Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 July	25 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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anitha Karthikeyan

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

Biography of a living person that is poorly sourced and questionable notability Sociable Song (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has won a number of notable awards such as Murchi Music Awards and has won a number of television singing competitions and therefore passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 9 (only one criteria needed), thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a look at the article after I listed it for deletion. I see that you added an award to her section, written in bold. Please add a source for it too. If it happens that the person in question has many names like nicknames, it would be nice to state that. Sociable Song (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I haven't edited the article at all, it's the same as when you nominated it. The award is linked to the page about the awards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just edited it to add a reference for the Mirchi Music Award where she is referred to as Anita, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the subject doesnt have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Most of the coverage comes from non RS, and coverage from RS is mentions. Thus the subject fails general notability criteria. The subject also fails WP:NSINGER: the subject hasnt won any major awards. Having a catchy title, or a big region's name a part of the title doesnt make an award notable. Same goes for shows, and competitions. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus appears to be that this topic does not meet notability guidelines. Generally, for an organization to have an article here it is not enough for it to have lots of branches or lots of members; we need that various independent reliable sources have written about a given topic. WP:NCORP has some criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allatra IPM

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

Non-profit organization of questionable notability. No indication of how big they are, or what of any consequence they do, except holding conferences on very vague topics. I can't evaluate the non-English sources, but the English ones seem to be from websites of questionable reliability, or straight-on esoteric fringe nonsense (e.g., [1]). The text also reads as an attempt at self-promotion. Sandstein 11:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very helpful article and reflects the IPM Allatra description fully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjakubis (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trying to find information about this on the net, but the more I try to design precise searches, the less I find – it appears that there are few secondary sources about the topic. I did the following: 1. follow the links in the article, in the section Links all links were dead, of the 2. some of the links in References seems to go to articles which are perhaps secondary, perhaps self-published, 3. Google for "AllaTra International Public Movement" and "Lagoda Movement", but when I forced google to include the words verbatim, virtually all secondary sources disappeared. I think they are non-notable, and perhaps (mis)using Wikipedia as a self-publishing site. They should be deleted. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for what the deal with, I found some Youtube stuff that they believe that they can transform people to gods by putting them into pyramids built from mirrors. But that doesn't matter, Wikipedia may contain woo, but it must be notable woo. C.f. Ectoplasm (paranormal) Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 22:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Thank you for your feedback regarding our article. We have removed the points which might be regarded as self-promotion. At the same time, we would like to emphasize that our organization really includes a great number of participants who have established branch offices in many countries of the world. Taking this into account, we believe that our organization deserves at least a minimal article on Wikipedia. We kindly ask you not to remove the article about us and give us an opportunity to work on its improvement, in particular by adding more weighty proof links. We truly hope for understanding and fruitful cooperation. comment added by Sashko u 10:42, 23 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) 19:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only mentions I could find consist of press releases and the organization's own website. Appears to have been created as promotional in nature to use Wikipedia to build credibility, not because they're otherwise notable. 136.57.207.196 (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon! While writing an article, we made a mistake, namely we inserted an incorrect link which is not relevant to the topic. We have now removed this link. We extend our apologies and express deep regret that this link might have influenced your impression of us. comment added by Sashko u 10:36, 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 redirect to Starlito. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Warrior (mixtape)

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

Notability unmet and poorly sourced Sociable Song (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Starlito. Non-notable album. SL93 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Starlito. There does not appear to be enough coverage to meet the WP:Notability, but it could be a valid search term so I think a redirect would be better than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belle 9ice

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST. Even if all of the cited sources are reliable (not clear that this is the case), the coverage therein is a mix of routine music release announcements and interviews and is thus insufficient for GNG. Internet searches did not turn up anything better. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. No RS. Agricola44 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 19:02, 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. For a detailed explanation of the assessment of keep !votes, please read User talk:Lourdes. Post relisting, the only Keep !vote editor claims they heard the group on a show; and therefore the same should be kept. Again, nothing based on policy or notability guidelines. If any editor has an issue with the closure, they can contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 08:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JK! Studios

