the inclusion criteria for lists in my opinion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find a lot of opinionated votes in this discussion. Barely have used any Wikipedia policies. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list has well-defined inclusion criteria and a natural scheme of organization (chronologically, dead simple), and it is not nearly too long to manage. Even a few hundred rows in a table is not going to break either a server or a browser. The topic is wiki-notable, and a list can help the prose article stay less cluttered. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Herbeck

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No reliables sources for notability Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep co-author of script for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990 film) carries him past WP:AUTHOR #3. "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, for example, a film".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some love, and some references. Some coverage of the subject Hollywood reporter, prominent name placement on the advert for the Ninja turtles movie the LA Times covers more than passing mention of the subject's involvement as the originator of the movie idea. I see the subject was an actor in mainstream television during the 1970s (pre-internet) so more research can be undertaken to shore up the article. even if there is not an abundance...WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR witgh significant coverage in reliable sources that have been added to the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 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. Ignoring the obvious WP:SPA / canvassed comments, clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Selby

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

Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR as the author of a single book which does not appear to have garnered substantial attention other than the author being used as a useful ~~rentaquote~~ source on the inevitable regularly-covered subject of police shootings. Selby himself similarly is quoted in numerous articles, but these are not about him, hence do not establish notability. The current article relies almost entirely on articles by Selby, not about him, and the remainder consist of two conference speaker listings, and a link to a self-published book on Amazon of which Selby is a co-author. In short, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO etc. Hugsyrup (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's a pretty prolific oped writer but this doesn't establish notability under our guidelines. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. That said, although the article is ill-written, some of the claims looked plausible, and I tried to source it. I found only one review of the book, an interview/review in the lifestyle pages of the local paper in St. Augustine, where he has a part-time home. As Nom says, there are some opeds in major newspapers, and he gets quoted as a security/policing expert, but I did not find WP:SIGCOV and he does not pass WP:AUTHOR. If you can source it, please feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete I've read this thread, and know Nick Selby, and I am surprised that the book "In Context" is being challenged. As a criminal justice professor, I was impressed enough with the book that I gave a quote supporting its methodology, and co-authored an article with Selby on the subject in the Washington Post, and worked with him on a podcast about policing. As to, "paltry," nine citations of a mainstream book by serious academics in peer-reviewed literature is nothing to sneeze at, and the underlying data is available freely [3]). In my opinion, the book is a substantive work of significant analysis. Peter Moskos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotaq (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete discussion of authorship neglects other books published by major publishers including syngress ^[1] and weldon owen ^[2]— Obleek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).
Don't Delete I am the person described by the page. I have read the thread and would point to a range of books published by Syngress, Weldon Owen, and even Lonely Planet^[3]. I won't argue with opinions I disagree with above (like, "rentaquote"), but hope editors consider the sources listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nselby451 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete As a publisher, Calibre Press has distributed In Context since it came out. Furthermore, it's content has been the subject of hundreds of conversations in our live seminar training across the U.S. Definitely a valuable and valued author and contribution. Crawford Coates, publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalibreP (talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Context was self-published, and is distributed by Calibre Press[1], a legitimate publisher and distributor. The book was taken seriously by academics in the field; In Context has been cited in at least nine peer-reviewed academic journal articles and Google Scholar shows 11 academic citations[2]. The book was reviewed in PoliceOne[3], which has more than two million monthly visitors and more than 650,000 registered members[4]. Selby was the subject of a feature-length interview by David J. Krajacik for The Crime Report[5], published by the Center on Media, Crime and Justice at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. The links to conferences spoke to Selby's expertise in information security, as evidenced by his speaking at, for example, the RSA Conference 2019, the largest cyber security conference in the world.

^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8]— Arasita (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

^ https://www.amazon.com/Blackhatonomics-Inside-Look-Economics-Cybercrime/dp/1597497401/
^ https://www.amazon.com/Cyber-Attack-Survival-Manual-Apocalypse/dp/1681881756/
^ https://www.amazon.com/Nick-Selby/e/B000AP7058?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1562924696&sr=8-1
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibre_Press
^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=18400800544550691232&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en
^ https://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/books-training-materials/articles/226312006-What-In-Context-reveals-about-officer-involved-shootings-of-unarmed-subjects/
^ https://www.policeone.com/about/
^ Krajicek, D.J. (2016). Doing The Right Thing. New York, NY: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The Crime Report. [Retrieved from: https://thecrimereport.org/2016/05/31/doing-the-right-thing/

9 is a paltry number of citations for a scholarly book. And overall very little WP:RS coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether you consider the number paltry. It was stated the book was invalid because it was self-published. Now it is stated that it is an "academic book" but that it's not cited enough. The question is whether the book was legitimate; its inclusion in more than one serious academic study says the book is legitimate. Also, it is not an academic book, it is a mainstream book that is cited in academic literature. --Arasita (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the question is not whether the book is 'valid' or 'legitimate' since those are not standards that exist in any of Wikipedia's policies. The question is simply 'does the subject of this article meet one or more of our notability guidelines'? I argue that he does not meet the WP:GNGs as there is a lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources, and no one has yet unearthed anything to change my mind. An obvious alternative might be to ask if he meets WP:NAUTHOR in which case we would presumably want to establish whether Mr Selby is 'widely cited by peers'. This is why E.M.Gregory has questioned the number of citations. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and E.M.Gregory. What an amazing number of new/non-regular editors have navigated their way to this AfD page! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 12 July 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You Are The Blood

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

The only source is IMDb, which is neither reliable nor since it aims to cover anything in any way an indication of notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find a single mention of this short film outside of this article and IMDB. If nothing else, it could be Redirected to Rafael Morais, its creator and star, but the utter lack of a single source even corroborating this film's existence aside from IMDB makes me lean towards deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:47, 10 July 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion (2018 film)

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

Deprodded without improvement, and the rationale, "as the reason given for deletion was irrelevant to the content of the article". However the prod rationale was pretty spot on. Not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the PRODing editor for the reasons listed above. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essentially no coverage in independent reliable sources. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject fails notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Barnes (Canadian author)

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as clearing WP:AUTHOR. The only references here are a Who's Who directory entry (a type of sourcing which has been long-deprecated as not an instant notability freebie all by itself, because it's too easily gamed by the kind of Who's Who scam that allows self-promoters to buy their entry) and a primary source profile on the self-published website of a directly affiliated organization. But on a ProQuest search for older coverage that doesn't Google properly, I literally found nothing but a few stray pieces of "local guy writes book" in his hometown community hyperlocal, which is not enough coverage to make a person notable if it's the best we can do. And although he was named to the Order of Canada, that's still not an instant notability freebie that exempts him from having to have any viable sources -- lots of OC members don't have Wikipedia articles, because even with an OC after their name a person still has to show some evidence of having received reliable source coverage about the work they did to get it. ANYBIO does not exempt a person from having to have any viable sources just because a distinction has been claimed: we still have to be able to base the article on some evidence of reliable source coverage about his writing. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also searched, also found a mere handful of article in hometown paper (Former K.L. resident authors another book: [Final Edition], Owen, Rick. Northern Daily News; Cobalt, Ont. [Cobalt, Ont]17 June 2003: 3.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 12 July 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarika Sehgal

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

Biography of a television journalist, not adequately sourced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. Three of the four references here are a press release on an unreliable source discussion forum, a routine event calendar offering technical verification that she once attended a gala, and a glancing namecheck of her existence in the footnotes of an unreliable source article that isn't about her, none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all -- and while her death itself is referenced to a real article in a real industry trade magazine, that isn't enough coverage to get her over WP:GNG all by itself as the only decent source in play. And even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that might not Google, I'm not getting any new sources that represent notability-supporting coverage about her -- all I'm getting is transcripts of her work as the bylined creator of journalism about other things, where making her notable enough for an encyclopedia article requires her to be the subject of journalism created by other people. So she doesn't clear WP:GNG, but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to clear GNG just because she existed. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is really light here, too light to meet GNG. Appears to be not a notable subject. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing a day early as a result of the overwhelming "Keep" Consensus. Snow Keep as a result of clear establishment that the subject meets the WP:GNG (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feminists: What Were They Thinking?

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

Other than the Daily Dot review, no other significant reviews (the other review is from a student newspaper). Doesn't meet WP:NFILM, or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even just Googling "Feminists: What Were They Thinking?" at Google News shows there's more coverage than just Daily Dot. Onel5969, can you please try merge/redirect discussions before jumping to AfD? Even if the subject is deemed not notable, redirecting to List of original films distributed by Netflix would be better than deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search turns up reviews, the Kickstarter page, even reviews of the trailer. Meets WP:GNG imho. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find lots of other coverage in reliable sources besides The Daily Dot: Decider (website) [4], The Namibian [5], The Daily Nebraskan [6],Missoulian [7], People's World [8], Common Sense Media [9]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs fleshing out, but that's clearly possible. The film is notable; the many people interviewed are certainly notable; the sources exist. It just needs some time for editors to work on it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in reliable sources, fir example Rotten Tomatoes shows five critic's reviews including the Sydney Morning Herald a reliable Australian press which shows the film has had a wide impact, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in my opinion it meets WP:GNG. Have added some of the articles discussing and reviewing the documentary to the article. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wish I hadn't added to it as this needs closing out as "SNOW". Not a great nomination IMO. Maybe @Onel5969: might withdraw it? Victuallers (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just a reminder to anyone adding refs to please also add the refs to the associated Wikidata item for other languages, if ever they add an article. I know this doc was also fairly popular in the Netherlands. Thx Jane (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. I do not understand why this was even nominated for deletion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O. Leslie Stone

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searching, this subject does not appear to have received an adequate depth of coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. Sources found are short directory listings (e.g. [10]) and what appears to be short minor mentions (from snippet Google Books views). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep I see plenty of sources that indicate that this person could pass the WP:GNG, but User:Northamerica1000 makes a point by stating that the sources do not have enough depth. I have changed my decision to Delete as a result of the subject failing WP:RS. Keep per User:RebeccaGreen's excellent work. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources out there that aren't of his employer, the Mormon Church. Trillfendi (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given by the others. No independent sources. Changing vote to keep per additions by RebeccaGreen. Rollidan (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hmmmm~~ - I see a two-page long article in this book, and an apparent one-para article here, which appears to be an RS, but I can't read them as they're not accessible online. However, not being accessible online does not dismiss them sustaining notability. Additionally he is one of ~20-30 LDS churchmen to have received emeritus membership of the First Quorum but I'm not sure how big an award that is. I've got to be honest and say that on balance I think sourcing likely exists out there to sustain this guy's notability but, not having read it, I'm not sure how to vote. I guess this doesn't really help anyone but there you go. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Yeah, keep per User:RebeccaGreen's typically excellent work on this thread. FOARP (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have searched Newspapers.com excluding Utah (just to make sure that the newspapers were not affiliated with the LDS church), and I have added 11 references. Most of the significant coverage is from the Oakland Tribune, although there is also some from newspapers in Texas and Idaho. I have added more information from these sources. Other papers in Nevada, Montana, Idaho and Ohio provide supporting information. The articles date from 1961-1978, and cover periods before that too. I believe that he meets WP:GNG, or at least WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I am sorry to come so late to this AfD, but I do wish that editors nominating or !voting on AfDs for people active in pre-internet days would check contemporary news coverage (personally, I think that should be added to the requirements for WP:BEFORE). The sources in an article at the time of nomination are not a valid reason to delete. Perhaps FOARP, and maybe AmericanAir88, would like to have a look at what I've added and see what they think. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I was trying to see if the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history had an artcle on him. I was unable to find my copy. If it does, being published 14 years after his death probably makes it indepdent of him. Either way, the sourcing the Rebecca Green dug up clearly shows that Stone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are no credible arguments for delete other than the nominator. Several sources have been posited as providing SIGCOV, and since multiple of these (but not all) have remained unchallenged over a period of time, I judge consensus to be keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saranga Shrestha

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Translations of the presented sources do not show any significant coverage related to the subject's career as an actress or a dancer. IMDb Link credits her for insignificant roles in two movies. Not meeting minimum requirements per WP:GNG either. I am open to the reassessment of non-English sources by an expert in Nepalese language. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On WP:NEXIST basis. I will attempt to convince you of the same (I do have a bias as the creator of the article.)