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

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

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

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

Sources are not enough to show this company passes WP:NORG or WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. Article speedied already once and prodded and deprodded. The sources include a puff piece of mostly interviews. It is difficult to know if this article is about the youtube production company or the group of comedians. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While several of the sources do include interview snippets, they are from reliable sources. But I do agree that the article itself is not written very well, If someone were to edit it I would change my vote to "Keep". ---GingeBro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, quality isn't a reason for deletion unless it gets to the point where TNT is required. The real question here is whether the topic is notable. --Slashme (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. I never nominate for reasons linked to the quality of an article...a lot are so poorly written that it makes my eyes bleed just looking at them! Dom from Paris (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Some sources reliable but snippets do not establish notability. WP:SIGCOV lists "significant coverage (which) addresses the topic directly and in detail," as a requirement. Ifnord (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I agree with all above points, but the notability may change given their recent activities (e.g. competing on Bring the Funny) that may lead to more significant coverage. I think the article, if kept, definitely requires cleanup, which can be added to the task list of Wikipedia's cleanup task force. However, should the article be deleted and more significant coverage emerges in the future, the article could be restored then. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 03:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your comment that "the notability may change given their recent activities" indicates that you are currently of the opinion that it is not notability but that you hope they will become notable in the future. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 24 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) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would contend that they have achieved notability, likely more than many in the List_of_YouTubers. Their members have appeared on various shows including Bring_the_Funny and Conan_(talk_show). They are all 10 original cast members of Studio_C having almost 2 billion YouTube views and collaborations with various other YouTube stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:2:40E2:667E:4E1D:BD4C (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC) — 2001:4898:80E8:2:40E2:667E:4E1D:BD4C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep for reasons in the immediately preceding post. Meets WP:GNG and WP:Sigcov. No compliance with WP:Before, which sets forth a series of hurdles before a WP:Prod is filed. A quick search of the sources (listed at the top of this AFD) shows no compliance with WP:Before. While sourcing can be improved WP:NEXIST. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Creating a show that gains 2 billion YouTube views is impressive and the group is doing numerous other projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1f05:da00:a8:c457:25fd:dfb7 (talk • contribs) — 2600:8801:1f05:da00:a8:c457:25fd:dfb7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Their most popular video has 866 thousand views. [2] Dream Focus 21:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deseret News [3] is a reliable source giving them significant coverage. [4] and the two Herald Extra articles, among others give ample coverage. Note the two IP addresses that made one edit ever, that being the KEEP statements in this AFD, you probably work for these guys so please ask around the office and see if you got coverage outside of Utah. Dream Focus 21:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject passes our general notability guide. Coverage exists WP:NEXIST. Doing a WP:BEFORE should have discovered the sources to show notability. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, this topic is being examined under WP:NCORP since it is an organization. It would be impressive for any organization (founded in 2019 according to the website to meet the criteria for notability which requires at least two different sources providing significant (WP:SIGCOV) in-depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) coverage containing independent content (WP:ORGIND). Many of the Keep !voters above have stated that such coverage exists (which is not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability) or that there is "ample coverage" (again, not one of the criteria for notability) but in my opinion, have no clue as to the rest of the criteria including the guidelines for independent content as per WP:ORGIND. Rather than stating the nom should have complied with WP:BEFORE, my advice would be for those very same editors to take a good long read of WP:NCORP and especially WP:ORGIND. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. An evaluation of the sources contained in the article and mentioned above are as follows:
- NBCUniveral reference is a mention-in-passing in the "Sketch Act Division" and contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.
- The various YouTube references fail as they are not regarded as reliable sources
- The Deseret News reference (also mentioned by Dream Focus above) is based on an interview with Matt Meese and Stacey Harkey and contains no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
- The Salt Lake Tribune reference is also based on an interview, this time with Stacey Harkey and Whitney Call and contains no Independent Content and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. It also contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The second Deseret News reference is also based on an interview, this time with Natalie Madsen, Mallory Everton, Whitney Call and Stacey Harkey (and Michael Dunn, BYUtv's Managing Director). It mentions the company name in passing but contains no significant or in-depth information on the company, failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also no independent content on the company (clearly all information has been provided by the company or people connected with the company), failing WP:ORGIND. There is a review of the Loving Lyfe series but this is not coverage on the company but on one of their products.
- The BYU Magazine reference doesn't even mention the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- The KUTV reference is a review of one of the sketchs and contains no information whatsoever on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH

In summary, I am unable to locate a single source that meets the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. Sure, some of their sketches are very popular and perhaps there's a really good argument for an article on the Series as opposed to the Company, but company fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I would ask any of the Keep !voters above to provide links below this comment (and stating reasons) to any references that they believe meet the criteria for notability of the company so that we can examine them and I'm very happy to change my mind if any can be found. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent review of the sources, and one that should be taken very seriously by the closing admin! --Slashme (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: thank you for taking the time to write what I should have explained myself. This was exactly what I meant when I said it is difficult to know if we should be considering this as a WP:NCORP discussion. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable policy is more likely the policy that covers actors, artists and other entertainers WP:creative and or WP:ENT is applicable: and this troupe: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. In any event reasonable people can disagree. The HighKing votes to delete at AfDs 89.2% of the time. WP:NCORP: Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc. NCORP is the wrong policy for entertainers IMO. Per NCORP: If another subject-specific notability guideline applies to a group, it may be notable by passing either this or the more specific guideline. For example bands are covered by WP:MUSIC.Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be using High King's afd stats as a means of discounting his !vote as per WP:ADHOM but seeing as you insist please note that they are "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 94.4% of AfD's were matches and 5.6% of AfD's were not." Which shows that they master the criteria especially when you consider they have !voted in 1883 discussions and left 14 comments without voting. You might want to compare your stats to his, you have participated in 350 discussions of which 278 there was no discernable !vote so he has voted in more than 26 times more discussions and has a 94% record...I shan't give your voting stats because it is a pointless exercise as I think I have just proved. What is important is the quality of the !votes and please remember the advice for participating "Always try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions, Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)" Simply stating that an article passes the criteria does not help. And whilst we're at the WP:ADHOM bit it states "As well, be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found." And I would also point out that you have added no sources here or on the page. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good analysis and nice to know I vote with the consensus 94.4% of the time! HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a changed user name, so I voted in many more under my previous name. But lets keep it to the AfD. I added two sources a while ago, and reverted some IP potential vandalism.One, Two.

Couldn't agree more, let's avoid the ad hom. I just looked at the 2 sources you added and one is a passing mention in a very short piece in a student publication with no byline and the other is a credit in an affiliated source. I do not think they help to meet the NCORP criteria. If we consider that this is not a production company but a youtube channel then we should use WP:WEBCRIT and I believe that the sources do not show it meets the criteria. There are too many WP:INTERVIEWS and affiliated sources to meet the 1st criteria and they have not won an award yet so fail the 2nd criteria. So still NN for me. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable editors can disagree. I added two sources to contribute to the article. Note: Actors and artists are known by their work, and by their audience and their reception. Just because there is not RS to show the artists in rehab, or getting arrested, it makes their work no less notable. The troupe passes WP:ENT and that seems clear enough. Also to your points about the web, and Youtube, they seem to have gone beyond Youtube: now on Network television - adding to their notability. I will bow out now to avoid WP:BLUDGEON Lightburst (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actors and artists are individuals. And while a band or a singer is covered by WP:MUSIC, a record producer or publisher is not - they're covered by WP:NCORP. Also, you may describe these people as a "troupe" but in reality, that only recognises the artists in front of the camera. What about Stephen Walter, the CEO? I don't think troupes even have a CEO, or bands? Clearly this belongs under WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By your estimation those with management must pass NCORP criteria. Bands, actors, artists all have management, agents, roadies, staff, executive assistants, drivers, camera people, web site developers, social media personell etc. Even if what you say is true that this is an NCORP situation, we can determine notability based on criteria set out on the NCORP guidelines. The actual policy states: If another subject-specific notability guideline applies to a group, it may be notable by passing either this or the more specific guideline." It is a stretch to say they we are only allowed to use NCORP: but it is not a stretch to say they are entertainers. In fact it is logical. Lightburst (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I find myself in agreement with HighKing and Dom from Paris; ~~a majority~~ *several* of the references (of those that mention JK!) refer to it as a company, venture or business, and even the first sentence of the lead paragraph within the entry describes it this way. So it would seem to me that NCORP is the more specific criteria, and as such, it is the criteria we must apply. Interestingly, I did find notability criteria proposed for comedy-related subjects, alas it was abandoned in 2007 due to lack of support. Pegnawl (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pegnawl The reference for that sentence in this article, calls them a "troupe". Some WP editor wrote that language "company" in the opening sentence. In any event we wouldn't make the rock group Metalica meet WP:NCORP - we would use the :subject specific notability guideline. WP:MUSIC. We wouldn't judge Penn and Teller by WP:NCORP we would likely use WP:ENT. Even large groups of athletes or sports teams like the Green Bay Packers would be judged by the subject specific WP:NTEAM ....even though the Packers have a corporate structure and a CEO, a President, shareholders, etc. So it is NCORP or "subject specific" Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but JK! isn't a musical act, nor a BLP about an entertainer or entertainers, nor a sports team. Because there is no comedy-group specific subject guidance, that leads me to believe that we stick with NCORP, the most specific category that can be used at present.