I started creating this one back when I wouldn't first collect sources before starting on the article. This actor is notable. But I can't prove it on strict Wikipedia standards. I don't have access to offline sources and we don't have a reliable and prolific online source on entertainment in Nepal. So, having started the article, I left the article with all the hopefully non-controversial sources I could find, hoping I'd at least established that the actor is real and notable based on NPOSSIBLE.
First off, this is the state of the article on the most successful Nepali actress in history. This is the case because she went in decline before the internet became a big thing in Nepal. It's the same case with our subject, although she was not nearly as successful. I could beef up both with iffy sources. I chose not to.
For example, this gives 23 film credits for our subject and this one gives 25. Almost all of them were as lead actress or co-lead as love interest of the protagonist. I didn't use these sources because they're not standard reliable sources but on the other hand, I think they do meet the spirit of the WP:SOURCE statement that appropriateness of any source depends on the context since there's little reason to fabricate filmography of a retired actress who's moved on from her profession as well as country, not to mention these sources are used in almost all other articles on Nepali film.
I am certain there's plenty of offline RS coverage of her during her prime, which was most of the 90s and early 2000s. I can see at least half a dozen credits of those 23-25, which anyone from Nepal who knows anything about Nepali film would know of. Like: Aago - A big name pro-maoist propaganda feature released during the maoist insurgency, which generated plenty of controversy and earned some dough at the back of that controversy, but also got banned and generated freedom of expression/censorship debates, which was had again when it re-shot and re-released after the insurgency ended, even leading to a sequel.
This is the extent of what I'm willing to say in defence of this article. I do think it will contribute to systemic bias in Wikipedia if it is deleted, but other than that I am not really going to lose sleep over this one. I certainly wouldn't create this article now, but I wouldn't go as far as deleting it either.Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I quickly found an RS for this article, on my first google search ~ that I have edited into the article ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchellhobbs:, As I said earlier that I am open to revaluation of the sources, but this is not something that can help in establishing notability. I recommend you to understand WP:GNG before !voting keeps in AfDs. Regards Hitro talk 07:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It, nonetheless, supports NPOSSIBLE. As such, I appreciate the effort. I don't think we ought to be judging who understands which policies, with any amount of certainty. Let's leave that to uninvolved editors who will close the discussion. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool:, No it is not like we need to leave the things to the closing administrator. This not how AfDs work. This is not the forum to create indiscriminate possibilities to misguide the discussion and eventual road to consensus. We are trying to reach consensus and community needs to discuss before reaching the consensus. We need to make policy based rationale to keep or delete the article. Read and understand these policies and guidelines, this what is written in WP:BEFORE. I have made policy based nomination, I did my research before bringing this article here. I came across few passing mentions that I deemed not enough for demonstrating notability. Even you made it clear that there are lack of online sourcing and you have not produced any instant of offline sourcing yet. This is not the kind of sourcing that is required to be discussed to demonstrate WP:GNG. Please read WP:DISCUSSAFD, there are some expectations from the users who are taking part in AfDs. You don't need to vote on everything. Hitro talk 10:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I meant to say was, the first sentence of your comment was sufficient to make your point as it relates to this AfD. Perhaps we disagree on that, but since that's not what we're trying to resolve here, let's leave it at that. To be clear, I do think I've supplied enough evidence to assure editors that offline sources do/must exist even if I can't provide them. But I do understand that ... once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, ... and so I leave it at the capable hands of the community to decide its fate. My non-chalance is mainly to do with how little there is to write about the subject currently, and how easily the content can be recovered/recreated when the sources become available (neither of which is a reason to delete though). Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HitroMilanese: ~ Nice to meet you ~ as I said I quickly found a RS mentioning her and several other performers in the United States about a Nepali actor/performers~ if I ~ being so (inexperienced) as to find a RS mentioning someone from Nepal in such a large city as Baltimore ~ I'm sure an editor with more experience (and a faster computer) would be able to find more information quickly ~ and I think that a mention of her in the Baltimore Sun is worth mentioning, I understand it is not a slam dunk but every little bit helps ~ Also !voting is open to any one for any reason ~ and telling me I should understand one of wiki's WP:GNG ~ before I vote ~ is like telling me don't vote for this candidate because I can't speak his language ~ it's quite improper ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:No coverage whatsoever on Google news or anywhere. Fails WP:NACTOR Ozar77 08:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

So, you're back, eh? I recommend reading WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:AFD and WP:GNG before you resume editing on Wikipedia. Feel free to ask at the WP:Teahouse if you find anything confusing. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Search of Native Name (सारंगा श्रेष्ठ) gives a some good references like 1, 2 that provides WP:SIGCOV of the actress in respect to her acting career. Given that this is one of the oldest movies in Nepal, it is hard to find reference for the actress and the movie. But I found some references that talk about the movie 'Aago' here and here. The later talks also about more of the movies she has worked on. Also WP:GNGACTOR mentions that missing out WP:GNG doesn't mean the actor is not notable and it isn't required to have in-depth coverage of the individual in the reliable source. These references along with the ones already on the page is, I believe, enough to prove her notability, both for WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to a comment now withdrawn:) Hello again Ozar77, you don't need to reaffirm your vote after the relisting. The closer evaluates the discussion all the way from the top. You can just put the word "delete" in one of the two between <s></s> and it will prevent any confusion. Regards! (The way to sign your comment is to end your comment with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks. Ozar77 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | yak _ 06:38, 25 July 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. I see a clear consensus that he fails to meet our notability guidelines for biographies, eg WP:ANYBIO . Just Chilling (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Gujral

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

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Presented sources are either unreliable or self published. Hitro talk 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no real sources that indicate notability. Pretty clear WP:PROMO as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. The subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. I have reviewed and added to the page 3rd party publications that have interviewed the subject on various topics. Google “News” and Google “Video” search results also provide adequate content that verifies the subject’s notability. Not WP:PROMO. Hopeful Page Creator, JKantorJourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jkantorjourno you do realize that the article was listed yesterday right? Relisting is used if no consensus is reached after a period of time, usually a week at the shortest, to stir up more input and generate a consensus. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 I am still learning my Wikipedia ropes. Getting better with each day. Thank you for the information. So I should resubmit as overturn (will do). Also, Why go after my one other page David Marlon for deletion? That seems personal. Confused, JKantorJourno. Jkantorjourno (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal and its not "your page". Its another article that clearly fails notability standards, although I do find it odd that you have only really made edits related to David Marlon and this article.At this time I'm going to ask that you disclose any professional or personal connection to either subject per WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. The subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. I have reviewed and added to the page 3rd party publications that have interviewed the subject on various topics. Google “News” and Google “Video” search results also provide adequate content that verifies the subject’s notability. Learning, JKantorJourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NBIO as he has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Nor do his achievements mentioned in the article suggest that he meets WP:GNG. The article has been created by an account with a likely conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources and listicles, not real media coverage that is substantively about him. For example, a person is not notable as a contributor to publications just because you reference the fact to his own writing for those publications — the notability test is not the ability to verify that he's been the author of media coverage of other things, it's the ability to verify that he's been the subject of media coverage authored by other people. Similarly, video clips of him speaking are not support for notability either — again, the notability test is not the ability to show sources in which he's doing the speaking, but the ability to show sources in which he's the subject that other people are speaking about. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~. [Revote struck.] Of the 15 sources provided, 4 are feature pieces on him solely, 2 are lists that highlight his involvement as a leader in a space, and 1 is an article that quotes him alongside other experts in the field. Provided also are sources that show he can be categorized as a columnist. I do agree that unless he has authored a book or has a career specifically as a journalist/writer, this can be taken from the page. Jkantorjourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "overturn" is not a thing AFD can do — we can only "keep" or "delete". Secondly, you may comment as many times as you wish in an AFD discussion, but you are not allowed to "vote" more than once — that is, once you have already initiated a comment with a bolded vote, you cannot initiate any further comments with a restatement of the bolded vote. Thirdly, the references which are "feature pieces on him solely" are not from reliable source media outlets; sources which quote him giving soundbite on a topic are not support for notability and neither are listicles which feature only a blurb's worth of content about him; and a person is not notable as a columnist just because it's possible to use his own columns as circular verification of his status as a columnist, but becomes notable for that only if and when other people do journalism or critical analysis about his column writing. The notability test for a Wikipedia article is not doing stuff, it is receiving certain specific kinds of substantive attention and coverage from other people for doing stuff. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete the subject doesnt pass WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, and not even WP:ANYBIO among other criteria. Also a doubtful thing is the creator of the article claims to be new to wikipedia, yet they knew about the previos deletion. Assuming good faith, it is possible that they carefully did read the notice before creating the article stating it was created n deleted previously. But as mentioned on their talkpage, they have (mostly) edited only two artcles created by themselves. Like noted above, COI/UPE is highly likely. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reyna I. Aburto

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage in independent, reliable sources consists of minor name checks and meager passing mentions. Sources presented in the previous AfD discussion consist of the same, and primary sources, which does not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have mulitple, indepdent sources with articles from papers in multiple cities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – None of those sources provide significant coverage, just name checks and very minor passing, one-sentence mentions consisting of routine coverage. Some sources are primary, consisting of sermon quotations and the like. None of these establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I updated the reference list to be more encyclopedic. Per the [table which I created here] to assess the sources, most of them are not name checks, one-sentence mentions, as many of the local news sources have more biographical information later in the article. While the sources originating from the church do not establish notability, the other sources do. In my view, these mentions pass WP:BASIC. Rollidan (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 29 July 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Awadallah

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

Promotion for non notable business man. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Article current sources fall short of GNG. Conference bios, database entries, him talking about his company. Restored prod. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found in depth articles about this man from Bloomberg and Forbes, along with a number of smaller, but reliable sources. I also edited the article to be more neutral, and to flow more naturally. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg is just a business listing, not in depth coverage. Forbes is a contributor article, not a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GF. Last relist, no prejudice on closure
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:40, 31 July 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. Unanimity that the subject fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Caucci

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

Promotion for non notable business man. Comments from him are not coverage about him. Article is bombarded with a lot of sources but falls short of GNG. Previous prod was removed by now blocked sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. speaker & wannabe business guru, but books are sourced to goodreads, several of the sources are essays he wrote, at least one in a letter to the editor he wrote!, and others are mere quotes in business advice articles. My searches do not bring up any WP:SIGCOV despite his unique name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and the COI violation. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 12 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Estenson

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

Promotion for non notable business man. Comments from him are not coverage about him. Article is bombarded with a lot of sources but falls short of GNG. PR, primary, interviews, routine announcements of comings and goings, listings. Claims he won a Primetime Emmy® Award but the Emmys don't mention him. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has multiple secondary source featured coverage in reliable sources. Subject was employed in upper management positions at major media companies. See featured articles, Nashville Business Journal, Hollywood reporter, Adweek, Featured here, here, also more than passing mention in Forbes. From what I have read, the 2007 Emmy award went to ABC – and the award is for Excellence in Interactive Television Programming: the subject was a VP of digital media, and as such the subject was a leader who shares in the Emmy. The subject passes our notability guide. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightburst. Disney and CNN are some of the top corporations and reliable sources accompany his tenure. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The linked feature-pieces are paid-for-spam. ∯WBG^converse 07:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as undisclosed advertising, something I have blocked the creator for. MER-C 09:28, 26 July 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. Unanimity that the subject fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Lyons

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

UPE Promotion for run of the mill business man and non notable actor that is supposedly "best known for his roles in the Netflix TV series House of Cards, Outsiders, What Would You Do?, and Veep." House of Cards, minor part in 2/72 episodes. Outsiders, minor part in single episode. What Would You Do?, actually appears in multiple episodes, best of the bunch but is only 10/288 episodes and if you've ever seen an episode you'll know these are not significant roles. Veep, minor part in single episode. So that best known is boasting about nothing much. The roles in the bluelinked films in his filmography, Cafe Patron and Opera Patron, both uncredited. His awards, a high schools hall of fame. A local in house "Chapter Supplier of the Year" award. Not significant awards. Article is bombarded with a lot of sources but none are good for GNG. PR, primary routine announcements, listings, indiscriminate local puff. Article is straight out PR from a blocked sock complete with official promo shot. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR specifically and WP:GNG generally. There are far too many motivational speakers to include them all. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 13 July 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. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 06:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hissom

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

Promotion for non notable singer. Claimed charting is not GOODCHARTS and is not verified by any of the three sources used. Has got a little tabloid attention because of who his step father is but Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Article is bombarded with a lot of sources but falls short of GNG. Blogs, PR, primary, him talking about himself, routine announcements, listings, indiscriminate local puff. Allmusic is only a small paragraph. Only reasonable one appears to be the upcoming one from iHeartRadio. Article is straight out PR complete with official promo shot. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a bloated piece of promotion to me. Notability is not established through what is present here, and who his stepfather is shouldn't matter because notability is not inherited. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Need to cut down on a lot of fluff but page belongs on Wiki as he is a creative professional WP:CREATIVE who has created a notable work. Seems to have sufficient sources WP:RS as well. Rocktober2018 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What notable work has he created? Which sources do you consider to be good? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator covers the problems with the sources fairly well, as well as WP:BADCHARTS. Additional RS are only tangentially about the subject, or trivial namechecks. iHeartRadio Artist of the week is not a significant achievement; there are many "artist of the week" designations assigned by a particular user's listening preferences, although this article--as pointed out by the nominator--is the only decent one. Overall promotional and evidently a vanity article by SPA editor. Just another artist who releases their own music and claims major label status merely by being a customer of a major label's distribution service. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly WP:G11-worthy. It's not a good sign when the lede talks about future albums with rumored collaborations. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject fails to meet our notability guidelines.. Just Chilling (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Mukhopadhyay