That said, I'm going to walk back my comment that a majority of refs call it a company; it's more of a mixed bag than that. Because I've now done the legwork, I'll leave this here in case it helps others come to a determination:

Publisher / Title: Qualifier(s) used
Deseret News / Original 'Studio C' cast members...: Comedy Network, Project
SLTRib / 'Former BYUtv ‘Studio C’ cast...': Troupe, Company (granted in this instance, 'company' might be used in the more Shakespearean sense)
Deseret News / Life after 'Studio C'...: Venture, Startup, comedy-focused media company
BYU Magazine / Last Laughs: online network
KUTV / JK! Studios impresses...: Group
Herald Extra / JK! Studios sketch wins ...: Comedy group

Given the above, and the content they purport to serve across various channels, I'm leaning towards media company/network and therefore still NCORP (but not strongly enough to cast a !vote quite yet). Pegnawl (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good points both. My 2c = unless there are guidelines for specific topics (like bands, sports teams, etc) which are special types of organizations, the default is WP:NCORP. It isn't a perfect system - there has been a lot of debate here in relation to a requirement for specific guidelines for specialist record publishers or specialist book publishers. I believe there is also a case to be made for entertainers on social media or streaming channels although it doesn't get around the problem of deciding the criteria for notability. The best we have right now is to find (at least) two references from reliable independent publishers that contains Independent Content which is in-depth. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing: Thanks for those comments. I think this was a healthy debate and you provided a sober and rational assessment. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would have gone ahead and deleted the article given the evident consensus, but just on the side of caution as someone might find a couple of reliable sources (as suggested by multiple editors), relisting this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are writing about them, or doing interviews with them, its significant coverage either way. The news source felt them notable enough to take the time to interview, not just write something about. Dream Focus 14:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The !vote here currently is 5 6 Keeps and 53 Deletes. This is not even close to a "Delete" WP:consensus. I recognize it isn't just 'voting" but the voices of those who visit this page and express their opinions means something, unless it is just supposed to be the closer's whim. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why it isn't a simple !vote count and why the closer reads the discussion. It is to place appropriate weight on the arguments and especially with an eye on those arguments that are grounded in our policies and guidelines as opposed to more simplistic "agree with op" type !votes. For example, we have two Keep !votes from anon IPv6 addresses which fail to identify any reasons which are based/grounded in our policies and guidelines. We have another "Weak Keep" !voter who says that they agree with all of the above (reasons to delete) but basically says "lets give this a chance" because "notability may change" - again, no grounding whatsoever in any of our policies/guidelines. Your own !vote provides as a reason an agreement with one of the anon IPv6 !votes based on have lots of YouTube views - which also isn't grounded in any of our policies/guidelines (and in fact is specifically stated as *not* being a reason for Keep) as well as providing a google search list of mentions (again, specifically stated as not a reason to Keep in the guidelines). The only real engagement was from Lightburst who I believe understands what is required and has providing some reasoning for why WP:NCORP may/should not be the guidelines applicable to this topic but appears to accept that NCORP is the applicable guidelines and appears to be unable to provide any sources that meet the criteria for notability.