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

Most sources claim his writings through Rapid Prompting Method are definitively legitimate, when that method is discredited. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Sequenzia (2nd nomination) for additional similar reasons. Ylevental (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw this come up for discussion for delete a week ago and have spent that time thinking about my vote. I had spent a lot of time cutting this article down a few years ago and what is left wasn't much. RPM and FC do not work and further discussion of it is simply a waste of time. Tito is not communicating as stated, in fact when you watch the videos of him working with his mother you can see that at times he is communicating by his actions of "bugger off". I think that Tito should be mentioned on the RPM page (as he is). His mother might warrant her own Wikipedia page as the inventor of RPM. But the "sockpuppet" of the mother should not have a Wikipedia page. I apologize if the term sockpuppet upsets you, but I can't find a better way to describe it, he is essentially used as a pointing device for his mother's delusions of communication. I was not able to find RS for Tito other than attribution that he was doing the writing. Possibly a Tito article could exist if RS in the future wrote about his situation in how he was tested and so on, in other words from the scientific perspective. Sgerbic (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Canvassing (see bottom of this article) https://theaspergian.com/2019/07/10/fc-rpm-and-how-wikipedia-became-complicit-in-silencing-non-speaking-autistics/?fbclid=IwAR3uo3Cz4Ht27cbh3cEc9x0w1FuxajTL1euwCTOK_noNnLY1_O1nzI9MYgw Sgerbic (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFRINGE due to lack of skeptical sources. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the book connected to him is notable that does not mean he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've created a stub about Soma Mukhopadhyay to which anything notable from the Tito entry can be added if Tito's page is deleted. Heepman1997 (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be somewhat notable, any rewrites should be done now, not after deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite two relists this AfD has been characterised by a lack of interest! The last comment was nearly 3 weeks ago so I can't justify a 3rd relist. This close is without prejudice to a separate move discussion. Just Chilling (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Records (other companies)

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

Having an article about a bunch of unrelated record labels called "Sun" makes about as much sense as an indiscriminate article about people named "Roger". Either the labels are notable, or they're not. This is just weird. —Chowbok ☠ 09:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.-Nahal (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, there have been decades of of discussion about "other" Sun Records labels among record collectors. However, I get the point of the nomination. With sources I have, I could create articles for the Leeds & Catlin version, the Toronto Canada version, the 1946 Jewish label, and the Albuquerque label. Often they are discussed, though, in order to dispel confusion for newer collectors who think they have a rare Sam Phillips-related item. A lot of this article is obvious original research ("listed on ebay"), but I don't think that outright deleting the entire article is the best option per WP:PRESERVE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sun Records (disambiguation) and cut back significantly, to have only one line about each of the record companies that don't have articles yet. Since there are two Sun Records companies that already have articles and several others that don't (although some might have articles in the future), disambiguation seems appropriate for this situation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hugsyrup (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Valley Golf Club

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

Not notable private golf course ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep What makes a golf club or golf course notable? This is adequately sourced as an article. Is a golf course notable as part of a gazetteer? In this case, I think the article is hinging on the social history aspect, and the club having been founded as early as 1909. That's a long time ago in golfing terms, placing it into the great English late-Victorian golf boom. I see that as significant enough to keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable golf course. Andrew D. (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable golf course. Very short by modern standards. Never hosted an important event and never likely to. One many golf course founded in the UK in the pre-WWI period. Nigej (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Id like to see more references MaskedSinger (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hanwell. Section on it there already. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's run of the mill and not notable. There's cites to personal emails, the records of the club, and other unreliable sources. Even if it were 110 years old, that's not rare in the UK, per Nigej. It has only 100 members, and appears not to be open to the public. No major 'masters' or similar golf event happens there. There's no evidence of notable members (perhaps royalty?). Bearian (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say the club "appears not to be open to the public". This is quite obviously incorrect. On the contrary, the course is a municipal course operated by the council, and open to everyone. If you refer to the club, rather than the club, it can also be joined very easily by anyone. I also disagree that the sources are unreliable. They include newspapers in the national archive and golf annuals in the British Library. 86.15.199.72 (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply posted prior to logging in by myself. Rugfoot (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The club currently has 175 members, not "only 100" as you state (where did you get this figure??). I know this as I have access to the club's membership data base. Rugfoot (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The club is hardly "run of the mill": it won Middlesex Club of the Year in 2022. Rugfoot (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hugsyrup (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The references on the page include ones that we are unable to examine as they are in Ealing Library and the British Library. Per WP:NEXIST so long as the references likely exist to support notability we should assume it is notable. FOARP (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be able to examine the references but should an article be deleted because of your own personal research limitations? When I created this page, I visited these libraries and found the sources first-hand. Rugfoot (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. Lacks in-depth coverage, never hosted a major, nothing notable about it nor about events played there. Just Chilling (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The club has a long history (founded in 1909) but it is thriving now. It is notable for having won Middlesex Club of the Year as recently as 2022. Rugfoot (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The available evidence indicates little to no support for notability. Of the three readily accessible sources, ref 1 is not independent and doesn't mention the club on the linked page (although on search of the entire site, there are a few passing mentions in blog posts); ref 4 mentions the club only in passing; and ref 5 does not mention the club at all. Of the offline sources, ref 9 is clearly not a reliable source; refs 3 and 10, being the obituary of a person are not likely to have significant coverage of the golf club. The rest have too little information available to assess, but based on the track record of what we can see, it is not justifiable to assume they contain enough to support notability. --RL0919 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your comments re Ref 1. The NAPGC is quite clearly an leading independent national body; the reference to the club on its website is not "passing". It is listed as one of the NAPGC's affiliated clubs. This is not a "blog post". Similarly, ref 4 is not a "passing" mention. The club was one of the main achievements of the subject of the obituary. On ref 5, it is disingenuous to say it doesn't mention the name "Brent Valley": that's because it had a different name. That's the whole point of this piece of information. Your assertion that ref 9 is not a reliable source is clearly groundless. The Middlesex County Times was a longstanding and leading regional newspaper. Again, on the obituary, the golf club was a major achievement in Albert Toley's life, so it is significantly covered in the obituary. Rugfoot (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOFEAT Built in 1909 this course is an historic place. Passes WP:ORGCRITE with references: non-Trivial coverage exists in the Ealing Times, More non trivial here My London News, History of the club's founding detailed WP:NEXIST I can see how a WP:BEFORE missed the mark Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petropoulos

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

Refs dubious. Smells like advertising. Remagoxer (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Remagoxer (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Remagoxer (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand how an article about a major company is not meeting the criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is covering virtually every existing company, let alone historic companies like Petropoulos. I have corrected some expressions so that its does not "sound like advertising", so that there is no issue regarding this aspect. Skartsis (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to know why the nominator considers the references to be dubious. ²Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I should think that that is obvious. The 2008 text is being after the fact sourced to a 2012 book, written by the same person who is writing the wikipedia article, explaining why it is word-for-word identical to the book. The actual source is direct interviews with people by the Wikipedia editor who is doing primary research, writing it up here first in 2008, publishing the same in a book in 2012, and then citing the book as the source in the article in 2014. Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That actually is not a problem in and of itself - Wikipedia editors may publish in reliable venues, and said publications can be used as sources on Wikipedia. Furthermore, if the author of the source is also the Wikipedia editor, then copyright is not an issue either (though it should be properly paperworked). The problem, in this instance, is that the book in question - Greek Vehicle & Machine Manufacturers 1800 to Present: A Pictorial History seems to be an e-book lacking a publisher - or a WP:SPS - which is not a reliable source. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your assertion that this is unproblematic fails to account for the necessity of a time machine in order for it to apply to this case, ☺ as well as the fact that the first publication venue, by years, is here in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would've been a problem back in 2008-2012 (but we're not discussing an AfD back in 2011, are we?). Has this been published by a reputable publisher - it wouldn't be a problem now (assuming we had copyright all squared away). The problem now is that the 2012 source seems to be a WP:SELFPUBLISHed e-book. Icewhiz (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a problem now, and you keep looking at something that clearly is not the source. Read the edit summary in the aforegiven diff again. Uncle G (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~, not seeing any evidance of any real notability outside of a "book" written by the article creator.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the caviat that I agree specifically with Icewhiz's rationale. P:SPS applies to the source, and as such it's not a reliable source to base notability off of. I did some research and the only other independent sources I could find were blogs. However the fact that the author of the book previously drafted content here isn't so much an AfD matter as possibly a WP:NOT one. Regardless, it's not the relevant deciding factor. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.K.: - any chance you could do a BEFORE here in Greek? I do see some sources in Greek (and I suspect an automative assembler / manufacturer will possibly be notable on local-language sources)? Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is "Πέτρος Πετρόπουλος ΑΕΒΕ" in Greek, though per article often Πετρόπουλος.Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ now a Keep, ~~lacks any notability that I could find, but I may be looking in the wrong places. Somebody ping me if they find anything that's considered reliable on the topic.~~ Utopes (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: Please check below for the list of 15 new sources that I found. Thank you. Dr. K. 21:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dr. K, this was very appreciated. I am now willing to change my opinion on the topic, and my above vote is now correct based on the newfound information you presented. Utopes (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep After Icewhiz pinged me I made a quick search and I found a myriad of specialist Greek trade websites RS referring to various aspects of the conglomerate that is Petropoulos. From bilateral deals with Isuzu Motors to agricultural, banking, and insurance news, including news of the importation of electric buses in Greece by Petropoulos. This is the problem with editors putting up for deletion Greek companies when they have no idea about Greek RS. Here are some of the many RS I found: [11], [12], [13], [14]. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. And no, these are not blogs. They are Greek specialist trade websites and news orgs. Dr. K. 20:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per some of Dr.K.'s sources (some aren't great, but the Greek Fortune and others seem OK) + assessment. A 100 year old company, with a history of local vehicle production (private market as well as military - all be it limited in scope and in the past) - is the sort of company that tends to be notable. @Simonm223: in case you want to reconsider (I stand behind the SPS issue, but there are Greek sources available here).Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on new sources, with thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Here are the sources I found but in a nicer package:

Dr. K. 21:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW Sources found. Thumbs up. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, as it is an existing, well known company Skartsis (talk) 19:02, 22 July 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 as copyright violation, numerous times over, by Apoorvmehta9 (talk · contribs) of copyrighted (″Copyright © 2012–2013 Udaipur Chamber of Commerce & Industry All rights reserved″) non-free text. I checked the UCCI's WWW site with the Wayback Machine, and the text was already there in 2014. All of the way back to the first edit this was a copyright violation; all of the text was someone else's.

Xe instigated one Hell of a mess doing it, too, with the copyright violations spread across the edit histories of two pages, UCCI and Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the consequences of bogus copy-and-paste ″moves″ of the original disambiguation article, after the original had been simply overwritten with this, meaning that the edit history of the work on the disambiguation by other people was spread across UCCI (disambiguation) and Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry, with ironically none of it in the edit history of UCCI where the disambiguation was at the time of AFD closure.

I have done a somewhat complex dance to sort this all out, with a history merger to get a single edit history back. The only edit history to retain is that of the disambiguation, which I have restored to UCCI where it originally was.

Some of the people who put in and took out in redirects and stuff and argued in edit summaries will find those edits deleted; I did not consider them worth restoring.

Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry

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

Non notable organization (not owned by government, but authorized by government), lacks RS, it has become a major place for advertising local residents. Meeanaya (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The name itself suggests notability to me. But all the concerns of the nom are legitimate. I hope someone finds a few RS before this is closed so we can at least keep a stub, by which I mean I expect it to be a stub if it survives, we need to cut all the BS either way. I got a few hits on google books and local news but have no perspective to judge their acceptability. It seems User:Apoorvmehta9 changed the content toward the current version and some other user moved it, while the original version was a disambiguation page. It seems of little value to notify User:Aymatth2 who created the original disambiguation page about this. Is this like a rule? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is unsourced and reads like an advertisement for the organization, probably much of it copy-and-paste, so a copyright violation. But the subject is I think notable, as indicated by a Google Books search, so technically should be left to be fixed rather than deleted. Deleting it and letting someone start a new version based on independent sources would also be an option, perhaps simpler. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google news gives only 8 results, which are local webblog and not reliable RS. Looking at the book search, all of them only mentions and does not seems to be covering them in detail, I am not sure what is the criteria, but it seems to be failing notability criteria. 14.98.207.62 (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: As other editors have commented, notability is inherent in the nature of the org and is validated by a visit to its website. Fully agree that the article is being used for advertising and promotion but the correct remedy is to edit or attach fix tags, not deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no rule saying all chambers of commerce are inherently notable, or all organizations with nice websites. Notability comes from being noted and discussed in some depth by reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here worth saving, and some of the article, possibly all of it, is a copyright violation. Compare the six points in Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry#Objectives to the almost identical six points in https://ucciudaipur.com/vision-and-mission/ . Language in the article like "We are proud to claim that the VTC has been able to provide 100% placement support to its graduates. Skill development is a specific area where we seek partnership and support." is surely copied directly from a publicity blurb. After deletion an editor may start a new article on this subject based on reliable independent sources, if that is possible. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~WP:CV is not a criteria for deletion.~~I realized WP:CV can indeed be a criterion for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON.Deccantrap (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assuming the whole article consists of copies or close paraphrases of copyright-protected material published by the subject of the article, as seems likely, all the content should be deleted and the revision history should be wiped out. The simplest way to do that is to delete the whole article, which is anyway just puff. That would not prevent an editor from starting a new version from a clean slate based on what reliable independent sources have to say about the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am convinced now, that, as likely as it is that the subject is inherently notable, there is no RS to base content on at this point, having not found it myself and it having not shown up in the past week. The article as it stands deserves TNT, since there is no RS to start over at this point with, deletion is best. This would also allay all concerns of possibilities of COPYVIO past and present, without wasting community resources on a useless article. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:29, 17 July 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 draftify. This has been open long enough. There is general agreement that the organization is probably notable. However, there is not agreement as to whether the article is so promotional that it harms the encyclopedia. I'm am going to close this as "draftify", as DGG's suggestion seems the most practical here. It will allow Jovanmilic97 and Cunard to continue to improve the article if they wish, but will take it out of mainspace (and indexing). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seva Mandir

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

Non-notable organization page created by the company itself User:Sevamandirudaipur, surprisingly it is live since 2010. Meeanaya (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meeanaya: can you please clarify if you are nominating deletion for (a) lack of notability or (b)because it was self-created by the subject? If the former, I don't think notability is an issue as a quick search of Google Scholar and Google Books throws up with a large number of references in several credible books and academic journals about this organization. A citation needed tag would be a more appropriate response (in fact I now remember I did some reference clean-up on this article not too long ago). If it is the latter, then can you please point to WP policy showing this can be a reason for deletion? Thanks.Deccantrap (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deccantrap:, Seva Mandir is a very common term in India, used by all newspapers, media. If you want to connect to the correct Seva Mandir Udaipur, here is the search result, which are mostly local and non RS. For me, reasons are both, created and edited by the company itself and lack in-depth reliable sources. Meeanaya (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks@Meeanaya:. I was not mistaking references to Seva Mandir, Udaipur, with generic use of the term. I am sufficiently conversant with the subject matter to not conflate the specific name with the generic name. Please refer to the following in-depth and reliable sources about Seva Mandir, Udaipur (which are only representative and do not represent the whole body of literature referencing Seva Mandir; these sources do not only mention Seva Mandir in passing, but study its work in detail):

1) Article in the Asia Pacific Journal of Rural development referencing Seva Mandir's work in forestry development

2) The book 'Civil Society and Democratization in India: Institutions, Ideologies and Interests' which references several aspects of Seva Mandir's work in health, education, forestry, and rural development in general

3) Paper titled 'Health, healthcare and economic development' which references the work by Seva Mandir in the area of health

4) Paper in International Journal of Rural Management referencing Seva Mandir's work in development women's self-help groups

You stated your grounds for deletion are both notability and self-creation. The former ground is not strong, based on the above evidence. In case of the latter, please direct me to the policy/policies which indicate self-creation is a criteria for deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a chance to look up consequences of a subject self-creating an article about itself. As per WP:YOURSELF, an organization creating an article about itself is discouraged but not prohibited as long as WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING are not violated. Because several independent editors have contributed to the Seva Mandir article and I do not see WP:NPOV or WP:NOTADVERTISING being violated, I don't think self-creation provides grounds for deletion. @Meeanaya: please let me know if I am misinterpreting any of the above factors.Deccantrap (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, for reasons noted above. Correct remedy for deficiency in articles is to edit or attach tags to fix, not deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Not suitable for mainspace: insufficient good sources for notability, and written promotionally. . Reading the references above makes it seem that an acceptable article ccould be written, but it has to be written before we can keep it. This is one of the reasons we created Draft space. Before we had craft space, we sometimes used o keep articles usuch as these on the mere promise of rewriting and about two thirds of the time had to remove them when they did not actually get rewritten; now we have a better way. The reason for not writing articles with strong COI is precisely that it is not likely to be a satisfactory article, as is demonstrated once again here--another reason why we have draft space. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deccantrap, I have seen that you have voted strong keep on two AFDs I have pushed, at once place you have later on accepted that you were wrong. I am a local resident here, the company is running in a small room, nothing significant for them. The page was probably created by their digital marketing and it has been spamming the platform from last 10 years. Instead of Strong keep, it is very clearly Strongest Delete. If you don't agree with me, please review the comment of DGG. Let's not waste more time and delete and close this AFD.Meeanaya (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deccantrap, The day this company will be notable, I will create it myself. Meeanaya (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meeanaya, unfortunately your knowledge as a local resident is not helpful for the purpose of implementing WP policies. WP uses a process based on third-party, independent sources. As such, I have provided several credible, independent sources above, which underscore the notability of the subject matter. You are welcome to rebut my argument by indicating why you think those sources do not indicate notability.Deccantrap (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meeanaya I took the liberty of moving your comments and my response, made after re-listing to BELOW the relisting so that the administrator who revisits this AfD nom can identify the later comments.Deccantrap (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 06:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (basically a Keep vote but this discussion is going nowhere) Clearly a notable topic that has been covered in multiple reliable sources in-depth. There is also coverage in a lot of other books [24] [25] [26] [27] and Livemint [28] and there are even more books with just snippets without previews like Fieldstaff Reports: South Asia Series Volume 19, The Bombay Civic Journal Volume 14, Antipoverty Rural Development In India, Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century.... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Notable or not, this is too promotional to keep. Sandstein 11:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Sandstein, this spammy stuff needs a good dose of TNT. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Jovanmilic97 (talk · contribs) definitively establish that Seva Mandir passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline in having received significant coverage in multiple book sources. I removed a promotional sentence from the article and do not find the rest of the text to be particularly promotional. The article text contains factual information about the group. I do not consider this to be a WP:TNT case.
Cunard (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslava Plaviuk

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

No evidence of notability, and I am not even sure the only source mentions here. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the work by the article creator that was completed after this nomination. SL93 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More citations have been added, and the situation described in the nomination no longer applies. ArhKarl (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've edited for style (more consistent use of tense) and structure. I've also highlighted Yaroslava's work at the start rather than focusing on her husband's. More clarity on some issues would be useful from the article creator and others but I think this article can be cleaned up rather than deleted.Moira Paul (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article now has many references to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such. Kholodovsky (talk) 07:36, 16 July 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. Regardless of the did he / didn't he pass NFOOTY arguments, the consensus is that the player still fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rok Zorko

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, not played in a fully-pro league. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, he did, he played in Slovenian PrvaLiga with Zavrč. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And? 1. SNL is a semi-pro league, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Snowflake91 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNL is professional league, but you removed it from the list and deleted my source. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed by User:S.A. Julio over a year ago, because both UEFA and NZS sources (2019 version, not 2008 version) says that the league is not fully-pro. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which source clearly states that the league is semi-pro? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And which clearly states that the league is fully-pro? Not UEFA or NZS source from 2019. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you listed the league under not fully-pro, even though no source clearly indicates that. And why should it be from 2019? For most leagues on the list there are older sources. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The place to discuss whether or not the league is FPL or not is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, and I recommend you take that discussion there (there are usually a few people active on that page). I would start with working on demonstrating WP:GNG because without any references I don't see the article meeting that in its current state. Jay eyem (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Agree that discussion over status of FPL is for WT:FPL, nowt AFD. Giant Snowman 14:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody comments on it there. If I put it back on the list with sources, it will be just removed again. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find significant coverage to satsfy GNG. There is some coverage of a youth coach named Rok Zorko [29] [30], but I'm finding little coverage of the footballer born in 1993, just routine mentions in game reports like [31] and [32]. – Levivich 20:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the FPL status of DNŠ Zavrč, our subject simply doesn't pass GNG - I'm not finding much. Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 15:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Bianchi

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

Winning a silver medal (only) at a university-level competition does not qualify this person under WP:NSPORT and the coverage does not qualify under WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but it is certainly not his only medal. As he was on the podium at the World Cup in Bonn, last year ([33]).-Binbaksa (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a real lack of any decent coverage, so we'd be looking for some kind of presumptive notability on the basis of his sporting achievements, and I'm not sure a bronze medal at a World Cup quite cuts it. No doubt he'll qualify for an article in the future, but not right now. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough reliable sources added with enough coverage, including Tv coverage on Rai2 and RaiSport (the final was transmitted in Live on Rai2, one of the main Italian Channel of television). Not only on Eurosport.-Binbaksa (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. We should not rush to create articles on people who lack a true track record showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep winner of multiple medals in international competitions. consensus is that medalists in junior international competitions are notable; if you want to change that, go to Nsports. Queen-washington (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the guidelines or discussion that establishes that consensus? I'd genuinely be happy to change my !vote if there's clear consensus for that, but I don't think WP:NSPORTS as written gives that impression. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus for most sports is that junior events do not convey notability. WP:NSPORT talks about competing at the highest level and junior events are definitely not that. A podium finish at a world championship would definitely show notability, one at a world cup or university level does not. Papaursa (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it is NOT a junior event, but an international championship for athletes between 18 and 25 years (born in 1994). Bianchi is born in 1997 and he is no more a junior.-Binbaksa (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the incorrect comment that "medalists in junior international competitions are notable". Papaursa (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not seem to meet WP:NSPORT. Coverage is predominantly about the Universiade games, which can be considered routine sports reporting and also WP:BLP1E. WP:TOOSOON seems to apply until his adult preformances become notable. Papaursa (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

always Keep. Because he is an adult (and not a junior) and because he got a podium at World Cup with coverage.-Binbaksa (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the events he's had success at are considered the highest level--quoting WP:NSPORT"highest level (such as the Olympics)". Depending on the sport, and the number of entries, world championships may also be viewed as showing notability. World Cup and University games are not at that level. In fencing, World Cup events convey only 1/3 of the ratings points of the Olympics, 40% of that for the world championships, and only 2/3 of the points for zonal championships. That seems to show a clear gap between World Cup and "highest level". The Universiade games have 0 ratings points. Sports like boxing and kickboxing accept competitors ranked in the top 10, while even world championship quarterfinalists in judo have been put up for deletion. As far as I can tell he's not ranked in the top 50 and has never competed at an adult world championship. Some routine sports reporting on lesser events does not suffice for meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as FIE ranks (Official), Guillaume Bianchi is:

46th (S) as a Senior in 2018/2019
36th (S), 42.00, in 2017/2018.

So you are completely wrong saying that « he’s not ranked in the top 50 » but you are right for the fact he has never competed yet in a World Championship: ahah, he is an Italian, one of the best countries in foil ! If you think that Universiade is not very important, consult again please the results of the 10 last Universiades (and even the most recent one: Fencing at the 2019 Summer Universiade) and you will notice many great champions (Olympic and World). We do not share the fact that a direct coverage on Rai 2 (the second main channel in Italy, you can see the video here) is enough for the notorious. Seen by millions of people. Live. It is enough for my point of vue.-Binbaksa (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I can't access the FIE website on my computer so I looked at the World Cup article that said he was ranked 64th at the beginning of that event. The point is he's nowhere near the top 10 and you haven't countered the fact that he's never competed at the highest level (World Cups are the 4th highest level event). It's irrelevant that some Universiade winners have become notable because notability is not inherited. Being in a live event on TV is nice, but thousands of American college football players have that every year and yet are not deemed WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spout _ 06:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also finished top 3 in the World Cup and won gold at the European championships. Seems notable to me.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the European event was a junior (U23) event.Sandals1 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under-23 is not junior. And Under-23 champions are notable in other sports.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many others athletes are notables just for the individual Summer Universiade medal. --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete One podium finish at, as Papaursa points out, a fourth tier event isn't close to meeting the requirement that athletes have "competed at the highest level". Success as a junior also doesn't meet this standard, which is why junior success generally doesn't show notability. The Universiade competition is the same (limits on competitors). Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting of results and fails to meet the GNG. The editors voting to keep the article, all of whom are pretty new to AfD discussions, are ignoring WP:NSPORT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:ROUTINE while relying on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and incorrect interpretations of what it takes to be a notable athlete.Sandals1 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether he meets WP:NSPORT is irrelevant because the sources are enough to meet WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Fakri

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

The mentions here only cover him in passing (and ref. #3 locks a visitor into an infinite loop of "click cancel to OK" which does nothing). Certainly not enough here to warrant keeping this article. I do not speak Bengali, so if others can find sufficient discussion of this subject in Bengali sources, I will rescind my nomination for deletion. A loose necktie (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 10:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several references in the corresponding Bangla article at bn:হাসান ফকরী and a Google News search for the Bangla name "হাসান ফকরী" generates several more possible references. The content of this article is based on its Bangla equivalent on Bangla Wikipedia.--Nahal^(T) 10:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very poor nomination, national award wining person with huge media coverage. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 12:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is funny, because the only reference mentioning the national award he won mentions neither his name nor the film for which he supposedly won it. If he did indeed win such an award, and the award is indeed competitive and national, then finding a reference that says this shouldn't be so very difficult. Including a reference that supposedly supports this claim but does nothing of the kind, now.... How do you account for this? And while there is indeed an article at the Bangla Wikipedia with its own references, this is only of limited use since each language Wikipedia has its own set of standards for what counts as a valid reference. The references that appear here don't seem to qualify him on the English Wikipedia; I would like to see the references from the Bangla one which meet the standards of the English Wikipedia and which support claims made in this article. The last reference, at least, seems to fall rather short

I am also noting that the English article on the film makes no mention of him winning this award, which is surprising. That article also has no references supporting any claims made in it. A loose necktie (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See here award list 1993-1995 line no. 14 ১৪. সেরা গীতিকার- হাসান ফকরী (চাঁদাবাজ ও বাংলার বধূ), follow 2nd para পুরস্কার ও সম্মাননা পেয়েছেন জাতীয় চলচিত্র পুরস্কার ১৯৯৩ (শ্রেষ্ঠ গীতিকার), জাতীয় চলচ্চিত্র পুরস্কার ঘোষিত হলে এই গানটির জন্য শ্রেষ্ঠ গীতিকারের পুরস্কার লাভ করেন হাসান ফকরী — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 03:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sea also BFDC 11 pages serial no. 10 — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 10:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hasan Fakri is a Lyricist who won Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Lyrics in 1993. So must keep the article.--Anup Sadi (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably will be a significant person because he received the National Award in Bangladesh. According to this source 1 2 he is a writer, national awardee for best songwriter. WP:GNG for passing a significant poet, songwriter and should not be deleted.--Nahal^(T) 07:15, 23 July 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 deleted as an out of process cut-paste of an AFC draft that's still in the pending review queue. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaghaf

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

There is already a draft article with this title. Cannot move back to draft space, am nominating for deletion pending the completion and submission of the article currently in draft space. A loose necktie (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 10:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 10:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 10:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FitNesse

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NSOFT. A search of Google Scholar [34] and Google Books results in plenty of sources and manuals about the subject. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nom's No reliable sources seems disproved by the article's book reference 978-0-321-26934-8 by Laplante which appears WP:RS. Gojko Adzic's book is self published but in mitigation he is recognized by a wikipedia article and he has other published works and awards in the field so he is not to be discounted. I'd notice IBM developer works has tutorials on it. [[35]]. I don't really need to dig further.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AmericanAir's findings. Utopes (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Outsourcing Professionals

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

No evidence for notability according to the rules in WP:NCORP. The first two "NY Times" refs are just pages where it is mentioned based on press releases . The 3rd NYT is just a mention. The other refs are plcements on lists or their own site. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment - If "Five items about IAOP were covered during the first half of 2019 by The New York Times" is correct, does that mean NYTimes is no longer WP:RS, and is just a press release publisher? How many companies can get 2 items in one month, and then one each month for three months in a row? Pi314m (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author feedback - Per WP:NCORP - notable? A Congresswoman cited them, albeit negatively, as being on the side of the bad guys. Computerworld had an article, 1/3 of which is about them, the rest is about Outsourcing training and certification, as it related to computer people. A University of Oxford/Oxford University study, posted on the National Center for Biotechnology Information's website, wants them to "update its ethical standards to be more in line with the worker protections needed in a digital economy." The awards and hall of fame part, by itself, may not be A-1/top-of-the-line notability, but when a different Member of Congress is pounding away about "a malicious attack meant to break the backs of organized labor in Ohio" that has a certain amount of notability too.
The article even has a caveat from 2009 IAOP Hall of Fame inductee Peter Drucker regarding outsourcing and "large numbers of people" that begins "there is a price..." Pi314m (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pi314m, I don't understand what you are trying to argue here. "Five items were covered" and it's sourced to a page with Google search results? That's a terrible practice--but it gets worse when one actually goes and looks at the things listed on that page, which includes stuff like this--which is clearly marked as a press release. In other words, "covered by the New York Times" is just completely untrue: the NYT merely reproduced a press release. Even reference 18, falsely claimed to link to coverage by the New York Times, is a press release, as revealed by the very URL, https://markets.on.nytimes.com/research/stocks/news/press_release.asp?docTag=201902130900PR_NEWS_USPRX____NY52388%26feedID=600%26press_symbol=6694205 . Oh, the Congresswoman--you cite the record, from the House, which is a primary source, and thus also adds nothing to notability. So no. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: directory information and press releases are inflated to create the idea of notability. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per both Nom and Drmies. It's also significantly promo. Either press releases, or in a couple of non-promo cases, non-secondary/independent. I don't think it would meet GNG but it definitely doesn't meet NCORP. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grazed acreage

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

Why does this have an article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs) 06:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No case to answer and there are sensible alternatives to deletion, such as merger with pasture, which we prefer per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Education. Sandstein 10:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-tertiary education

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

This article contains no relevant information or citations. Maybe the term has been used sometimes but the content can be described in the general Education article and more specific articles.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to education. This probably didn't really need to come to AfD since either a merge or a redirect seem like the obvious WP:ATDs. However I'd agree that the term isn't notable enough for an article of its own right now, and a redirect seems appropriate as there is little or nothing to merge. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, cheeky of nominator to redirect article while afd is on, have reinstated article so that editors may readily assess it, anyway, agree that this should be a redirect as it does not appear to be a well-used term (I note by the article history that it has previously been merged than reinstated a couple of years ago). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (Nominator)I redirected the article because Hugsyrup was saying that the AfD was not necessary in the case of a redirect. Before I had thought that you needed to do AfD because you would be deleting the content of the article, even if you didn't technically delete the article. Naddruf (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and agree, but now it is here....Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 14 July 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 Withdrawn. Billboard charts have asserted the notability here. (non-admin closure) Jalen D. Folf (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beto y sus Canarios

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. A Google search brings up sources from local news across the subject's country, but I cannot confirm their reliability due to a language barrier on my part. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you dont speak spanish and can't understand it? That's awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GolazoGolazo1234 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of English-language news reliable sources is not a good reason to delete an article if the subject is more well-known in a foreign-language per WP:NONENG. Use WP:TRLA if you can't verify sources not written in English. Also a quick Google search brings up the fact that they have charted on the Billboard Latin charts (Source) and received Lo Nuestro awards nominations as mentioned in the article. Erick (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I appreciate it can be tough assessing the reliability of foreign-language sources (which is different to simply not understanding or taking the time to translate them, as suggested above), but the sheer number of results should probably have been a clue to do some more digging or get some assistance from WP:MEXICO before nominating. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 16:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Jarvis (author)

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

Non-notable author, couple of works, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello. I would argue for notability for two reasons. First, originality of approach, technique, and subject (in the spirit of item 2. of WP:AUTHOR as I read it - apologies, I am a novice), and the author's participation in a notable collective body of work (in the spirit of item 3. of WP:AUTHOR - this point I will seek to clarify, with refs, promptly).

The three works listed are recognised as 'firsts' on the subjects, which would not be notable in itself except that those subjects are significant (an indication of this may be the significant attention / discussion that the corresponding Wikipedia articles generate) - Carlos Duarte Costa, Ngo Dinh Thuc, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. It could be considered remarkable that there has been no previous monograph ever written on these topics, and therefore these first scholarly publications on the subjects are notable.

I will aim to add more references and sources as they appear (the works are fairly recent).

Another aspect of notability, I would argue, is the subject's significant founding role in the UK branch of a significant international movement, the Catholic Worker Movement.

I would argue that it is in keeping with the overall goal to properly identify the significant individuals of a) a notable but comparatively little-researched area of academic and social interest, and b) a notable and comparatively little-researched international social movement.

I hope these comments help - as I say, a mere beginner! Apollinari (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that source does not state that he helped found the Catholic Workers Movment - which was founded in 1933, by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin - but only that he was part of a group that established some sort fo a "house" for a London branch of that movement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:AUTHOR. Much/most of the sourcing is PRIMARY. The claims to notability are co-founding a Catholic Worker's house, sourced to Catholic Worker. Writing 2 books, but no book reviews are given. If, someone manages to find INDEPENDENT reviews of the books in WP:RS publications, please ping me to revisit. I am always willing to change an iVote when shown solid sources. This, however, appears to be PROMO for a non-notable author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ To clarify, three book reviews are given, one from a journal (an established print periodical) and two from a serious blog. May I ask whether the subjective comment about the article being a PROMO (above) is intended to cast doubt on the good faith of the submitter? Apollinari (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with "RENEW" magazine, but the like given on the page is [36], which did not look like an edited periodical, and may not be INDEPENDENT. A wrodpress blog by an non-notable person is not useful in establishing notability. The forward to the book is not INDEPENDENT of the book. Is there a review that I am missing?

Nor does PROMO posted on the publisher's page. And the fact that he had written articles does not contribute unless those articles are discussed in reliable publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see that you are new here, and, therefore, probably unaware that it is customary when comment at AfD about a page you created to identify yourself as the page creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking good faith duplicate iVote made by new user presumably unaware that although we can comment repeatedly, only one bolded iVote per customer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance, it is truly appreciated. Sorry to insist but I see this accusation of doing promotion as unwarranted conjecture and speculation. I am new, yes, but Wikipedia guidelines enjoin us to presume good faith, and I am doing my best! And what does "And the fact that he had written articles does not contribute (etc.)" mean? Who had written articles? Me?Apollinari (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to Jarvis. Publishing a book or an article does not show that a writer is notable. Books only support the notability of the author by Wikipedia standards if multiple WP:RS publications review or engage with the book. Such material must be WP:INDEPENDENT. And if Jarvis publishes an essay in a the New Statesman or The Guardian, that does not establish notability. But if he publishes such ab article, and The Nation and The Times write articles about the article Jarvis wrote, the discussion about his writing contributes ot establishing his notability by Wikipedia standards. for a dramatic instance of this, see Michael Anton. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Indeed. I believe I never contested that. Apollinari (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with caution? Could there be an appropriate alternative to deletion? The article has issues but also potential. The Sources problem looks like a quantity issue rather than a quality issue. The Notability question does not look cut-and-dried, but difficult to assert. Edits are being made. Vintage-vintner (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)— Vintage-vintner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep sources may be Catholic-related, but that has not necessarily stopped us from using them to establish notability in the past.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. As my editing record will show, I am happy to cite small faith publications. Even happier when they are WP:RS. If you are familiar with the editing process at RENEW, please share what you know. Or, if you can access the article cited to 2019, please let us know whether it is by or about Jarvis.19:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)

The 2019 article is a book review by a Paul Dean, as indicated in the reference. Apollinari (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the sources, one by one:

Soources # 2 & 3 are a blog VagrantVicar are NOT WP:RS.
source # 4 : Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, Christian Anarchism: a political commentary on the gospel,]] (Imprint Academic, Exeter, 2011, pp 355-356, p 408ff) is a WP:RS, althogh I cannot access the relevant page online. The page, however, uses this source only to claim that Jarvis was part of a group that established a residential house in London as part of the Catholic Worker Movement. A worthy activity, but not a notable one. The fact that a newsletter of the Catholic Worker movement mentions him does not contribute to notability.
to understand how inadequate the sourcing here is, look at citation #5: [37]. It is an announcement for a Catholic Worker panel discussion, but Jarvis isn't one of the panelists, he's the contact person. Ditto for source # 6, 7, 8 & 9. \
Source # 1, #11 not INDEPENDENT; it is the preface of a book by Jarvis.
Source # 12 is a blog
1. 13 is Jarvis' publisher
Sources # 10, 15 [38] are to a Catholic magazine called RENEW. The 2018 reference is to an article Jarvis wrote; the 2019 reference is behind the subscribers-only paywall. ~~it is very likely to be an article Jarvis wrote,~~ as the 2018 citation was. This would leave us with the mention in a book of the fact that he was part of a group or committed that opened a Catholic Worker residence in London as our sole SECONDARY, WP:RS source. It ≠ notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2019 article is a book review by a Paul Dean, as indicated in the reference. I wonder why it appeared "very likely to be an article Jarvis wrote" when the reference is clear and we are Assuming Good Faith Apollinari (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying this citation (Paul Dean, 'Book Reviews', RENEW, No. 189, March 2019, p 17 ), the nature of which was not at all clear to me. I guessed that it was "very likely" to be an article Jarvis wrote because the first citation was to an article Jarvis wrote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renew - small publication backed by Hans Küng, Mary Grey, Elizabeth Stuart, Tony Flannery and others, among the most influential (and controversial) figures in the field. Leaning is progressive, feminist, LGBT theology. No question it is WP:RS. So the total is two WP:RS references? As I commented, the issue seems quantity of quality sources, not quality itself. Could use more voices, insights and sources on this but I imagine that would require some time to pass (WP:POTENTIAL). I don't think deletion would be a travesty but this is not clear outright fail of WP:AUTHOR WP:GNG either, as I'm sure many cases are. Borderline case.Vintage-vintner (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
summing up We have 2 WP:RS items for Jarvis' career. 1 review of a book he wrote. 1 book (page view not available when I searched) that discusses or mentions the fact that he was part of a group that established a Catholic Worker Movement something in London. Not clear what it was that the participated in crating. a newsletter? a residence? a London chapter of the movement? It is not clear what the claim is. One book review in a WP:RS does not pass WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find the claims clear from the article, which is where the claims should presumably be found. Catholic Worker is described as an international network of branches, co-founding London Catholic Worker would mean co-founding the London branch. It's amazing what can seem clear to one person and not to another, I agree that it's terribly confusing sometimes. I don't think it can be a decisive argument that an editor cannot access one of the WP:RS book references and therefore discards it. It is not a criterion of WP:RS that it be free online access, how would that work? But I get it, the more you contribute the more rules you get to invent.Vintage-vintner (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We still have only 2 sources on this person.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- That is much more a discussion of verifiability of sources, not of notability. He has clearly undertaken research on dissident Catholics. I note that he is now in his mid-40s, and has recently published three books, all with the same publisher. The article says nothing of what he has done before. I suspect that his doctorate is a recent one and the three books are a spin-off from his thesis. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His books may have impact going someday, in the form of scholarly discussion, citation - but they don't have it yet. I have searched - I presume some of the editors arguing keep have also searched - and I just can't find sources. Plus the fact that User:Vintage-vintner is a WP:SPA account created the day after this discussion began, and has edited only on a narrow range of closely connected topics edited by the page creator, User:Apollinari. (The arrival of this 2nd editor, so similar to page creator, makes me suspect WP:PROMO & WP:COI.) The only other editror arguing to keep this newly created page, User:Epiphyllumlover, argues that Catholic-related sources are WP:RS. I do not dispute that . I only argue that we need more than a book review in a single, very minor publication and a book that names subject as one of a group of founders of the London branch of an organization. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something to keep in mind is that this is a niche topic area, additionally Wikipedia articles on Independent Catholicism are currently often challenged by lack of notable sources/authors. I understand deleting a fringe non-notable church, but in general leaving the author/scholar articles undefeated will help people find reliable sources in the future. BTW, I have not searched for sources for him, at least not yet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately for the article I agree with the source analysis done by E.M. Gregory - this is a borderline AfD on a niche subject so don't terribly mind if it's kept, but he just doesn't quite pass WP:AUTHOR IMO. SportingFlyer T·C 05:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaria Venturini Fendi

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

No RS, most of them are interviews, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More reliable sources (books) have been added to references and bibliography, thanks for checking --Laviniastampa (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why would interviews not be valid for establishing notability? She also has non-interview sources covering her, anyway, such as [39][40] and she has enough mention in GBooks hits for me to think she's an easy pass. — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are usually seen as invalid for establishing notability because most of the time the only substantive content comes directly from the subject of the interview without any fact-checking. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of Italian language sources such as this, this, this and this to demonstrate that she meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Amakuru, as well as an additional search to confirm that the findings are true, and that this article does indeed met WP:GNG. Utopes (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Instacart with no prejudice against any relevant sourced material being merged from the history, which will remain. This might seem a close call, but only one of the keep voters offered any analysis of the sources, while on the other side I see a consensus that such sources do not establish independent notability. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva Mehta

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

Apoorva Mehta is non-notable, most of the news revolves around Instacart. Merge or Redirect to Instacart. Created by a new user, made only 12 edits to get the auto-confirmed account, high possibilities of vandalism. Meeanaya (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added some cnn articles on him. Seems like a useful article regardless of the publisher.Ayepaolo (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Ayepaolo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Does not have the kind of significant coverage to establish independent notability. There are sources for things like interiews and inclusions on lists but these don't help establish notability. Instacart is an obvious redirect target as an AtD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - the subject seems to be a run-of-the-mill CEO. Given that topics do not inherit notability from eachother, I doubt that Mehta is notable when removed from his company; indeed, much of the content in the article as it is seems to be related to Instacart than to Mehta himself. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found specific articles on him from CNBC, LA Times, and India Times Catladyz6 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Catladyz6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Catladyz6, are they about him or are they about Instacart? Are they reported articles or are they interviews? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage of Mehta in the mainstream press shows he is notable. These articles are about him as founder, not about the company. Interviews are perfectly good evidence of notability, quoting from Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability: "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability". There is nothing in Wikipedia:Notability (people) to suggest that interviews are not evidence of notability. Railfan23 (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC

WP:Interviews is an essay not a policy or guideline. WP:GNG, which is a guideline, suggests that notability should be established by secondary sources "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Interviews, as established at WP:PRIMARY are not secondary sources. What are the WP:THREE that establish notability in your mind? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going dismiss WP:Interviews because it is an essay, then don't make WP:THREE a requirement - it is also an essay. The LATimes one is secondary because it is reporting on a discussion with Mehta, not merely reproducing his words. This CNBC article is about Mehta, not an interview with him. This Entrepreneur article is about Mehta. Railfan23 (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Entrepreneur article is by a 'Guest Writer', with a byline explaining that the opinions of 'contributors' are their own. See the discussion at WP:Perennial sources concerning Forbes.com contributors - it's the same kind of thing, it's not an RS. I don't agree that the short, soft soap interviews in LA Times and CNBC one establish notability.GirthSummit _(blether) 16:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I bring up three not as policy but as a method to have a useful discussion. The LA Times is more substantial than I gave it credit for the first time I looked at it. The CNBC article doesn't hit enough notes to strike me as notability inducing and Girth hits my concerns about The Entrepeneur. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Instacart. The interviews being used here to argue for notability are exactly the type described at Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability as being broadly unhelpful in establishing notability - they're just there to keep him talking. There isn't anything significant in reliable source about Mehta (rather than the company) apart from these puffy interviews. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Piccione

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

Couldn't find anything significant that could establish his authority in the field, No RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C3 on citations. Nidaloove (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. #C1 is always a hard case to make in pure mathematics. But as president of the Brazilian Mathematical Society he passes WP:PROF#C6 and as a member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences he passes #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Setting aside WP:PROF#C1, he passes C3 and C6. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Citations seem OK for theoretical physics/applied maths, but I see only two single author papers. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- Note that, following the usual conventions for this area, the authors of Piccione's publications are listed alphabetically. So there is no useful information in the low numbers of first-author publications; it means only that his name comes relatively late in the alphabet. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Order of authors is hardly relevant for a single author paper. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, but asking for single-author papers rather than first-author papers seems unusual to me. Why would we want to say that only loners can be notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fewer the number of authors, the more credit accrues to each. It is useful to see if the subject has shown themselves capable of independent work. In this case there is not a problem, but in some cases that involve new academics working in large groups there may be. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Wilson Dennis

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

Withdrawn ~~Very thin coverage. GNG fail.~~ ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Dennis' work appears to be held by Florence Griswold Museum, Lyman Allyn Art Museum, William Benton Museum of Art (see here), also by Connecticut Historical Society (see here), so may meet WP:ARTIST?, but agree with nominator about the thinness of coverage. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are pretty small musuems, but if someone finds sources for those I would withdraw the nom. I'll have a look again using this info. The Lyman museum does not count as he was apparently the chief conservator there, according to this.

I confirmed one collection and added another source, so I'll withdraw. Thanks for the tip, Coolhabapple.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no probs:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus, further discussion to talk pages please (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Mackaben

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

GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. I cannot find any sources online. Those mentioned at end of article are largely local. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Mackaben's work is held at Tucson Museum of Art (see here), and the University of Arizona Museum of Art (here, and here), his work was exhibited after his death ie. 1998 exhibition, Tucson's Early Moderns, 1945-1965 held at the University of Arizona Museum of Art (here) (have added this to article), so with the info already in the article (unfortunately without inline references) may be enough to meet WP:ARTIST? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that the way that TucsonArt (talk · contribs) cited sources in xyr original article was fairly rubbish, and has got no better via any cleanup effort since. The ″American Artists of Renown, 1981″ is actually a biography of this person, in a book of artist biographies. It has stuff that this article has not gained in 9 years, including the location and precise date of birth of the subject for example. The one item of TDC coverage that I checked includes biographical information and information about one of the artist's works (Mexican Market Scene, not mentioned in our article), with a reproduction of it above the piece and a report of a prize that it won. I suggest a more thorough review of the citations already present from the initial creation of the article, to see what is being cited and how in-depth they are. I have improved those two. Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article needs the referencing to be improved, but there are some decent sources to be found in the Arizona newspapers. Curiocurio (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having works in permanent collections of [[Tucson Museum of Art and University of Arizona Museum of Art grants passing WP:ARTIST. The referencing and the overall strcuture of article needs to be improved though. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:02, 28 July 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Deren

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

Cannot find significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. – Levivich 04:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 04:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and no sources to meet WP:GNG. --MrClog (talk) 11:07, 11 July 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Darvill

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

Cannot find significant coverage of article subject to meet WP:GNG. – Levivich 04:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 04:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 12 July 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. Analysis of the sources by multiple editors lead to a consensus that, despite a superficially large number of sources, there is not enough actual, in-depth independent coverage to demonstrate notability by Wikipedia's standards. A reliable article cannot be produced from promotional material, and the vast majority of the offered sources are nothing more than that; a consensus of all editors in this discussion other than the article creator and primary contributor supports its deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 15:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B-Nasty

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

Promotion for non notable rapper. No good charting. No gold. No national rotation. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Looking closely at some of the sources used.

21. Reviewindie. Who? "We want to give Indie artists a new promotion vehicle that will get fans talking." [41]. So not an independent reliable source. The article itself reads like pure PR. "In addition to her vocal gifts, the song showcases her exceptional lyrical phrasing, stylistic uniqueness and a truly catchy melody and rhythmic undertones." [42], Posted April 18, 2016 by Peter Burns. Same article also appears at Soundlooks, BY JEENA JOHNSON ON APRIL 17, 2016. Even has the same formatting error at the start. Also appears at Tunedloud, by Staff April 20, 2016.

22. Jamsphere. The article itself reads like pure PR. "I doubt anybody else raps like this in Australia and if anybody else ever will." [43] , Posted By: Rick Jamm Posted date: December 30, 2015. Same article also appears at Soundlooks, BY JEENA JOHNSON ON DECEMBER 31, 2015 and Reviewindie, Posted December 31, 2015 by Peter Burns. Same problems as above, PR, not independent coverage.

23. Soundlooks. The article itself reads like pure PR. "His lyricism, flow, wordplay and meter is on point. At the same time, he is a master of delivery, groaning his braggadocio tropes in a charismatic and powerfully layered rasp with a practiced blend of bravado, world-weariness and posturing idiosyncrasies." [44], BY JEENA JOHNSON ON DECEMBER 10, 2016. Same article also appears at Jamsphere, Posted By: Rick JammPosted date: December 10, 2016 and Reviewindie, Posted December 10, 2016 by Peter Burns and Tunedloud, by Staff December 10, 2016. Pattern continues. Same problems as above, PR, not independent coverage.

18. Tunedloud. The article itself reads like pure PR. "Arguably the face of Australian Hip Hop’s present indie momentum, B-Nasty’s command of musical time is apparent; he can flow over anything. Depending on the mood, he can almost always adapt to the music, even if the final product isn’t the most remarkable. Just capturing the vibe is sufficient for him to kill it." [45], by Staff June 9, 2016. Same article also appears at Jamsphere Posted By: Rick JammPosted date: June 09, 2016 and Soundlooks BY JEENA JOHNSON ON JUNE 9, 2016 and Reviewindie Posted June 10, 2016 by Peter Burns. Pattern continues. Same problems as above, PR, not independent coverage.

24. Amnplify. by the Australian Musician Network. they say they are "one of Australia’s leading music content websites that provides promotional services to musicians, bands, events, and music festivals around the country and artists worldwide.". They offer multiple services, such as Albumn reviews for $100. [46]. So this is a paid for review, not independent coverage.