So by a count of arguments based on policy/guidelines, I'd say there's a clear consensus to delete as they're the only !votes that have provided any arguments based on our actual policies and guidelines rather than pulling reasons our of thin air which amount to no more than "but I like it" or "that's my opinion". HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The “clear consensus” for deletion is clearly biased against this group for some reason. My reason is not based on thin air per prior argument but is rather based on my actual experience as a wiki user (with very limited editing experience) who found this site when looking up JK Studios on Wikipedia; I was surprised to see the potential deletion note which has led me to this page. I had heard of this group via the NBC show, and my kids who know them from YouTube. Deleting this page would be a disservice to the credibility and reliability of this site. Please keep. Thank you. Elocone07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elocone07 (talk • contribs) 22:09, August 2, 2019 (UTC) Elocone07 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ...hi this is Elocone07...going to defend myself against the passive aggressive attack on my credibility ...I’ve used Wikipedia since it’s inception and to your point I’ve made few edits as I represent the POV of a reader, not a editor. On that note I as a reader would be very disappointed if this were deleted. Per my keep vote I came to Wikipedia looking for info on this comedy group, which I found; I only chimed in because the possible deletion note on the top of the page encouraged me to do so. It would be foolish to ignore the POV of users like me simply because I am not an elite editor who likes to police the site and delete helpful articles by others. (Elocone07)
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is definitely WP:NOCONSENSUS. The arguments are logical on both sides - I think more logical in my interpretation. High King made an argument for calling this comedy group a corporation, and I made an argument to say they are entertainers WP:ENT. I think if we polled the ivoters 6 would agree with me and the WP:ENT rationale and 3 or 4 would agree with the High King and the WP:NCORP rational. That is a clear WP:NOCONSENSUS and if anything, leaning Keep. I went to the relister's page to question the relisting comments, and I got a very condescending response. I only hope that a different uninvolved admin closes with a fair reading of this AfD. Lightburst (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative comment – I am sorry if my response sounded condescending. I was pointing out to your apparent lack of understanding of our reliable sources/verifiability guideline/policy and misunderstanding of what consensus means. I listed out exactly why none of the keeps were worth consideration. While you may continue believing that consensus is equivalent to voting, it is actually not. If you find even two reliable, independent non-primary sources that have covered the subject significantly (please don't include interviews or press releases; read WP:RS), there's no number of delete !voters who would be able to get the article deleted.... And vice versa. On your other query, there's no hard and fast rule on my closing this AfD; any other admin can too. Or I will, if I reach here first, when the re-listing period is over. Thanks, Lourdes 07:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, you don't understand WP:RS. We will have to agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lourdes That is not correct. WP:CLOSEAFD The AfD needs to be closed by an uninvolved admin or editor. And I think I had excellent arguments that you have summarily dismissed: even the High King acknowledged the validity of the arguments, and I acknowledged the High King's argument as well. This is a clear WP:NOCONSENSUS so far. Lightburst (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative comment – Sure Lightburst. Any uninvolved admin including I can close this AfD. My reply to you above is an administrative comment; and so is this. For your benefit, I have marked them so. Thanks, Lourdes 00:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I am saddened by your display of power - it does not benefit the project. Retroactively marking your very involved comments to pretend you are not involved is not appropriate. I am out of this AfD now. Lightburst (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up your misunderstanding. An uninvolved admin is one that has not edited the article or !voted in the discussion. Lourdes did neither. They simply analysed the discussion and the different !votes and explained their analysis and despite the result they gave the discussion a bit more time. If anyone should complain it is certainly not the keep !voters. You tried to get them involved by complaining on their talk page but this doesn't make them involved. Just because someone doesn't agree with your arguments that you consider excellent (we shall agree to disagree on that point) doesn't make them involved either. From what I can gather an "uninvolved admin" is one that agrees with you? It just doesn't work like that.Dom from Paris (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC) p.s. To further understand what uninvolved means please read WP:UNINVOLVED. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the summary provided by Lightburst above. I agree that there was an attempt to examine this topic under a different set of guidelines than WP:NCORP but a suitable set of guidelines could not be found. I agree WP:ENT is applicable for a comedy troupe but I disagree that "JK! Studios" is a comedy troupe - it is a media production company. It is incorporated and has a CEO and President named Stephen Walter. One of the founders (who is not one of the comedians), Alex Madsen, describes it as a "media company".