Other coverage is the artist talking about himself, press releases, listings, primary, blog and shops. Sources that don't back up claims made. There is a lack of anything that is good for GNG or NMUSIC. Pure PR backed by PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, out of the 24 references that you chose to raise this debate you have missed the notable press about this artist The Music, X-Press Magazine and scenestr all three are recognised national magazines within Australia. Also on a seperate note those other citations where used to be able to show the artists singles and album that he released. Obvious bias but i'm for a strong keep. The artist has also worked with multple international and national acts, and also is Wu-Tang clan affiliate. if it is determined to delete, I would like it go back to a draft/stub. as this article was already "reviewed" from a draft state and was then made a start article. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Passportgang (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't miss all of them. The Music does many things. One of those things is to publish press releases as they have done here. You can also find the same article here. And it's not exactly significant coverage. Xpress (not national) is just B-Nasty talking about himself, not independent coverage. So that leaves one local street press article and they are largely PR services for local scenes containing a lot of indiscriminate coverage. Not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you, in my option The Music is independent and a reliable source. it seems to me that oztix just mirrors the site for news. and now that we are talking about oztix? is that not notable? Let's be honest that is notable in its own right?! Passportgang (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article is deleted, sub-articles and misc to be deleted include B-Nasty videography, B-Nasty discography, Category:B-Nasty, and Template:B-Nasty. To say I am concerned about COI and the promotional nature of these articles would be an understatement. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – paucity of independent reliable sources, indicate subject does not qualify at NMUSIC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Stub This article was reviewed already from a draft state, i'm more then happy to come to a "resolution" of a stub article, but I do believe the artist to be notable. " multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." also "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" Passportgang (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He Has NOT become one of the most prominent representatives ... And that false claim is not supported. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete nothing on Soundcloud or Spotify. Fails WP:BAND and WP:NMUSIC and WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO. Both the category and discography needs to go a well. Completely non notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Debate I don't want to be rude but did you even google the artist? There is a knowledge box on google that links all of the streaming link, such as YouTube, Spotify, Google Music, Deezer, Soundcloud and a Verified Facebook account. And as I've stated it does not fail WP:NMUSIC in my opinion, maybe yours. but since you didn't even google the artist, I think the administrator that reads this should Nil your vote. on a seperate note on the original post "No national rotation" The artists latest single was also distributed through Amrap's Airlt, so in my opinion that would classify as national rotation. Passportgang (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Passportgang:, there is some social media links, streaming links, but insufficient to establish WP:NMUSIC. There needs to be sustained coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, a significant number of plays on music sites like Spotify. 250k listeners is a typical figure for signed bands. For social media 250k fans a typical number that seems to be the standard on Wikipedia. The subject satisfies none of that. He is completely non-notable. So the disco, the cats and the article has to go. I know it is difficult when your article gets deleted. My first article was deleted. I know how it feels. scope_creep^Talk 20:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: "there is some social media links, streaming links" That is wrong, if you see the references that are on the article that might help. now if regards to the 250k listeners/fans. we are talking about an Australian artist here not an American. I would make a point to see the other australian artists within the category of hip hop / rappers. as i've stated before I am happy for the article to become a STUB removing the disc and the cat but I believe it still hits notability with WP:SIGCOV, especially since the artist has worked with prominent artists within hip hip, and has the press/articles to back it up! Yes, I will admit its a sting that my debut article is up for deletion, however I believe my debate is firm especially after the points I have made further up. Passportgang (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Passportgang: Ok. Post three good references here per WP:THREE and let the good folks of Wikipedia have a look. Working with other prominent music artist has no meaning. The person must have stand-alone notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: No problem, I appreciate you engaging with me! The Music National Magazine also has a Wikipedia Article [47], National Magazine [48], National Magazine [49]. These are the best articles on the artist. What will be great about this discussion is to find out for "Australian" artists what is classified as notable?! Because if we look at the category of Australian rappers these magazines have been used as references. And yes your latter point I do agree with, and I understand. Passportgang (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not anywhere enough for a BLP article that must satisfy WP:ANYBIO. One is name drop and other one is a mention of a mix tape. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And one is an album review? I guess the question is what will satisfy WP:ANYBIO for an Australian artist, and what are acceptable? Just ARIA articles? WAM Articles? I need to know this information before even trying to create another article. Passportgang (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above that album review is paid for, not an independent source. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme:I have gone through archive.org since I do believe Amnplify did not provide those services back when the review was published, tbh that's why I used it for the article, I have provided the link here. [50]. It seems to be a recent addition, possibly to raise funds. Passportgang (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've gone through all the cited references and unfortunately I can't find anything that sufficiently addresses any of the criteria under WP:NMUSICIAN. The majority of the references provided are either from questionable sources (such as Setlist.fm, iTunes, Musicbrainz, Discogs etc) or primary sources (such as Doughboyproductions) or reproductions of press releases (such as Unearthed, RTRFM). Even the Triple J unearthed chart doesn't indicate that he received any airplay on Triple J or Triple J unearthed. I think that it may be best moved to draft and when more reliable sources can be found then be re-assessed. Dan arndt (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: Please refer to the above, I do believe the article is stub worthy, however, more then happy to concede for the article to go back to a draft. I would like your opinion on the matter. Passportgang (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with it going back to draft. There is insufficient sources to support such a move. The articles subject started his career in 2007 and still not notable, 12 years later, so putting it to draft will just waste more time for other editors. @Passportgang: If you need a hand to determine what constitutes article for a musician, I can give you a hand. scope_creep^Talk 18:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about it not going back to draft. Years ago when I first started editing I created an article on a little known rapper from Perth and had to argue and fight with editors, who had much more experience than I did, to have the article retained. That article was Drapht and I'm glad that I stuck to my guns. It took Drapht eight years before he received national recognition. Now I'm not saying that B-Nasty will receive the same level of notability as Drapht. However in this case allowing the article to revert back to a draft is not going to hurt anyone and in the fullness of time Passportgang may be able to demonstrate B-Nasty is notable (or possibly not). Dan arndt (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: Oh wow, that is actually really dope! I might actually be able to pick your brain about a few things! Yeah, Drapht did start off quite small but then blew up nationally! Dare I say Internationally! I remember articles of Drapht in TheMusic Amplify & X-Press Magazine. I guess what I'm really trying to say, what is notable press for an Australian hip hop artist?! I mean he has worked with Wu-Tang and also a few other notable artists. I know that it does not transfer however in the scope of Australian artists how do we confirm?! Is it only Aria charted artists? but I appreciate the Draft vote. Passportgang (talk) 14:08, 24 July 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. As has been noted, we can only have articles on topics that independent reliable sources have discussed in some detail. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Veterans Hall of Fame

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

This article seems WP:TOOSOON to me. All the sources I can find are a few local news sources talking about the plans to build the Texas Veteran's Hall of Fame, which does not seem to offer the significant coverage for either the building or the organization that is required by WP:GNG. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I truly do not understand why the TVHOF is AFD

The Texas Veterans Hall of Fame (TVHOF) exists today and has since the beginning of 2018. The TVHOF is a Self-Sustaining Nonprofit 501C3. It is comprised of an unpaid eight member board of directors and a number of dedicated unpaid volunteers. Currently the physical TVHOF is a movable display of panels depicting the conflicts where Texas Veterans were involved and a custom mobile trailer with a similar set of displays. The permanent home for the TVHOF is under final discussion with 2 northern Texas city councils. The TVHOF is small, but, evolving. We appreciate your support.

movable display
custom mobile trailer

I don't understand the WP:TOOSOON part. I'm looking back at the history of various organizations. e.g. Twitter in Feb. 2007, or, Splunk in Apr. 2005. Talk about "too soon". Was there a WP:TOOSOON problem with them at that time? Splunk only got series A funding in Dec. 2004. Please explain further. Thanks

Gary J Hardy (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this organisation is going to be as significant as Twitter you had better find an independent commentator to say so. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- My reference to Twitter/Splunk was an example of a WP article that was started way before they were anything. There is no independent commentator for the TVHOF. It's a non-profit. Was there an independent commentator who started the WP articles for Twitter/Splunk? Most of us helping to get the TVHOF off the ground are Vietnam Veterans and member of VVA Chapter 920. Would it be better if I wasn't asked to be on the board of the TVHOF? Gary J Hardy (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In order for a subject to have notability, articles must have independent coverage in third-party reliable sources. It's a noble cause, but where's the coverage about why it's significant? This article fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not the place to spread information about something you're getting off the ground. We don't create notable subjects; we report on them. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- It's off the ground. It's been reported on by local televisions and newspapers. How large TVHOF will become is hard to say. I'm simply trying to report on it via WP. Sorry you don't see it that way. Gary J Hardy (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - we don't report on "what might be". Local news coverage is something, but we're also not a newspaper. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe I should reference something I have first hand knowledge about. Fortify Software I was employee #7 in Jan. 2005. The first WP article for Fortify Software was created in July 2006 by User:Davedonohue (no longer a WP user). Next edit was by User:RBowen a full-time Fortify employee at that time. Conflict of interest never noted in that case. In July 2006 I'm pretty sure we had only 3 sales and Series A funding. Odds were the market would never understand or be willing to pay for a static analysis tool. No crystal ball needed, but, somehow it all worked out. Oh wait! Holy Crap. I also edited the Fortify Software article. Definitely a conflict of interest. Gary J Hardy (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Gary J Hardy: Since you've brought up the COI notice I placed multiple times, I think it's worth clarifying: I did not recommend the article be deleted because because of your COI, but because I don't think the article's topic currently met our notability requirement. You are not entitled to a Wikipedia article simply because your organization exists, but must meet our minimum threshold of notability. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion.
      - This is not to say that this topic will not merit an article in the future. It certainly seems entirely plausible that it will.
      - And of course we're not always perfect at enforcing our policies and guidelines and they have not remained constant over the last decade; they have in fact changed significantly over the last decade. But we do what we can; we're volunteers. I understand it's disappointing to have an article you created for an organization you support deleted, but I hope you can understand. Retro (talk | contribs) 23:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or alternatively userfy until such a time that reliable sources can be found. There appears to be weak coverage in local sources, but not to the point of satisfying WP:GNG. The majority of the content reads like an unsourced essay rather than as an encyclopedia article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current article is written in future tense.. such and such “will” be done. We can’t/don’t host stuff like that. I read one of the local news articles, which mentions the board has just four original members and that one hopes it will grow. It is not a going concern, it is just an idea so far. It is appropriate for us to wish them well, maybe, but it is not an established thing and Wikipedia can’t be used to promote it. —Doncram (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, i read all three “news” articles in the external links section and they do not support statements in the article and above about the initiative actually being "on". They are really human interest news articles, not hard news. They just establish that a few veterans would like to do something, which is not basis for a wikipedia article. They don't even adequately support the assertion that the board has 4 or 8 members or that it has any display panels or that it has done anything; no fact-checking was done by the Denton Record Chronicle, they are just reporting what someone said, they are not on the line in to assert the truth of what was said to them.

Further, this is in effect a request for wikipedia to endorse this initiative and these people. To play devil’s advocate, maybe this initiative is in fact "bad" for cluttering up the situation and undermining chances for other, better initiatives to succeed. Another group might have more substantial resources or strategy or appeal and potential to succeed. If you want to reach youth so they understand better about veterans or past wars, perhaps it would be better to make a small donation to PBS, say, or one of many Youtube-based military history video producers. So we cannot endorse this one idea. —Doncram (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zamir Jaffri Cricket Stadium

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

Cricket ground with no coverage in reliable sources. Not a ground which hosts international or domestic cricket events. Complete failure of WP:GNG. At best, it is a ground used for local club matches which aren't notable for WP. Störm (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the refs does not even mention the ground, the other is a database listing on cricketarchive and only games it lists are local ones. No indications that any major matches have been played here, or that it passes GNG. Spike 'em (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE except blog-entires. Fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A regional stadium frequently in the news for hosting large political rallies, including led by the current Prime Minister of Pakistan.[51], [52], [53] and, in one case, a rally in which nine people were injured by police bullets.[54]. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not about the stadium. Rallies held, okay, but why stadium is important? Störm (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the fact that the now Prime Minister of Pakistan held large political rallies at the stadium might make one stop for a moment and consider whether their denial of the stadium's notability might be just a little bit anglocentric. Would a large cricket stadium in any city in the Western world really not meet the GNG? Of course not. Why would the answer in Pakistan be any different. And, of course, recourse to Urdu sources, which should have been done before nominating for deletion, confirms this answer and confirms that deleting this article would be patently absurd. For example, this article is entirely about the stadium and its dilapidated condition. Just run it through google translate and see. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A stadium need not host national events to be notable, it just must pass WP:GNG/WP:NBUILD. There are a number of articles in English about rallies which have been held in the stadium without being about the stadium specifically, and I can't do a local language search, but I imagine there would have to be local sources per WP:NEXIST, especially because the government specifically updated the stadium. Also, since it's foreign, the stadium appears as Jafri Stadium, Zamir Jafri Stadium, Syed Zamir Jaffri Stadium, et cetera. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain, how it meets WP:GNG? Don't use loose claims that it would meet if we got local sources. You have to bring them here to support your claims. Störm (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has a number of passing mentions in English without any specific "ground construction in Jherum," and from the photos the stadium was clearly sponsored either by the cricket board or by the local government. From the English sources alone you can patch together a decent stub. I can't search in Punjabi or Urdu as I don't know either of these languages, all I have is what's online in English, but given the stadium is used for tournaments by the Pakistani cricket board I would assume there's online and offline sources in both of these languages. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If my reading of WP:CRIN is correct then I would be inclined to head towards very strong keep. This is based on:

Re a venue (aka ground), WP:CRIC has agreed that its regular usage by a notable club ensures its own notability per se. Beyond a purely cricketing outlook, a venue is a recognised named site with a fixed geographic location and established community associations of a permanent nature which themselves ensure notability

the second sentence of which suggests to me that any ground used by any community group whatsoever is considered notable by WP:CRIN standards. I find this odd, bizarre and so on, but I don't see how it means anything different to that.

I don't particularly agree that this reading is desirable or workable to works in any way to determine what is or isn't notable - it seems bizarre that my local cricket club's ground is, by definition, notable when there are no independent sources on it.

I've just suggested on two other AfD that WP:CRIN needs a total rewrite in some areas at least. This does nothing to suggest otherwise to me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: I'd argue WP:CRIN has nothing to do with buildings (see WP:NBUILD, but the test is also "regular usage" by a "notable club" as opposed to "any community group whatsoever," so I'm not too fussed. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: - I was looking at the second sentence from he quote which seems to suggest notability per se. Of course, I think that's silly, but there you are. I checked on WP:FOOTY but couldn't find a notability criteria from there and that's usually my go-to place for sensible sports notability criteria. I'll try baseball and hockey as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: Since we're a gazetteer, geographies tend to have a lesser notability requirement than anything else (ie, does it exist), but buildings still need to pass WP:GNG. I think it's overplaying the first part and downplaying the latter. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I'm a big fan of using GNG as the benchmark myself. In that case this article is clearly much less likely to be kept - it does appear to have been used in some political rallies but I can't find anything suitably in depth about it as a place: but then I don't have access to sources in the local language(s) which might have those details. It's that second sentence in CRIN that needs to be dealt with then, isn't it? It strikes me as far too all-encompassing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not too fussed about the CRIN since if you read it narrowly it just implies ovals used by notable teams should also be notable, which is likely true. Also, for the purposes of this AfD this ground appears to be covered locally, as was my guess. See [55]. Can't make heads or tails of the Google translate. SportingFlyer T·C 16:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination that didn't check local-language sources? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source has been provided in a local language though, and we need more than one to sustain notability. If you can provide another reference then I can see myself flipping my vote to keep. FOARP (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one that discusses the stadium in the context of the 2014 political rally, talking about the stadium's capacity. Here is a December 2017 article that follows on from the July 2017 article I linked above and which again talks about the dilapidated condition of the stadium. At any rate, this is the google search page that comes up when you type in the name of the stadium in Urdu script. I get the sense that the nominator didn't do this. It is, of course, the nominator's onus to do this work, and not the onus of the keep !voter. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata: Thank you for doing the legwork to search in Urdu. I know that's something I wouldn't be able to do very easily and I appreciate your work to do that. I'm not sure that it's very productive to criticise anyone for not doing so, but I really do appreciate your work here.

As you clearly know what you're talking about, I don't suppose you could add them in to the article could you? It could use plenty of work and I haven't a single word of Urdu myself. If you can get the basics right then I'm sure other people can do any tweaking. Much appreciated - I hope I'm not being presumptuous by asking you to help us out here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't speak a word of Urdu either. It's just that (a) it appeared plainly obvious to me that a large provincial stadium would have a fair bit written about it in the local language, and (b) it's also obvious that because our page on the stadium links to a sister page on Urdu wikipedia: [56], you can use the title of that page to search for sources and then run a rough google translate to confirm the gist of what they say. That's more than sufficient to confirm that this stadium meets the GNG and it's something the nominator should have done. Moreover, now that it has been done, it should be causing the nominator to withdraw the AfD. I think it is productive to criticise a nominator when they have wilfully put forward someone else's work for deletion on the basis of a grossly deficient WP:BEFORE effort. The reason that it is productive to do so is that we need to make sure it does not happen again. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides above mentioned large political rallies, including led by the current Prime Minister of Pakistan, i would like to add that stadium may not host international events but it does host some official domestic matches and domestic events. Here Pakistan Cricket Board's 2015 talent hunt program held at this stadium in Jhelum, similarly 2014's talent hunt event for region and Elections of District Cricket Association Jhelum and list of activecricket clubs. Urdupoint is a reliable newswebsite, it has an news article regarding Spring celebration festival named Jashn-e-Jhelum held in April 2019 at Zamir Jaffri Cricket stadium. This video is of Jashn-e-Jhelum Festival in which host is mentioning that he is present in Zamir Jaffri stadium at 13th second. National news channel Hum News also mentioned celebration of this festival in news here and here. Also we have a link to a TV program (District Diary) on a national TV channel Kay2 TV regarding Zamir Jaffri Stadium. 24 News HD also noted the deteriorating condition of this stadium. Most of these sources are in urdu language, but i think they qualify the article for notibility. i would again say Keep. --Talha^Discuss ^© 15:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sport in Jhelum. Certainly this is not for deletion. OTOH it lacks the substantive material to justify standalone article. All the key information is already at the suggested target. The way forward looks to be to redirect for now and it could be broken out in the future if the necessary content has been found. Just Chilling (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Talha and sources obtained by Mkativerata. Seems to be notable enough and has enough RS to justify keeping the article. Bookscale (talk) 00:59, 28 July 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 and redirect to the forked article, now at Japanese migration to Colombia. Note that there is no distinct content to merge. bd2412 T 04:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese immigration to Colombia

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

This article appears to be an accidental duplication of another page, Japanese Immigration in Colombia. Since that article doesn't have an "orphan" tag, I assume this is the one that should be deleted. Logophile59 (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, such cases are resolved by merger not deletion. The nominated page has the better title per WP:NCCAPS. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As far as I can see, the two articles are identical in content, so a Merge is unnecessary and doesn't make much sense to recommend. This is, however, something that could have been solved by a uncontroversial Redirect rather than an AFD, so that's what should happen here. Rorshacma (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A10. This was mainspaced on 10 June - diff. it is a duplicate of Japanese Immigration in Colombia which the article creator modified on 11 June - [57] - and which was originally at Japanese Colombians (which may be a better title). We don't need two identical articles, and there's little editing history worth saving - hence speedy delete per A10, and retaining Japanese Colombians (or presently Japanese Immigration in Colombia). Redirects can be created as needed (in/to/etc.) - but we don't need the article history here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further to WP:NCCPT, Japanese immigration to Colombia (NB small 'i' for immigration, use of to as preposition) is a more grammatically correct title than Japanese Immigration in Colombia (incorrect use of capital I, incorrect preposition) but the most grammatically correct title would be "Japanese migration to Colombia".--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Abe

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

There is nothing here that would count as a reliable, indepth indepdent source. She has written and illustrated some works, however the easiest to identify case is her illustrating a book that was first published before her birth, and thus her illustrating an edition of it has little connection with the work being a truly notable one. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the German Wikipedia entry has a lot more information about other works she has written and/or illustrated, under the names Rebecca Abe, Stephanie Schuster, Stephanie Fey, and Ida Ding; her maiden name was Stephanie Wagner. The German WP article has a link to this profile [58], but unfortunately no other reviews or articles about her. I will try to find more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick google search leads me to the following articles: in the Süddeutsche Zeitung [59]; Augsburger Allgemeine [60] and [61]; SWP [62]. Still looking. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added the sources I linked to above, with a bit more information. There is more biographical info to add from those sources, and I have yet to search for more. I believe that she does meet WP:NAUTHOR - there may be reviews of her illustrations, but there are certainly reviews of her novels and articles about her as a novelist. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It has been 2 weeks since the last comment so I can't justify a 3rd relist. Stubbyfying looks a good idea but that is for subsequent editorial action. Just Chilling (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Scholar's Cup

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

I started massive cleanup of this article and I'm at the point where I can't find independent sources to back up any of the claims. Coverage is international but routine, with these being some of the articles I've found in my attempt to source this thing: [63] or [64]. I thought I found an article from the UAE which could verify at least some of the claims in the introduction, but it turned out to have copy-and-pasted Wikipedia. It's very possibly notable, see [65], but as this stands it's entirely sourced to primary sites, very crufty, possibly promotional, and not encyclopaedic. Best case scenario seems to be WP:TNT to me, so nominating it for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 08:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Nahal^(T) 12:07, 03 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify if necessary and go from there. Coverage is significant enough and widespread enough to indicate notability, but detail is lacking. Primary sources are fine but rebuilding from the ground up is necessary to deal with the tone. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Triptothecottage: Would you mind posting some links to sources which you think pass WP:GNG? They'd be helpful for improving the article, and I'm at a total loss here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maclaine Diemer

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

Fails to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lacks reliable sources per WP:RS. Most of the references are self-published and none are from independent, third party sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Glane23: removed the section about the "early life" due to not having any sources other than LinkedIn

removed the first 2 paragraphs about Maclaine working for Smelly Van Riders, and Boston Search Group, Inc

added more sources to cite him working for rock band

Awaiting reply...

Kantoon0805 (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Checked over other music composers such as "Jeremy Soule", and most of the specific information about him comes from interviews from multiple websites, his wikipedia article has the "good article" tag too. I do not see why Maclaine can't have the same.

Kantoon0805 (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past week I have worked hard to ensure that the sources in the article are credible, reliable, and not self-published. I think that the article looks significantly better now compared to when it was nominated for deletion. I believe that the article is now notable and has reliable sources and it would be better to continue improving the article rather than deleting it entirely. Kantoon0805 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the efforts to make the article notable, most of the sources are interviews or other WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't see a demonstration of significant coverage in secondary sources specifically about this person._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO is met. Or perhaps WP:ARTIST #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." He has done music for notable projects. He has also won awards from reliable sources in this industry based on his music in video games. Dream Focus 01:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO is not an instant get-out-of-AfD-free card. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Is there proof that it satisfies notability?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Denys Desjardins. Deletion or merging have also been proposed, but there is no clear preference for deletion over redirecting and so WP:ATD applies, and for merging editors have stated the content is already at the merge target. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Dame aux poupées

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

Short film of questionable notability, it apparently won a award, but don't know how notable it is, to make it even more strange-film does not even appear on the IMDb. Wgolf (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect to the filmmaker given RebeccaGreen's improvements to his article which left room for a short plot summary. NFILM does not automatically extend instant permanent notability to every winner of every film award that exists — the AQCC has some potential to be a valid notability claim if the article were actually citing reliable sources, but it's not an instant notability freebie that would exempt a film from actually having to have any proper sources at all. Based on the creator's username I also suspect a direct conflict of interest even if I can't prove it outright. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Denys Desjardins, though in fact with no sources, there is not much to merge. I found a source which verifies that he won this award for this film, but that's all. I have reorganised the filmography section of Denys Desjardins, and added columns for others involved in creating the films and for the theme, with info for this film from this article. I suspect that some of his other films may not be notable either, but information about them can certainly be included in an article about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a really nice job on that table. Thanks for that. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Glad it's useful. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am happy with Delete for this article - as I said above, I have incorporated most of the info into the filmmaker's article. I don't know that either the French or English title of this film would be a likely search term, so I don't think a redirect would be necessary - but regardless of that, a complete article is not needed, and as far as the history of this article is concerned, it has the same creator as the article about the filmmaker, so little information would be lost by deleting rather than merging. (I know I should strike my vote above, but I still haven't figured out how to do that without striking everything that follows, so I have just unbolded it!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wrap <s> </s> tags around the specific pieces of text you want to strikeout. If you're have problems striking text, it's probably just a matter of forgetting to close the strike tags. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denys Desjardins, per RebeccaGreen. Since the article content has been effectively integrated into there, I don't see a need to keep this stub any longer. JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:25, 17 July 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 Real estate investing. Low traffic AfD but there is no support for a 'keep' and 'merge' looks as close to a consensus as we are likely to get. Just Chilling (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BRRR (real estate)

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

Not sure about the article's notability, so inviting debate on whether it is notable enough or not for Wikipedia. There seem to be some references on the internet about this 'method' (just googled "brrr real estate"), but not sure whether they are enough to merit an article, as many seem to be self-help-styley websites. Therefore I am inviting debate on whether it is notable enough or not. Seagull123 Φ 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Real estate investing. The term definitely seems widely used, but most of the sources I can find are 'how-to' type websites, discussion forums, books etc. What I can't find is enough decent secondary coverage of the term/approach from an independent perspective (i.e. not from people trying to show you how to invest). Tbh it's borderline for me, I think you could just about make a decent article out of this and prop it up with some 'nearly good enough' referencing, but it's not quite there, and the merge is an obvious solution. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:27, 17 July 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.

[1] ttps://www.amazon.com/Blackhatonomics-Inside-Look-Economics-Cybercrime/dp/1597497401/

[2] ttps://www.amazon.com/Cyber-Attack-Survival-Manual-Apocalypse/dp/1681881756/

[3] ttps://www.amazon.com/Nick-Selby/e/B000AP7058?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1562924696&sr=8-1

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibre_Press

[5] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=18400800544550691232&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en

[6] ttps://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/books-training-materials/articles/226312006-What-In-Context-reveals-about-officer-involved-shootings-of-unarmed-subjects/

[7] ttps://www.policeone.com/about/

[8] Krajicek, D.J. (2016). Doing The Right Thing. New York, NY: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The Crime Report. [Retrieved from: https://thecrimereport.org/2016/05/31/doing-the-right-thing/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]