I also don't see any point in conducting a poll on this page - either we have guidelines that we apply consistently or the alternative is that every topic will have a poll that becomes nothing more than a popularity contest.

I agree with the summary provided by Lourdes on their Talk page and above but I feel I have to voice my opinion on some of the commentary on this page. I am dismayed at the lack of understanding demonstrated by editors on this page on how this community decides which guideline(s) to apply, which policies/guidelines are applicable for particular topics, how to respond at AfD pages, how a closing admin weighs up the various points of view, etc. But I am most dismayed at the ad hominen commentary. Nobody here that has !voted to Delete has any particular axe to grind with this topic and yet various Keep !voters have taken potshots at various editors who have voiced an opposing view. Please stop.

The point made in relation WP:RS should be read in conjunction with the guidelines on which sources/references meet the criteria for establishing notability (e.g. WP:ORGIND). In summary, there's a difference between how we treat RS depending on the context of use. While RS (even RS that includes interviews/quotations or based on press releases) can be used to support an assertion or facts within an article, these RS may not be used to establish notability. Editors here who participate regularly at AfD and who are familiar with the various applicable policies/guidelines will have seen this point raised many times previously. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You choose to ignore the many sources, a number of which were added after theinital WP:PROD. Thiere is an evidencet violation of WP:BEFOREand a disergard of WP:NEXISTT. You apparently believe that Ipse dixit gives you a Liberum veto over the existenced of articles. You seem think that your voice outweighs consensus on this page. There is nothing more to discuss. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More ad hominen comments... Tell you what - why don't you post a link here to any two references (or the two best ones) you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? I'll provide an analysis using policies/guidelines and that way you can be 100% sure that nothing is being ignored. The only advice I will freely give you (and those other Delete !voters) is to be absolutely sure you have read and understood WP:NCORP, especially the sections on WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nitanshi Goel

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

This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON article speedied once and prodded once Dom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 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) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need better sources to create and keep an article on a 12-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 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 delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Srinivas

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

Article about a civil servant that fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The sources are either passing mentions (2 sources) or mostly identical appointment notifications (5 sources) or affiliated (2 sources) or an interview (1 source) or do not mention him (1 source) Dom from Paris (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Dom from Paris' assessment regarding current sourcing, and a search did not reveal the type of in-depth coverage needed to meet notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 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) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourcing is either passing mentions or WP:ROUTINE announcements, and I don't see any assertions in the article indicating that he is notable under any SNGs.GirthSummit _(blether) 18:13, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SwanFest

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

the sources do not show that this festival has obtained sufficient coverage to show notability. In a WP:BEFORE search all I could find was blogs and press releases. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 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) 18:51, 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 speedy keep. No credible reason listed for deletion. New editor is cautioned to go slowly with advanced issues such as deletions. Secondary schools are generally kept lacking a good reason not to. No such reason provided. John from Idegon (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardee High School

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

Notability unmet and poorly sourced Sociable Song (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. – The Grid (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Added one independent news source. StonyBrook (talk) 02:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Howard Finder

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

Author does not appear to be notable by any standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfhewer (talk • contribs) 06:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:38, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough in the SF field to have an entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and to be Guest of Honor at a Worldcon. (If you're not familiar with that distinction, I'll quote from our List_of_Worldcon_Guests_of_Honor article: While other conventions may select guests on the basis of popularity, Worldcons usually select Guests of Honor as an acknowledgement of significant lifetime contribution to the field; typically at least 25 years of activity. Selection as a Worldcon GoH is treated by authors, fans, and others in the SF field as a lifetime achievement award. Schazjmd (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schazjmd. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, along with the previous discussion, also found enough news mentions of his death describing contributions in multiple fields to establish notability in life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.57.207.196 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the sourcing for our article does not contribute towards WP:GNG but we should only consider here the sourcing that does count. We have a newspaper obituary (local, but written by the newspaper rather than a paid family death announcement), another obituary in a notable trade magazine, an entry in a specialized encyclopedia (not currently in the article but mentioned above), and a newspaper story from before his death in a non-local paper that covers him in non-trivial detail. I think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schazjmd‘s comment convinces me that Kratman meets the criteria for notability necessary to be included in Wikipedia. TimBuck2 (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in SF field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Boys in the Band (2020 film)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a film that only just entered the production pipeline a few weeks ago, and is likely not going to be released until next year sometime. As always, planned future films are not always automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles the moment it becomes possible to single-source the fact that they're planned -- lots of films have entered the production pipeline, but then fell apart and failed to ever come out the other end as finished films, so simply being announced is not an automatic notability guarantee. Rather, a small elite tier of highly notable films that get a lot of coverage throughout the production processes (e.g. the Star Wars or Marvel franchises) get to have articles started once principal photography has commenced, while the vast majority of films have to wait until they have a confirmed release date. But there's only one reliable source here, while the other is a WordPress blog that is not support for notability at all. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in 2020 when a release date is announced, but this does not have nearly enough GNG-worthy coverage to already make it a special notability case today. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources are appearing online for this like a short tvline article and engadget.com article. Passes basic WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget is not a reliable or notability-supporting source; TVLine is just a short blurb that reverifies the exact same information as the one valid source that was already present in the article, without adding anything new. GNG is not just "anything that can show two media hits" — a film has to have a lot more than just two sources before it's exempted from having to pass the "an exact release date is confirmed" test. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing this "exact release date" test. I could not find it in any of the wiki notability guidelines. Affied (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The core notability criterion for films is the existence of published film reviews by professional critics. By definition, that type of coverage cannot exist this far in advance of a film being released. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing this as the core notability criterion? This is not what it says on the Wikipedia Notability for future films (WP:NFF).Affied (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Boys in the Band (play)#Film until we have full release information, though merge what we have in there (and in any circumstances due to the 1970 film, that should be re-disambiguated to The Boys in the Band (1970 film) in due time, with the main BitB page becoming a disambiguation page). Nate • (chatter) 07:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a topic that meets both WP:GNG and WP:NFF (which is especially permissible for having subject-specific criteria per WP:N). We know there is a film in the making for sure, and specific to this subject, we know that having started filming means a tangible product (as opposed to just plans for it beforehand). Based on this, it is a waste of an action to sweep this article under the rug only, with certainty, to pull it back out again. There is zero lack of merit in this proper film-type presentation of cast and crew and production details in a standalone article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets GNG, as there are plenty of sources about this movie. [5] (Hollywood Reporter), [6] (Yahoo), [7] (Vulture), [8](Entertainment Weekly), [9] (Deadline), [10] (NY Post), [11] (LA Magazine), [12] (Newsday). This was only after a cursory Google Search, there are probably more if you go deeper. Affied (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this article meets WP:NFF, as it is currently filming Affied (talk) 20:11, 30 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) 19:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allway Gardens

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

Non notable residential zone, per NBUILD viz ✦ 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. viz ✦ 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, major and historic huge complex. This can be shown in multiple sources, I am sure, by User:Cunard or others with access, skills, motivation to save an article like this. But why the drill, just keep, like for the similar huge Hong Kong complex articles also up for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doncram, and noting the long list of references on zh:荃威花園 which includes a long list of newsworthy events happening in this residential area. Deryck C. 20:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Residential zone articles do not exist to cover all the trivial things happened there. Not unless the residential zone itself played a some role in the event. viz ✦ 17:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above Alex-h (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cut down on the sorta-promotional facilities/bus list in the article. I'm not convinced this should be kept at this point, but I also can't read the sources on the zh wiki, so not !voting either way. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. A Delete, Keep and Weak Keep are not enough to form a consensus and after three weeks it's time to lower the curtain on this discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee Garden (Hong Kong)

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

non notable per WP:NBUILD viz ✦ 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. viz ✦ 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. viz ✦ 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Have some WP:GNG passing news coverage regarding the dispute between landlord and the residents who owned the units. The dispute was quite covered in the newspaper (and current affair TV program, if i remember right.) Matthew hk (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like was decided in similar, simultaneous-running AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allway Gardens, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/26 Nathan Road, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoho Town, all about huge housing tower complexes in Hong Kong that are each bigger than many if not most countries in population and whose construction was big enough to noticeably change the world's gravitational field and rotational speed. For this like the others, there are surely sources, if any diligent editor like User:Cunard chooses to go get them by digging through difficult-for-your-average-editor-like-me sources, but since we know that there do exist sources, there's no need to go through that drill. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP and wp:GEOFEAT (these are not natural features but they are so big they change the weather, effectively are geo features). --Doncram (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC) 21:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Guruvayoor

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

non notable screenwriter (1 significant film only) and director (1 not very notable film so far) Most of his career is as assistant director. He's director of a film about to come out, which may explain the creation of this article at this time DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 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) 17:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable screen writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG is upcoming not notable as this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Icon Savings Plan

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

Lacks in-depth, WP:TOOSOON Meeanaya (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New fund/company. Coverage doesn't come close to meeting WP:NCORP. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 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) 17:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way WP:TOOSOON and entirely referenced by primary sources. Nothing I see in GNews is going to help at this time. Pegnawl (talk) 21:11, 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. 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 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Gurudev

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

Fails WP:NPOL. What sources do exist explicitly note how he had no meaningful impact on politics in India, and there's a lot of subtle (sometimes less-than-subtle) promotion throughout. The uncritical ridiculous age claim doesn't help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is notable and some more sources should be added in the article to keep it updated. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unelected candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets neither the specialized notability guideline for politicians nor GNG. The lengevity claim is just plain silly. But, being of a certain age myself, this person's name called to mind a lyric in the Beatles' song "Across the Universe". So I went looking for a connection between the mantra "Jai Guru Deva Om" and Jai Gurudev. I cannot find one. If there were one, and if one could find coverage of this in a reliable source, my view might change. But, as they say, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. David in DC (talk) 17:33, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Oregon Ornithology

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

I recently PRODded this article, but that was denied by Explicit because there exists a previous AfD. I had seen that, but didn't think it applied as it was about a redirect (JOO). As Explicit explained on their talk page, that AfD was kind of messy, with page moves and change of focus during the discussion. In the end, I agree that it is better to take this to AfD. The PROD reason still stands: "Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not indexed anywhere. Homepage was last updated 10 years ago, so likely moribund. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, I note that WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, not a policy. I do note that, according to Worldcat, the journal is held by 44 libraries - not many, but they include libraries in Australia, South Africa, the Netherlands, Spain, etc, which for a journal dedicated to birds of one US state, suggests that it is held in some regard. Still checking for any sources - will return to !vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are free to ignore NJournals of course, but I'd like to note that NJournals was designed to make it easier for academic journals to be included in WP, as it is extremely rare that such a journal meets GNG. This one misses both by a mile and 44 libraries is paltry, especially for a journal that is available for free online. (So it doesn't cost anything to libraries to list it). --Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devika Singh

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

Does not appear to meet GNG for Actresses Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Garbage for Wikipedia. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only one prominent role in a notable production at this stage. May well be notable in the future with more roles, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, her debut role was this year! Agree she may well become notable in the future. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:11, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Rivera

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

NN Mayor of a small-ish city. I see nothing that gets him to WP:NPOL - local political figures must have "signficant coverage". There are a few articles from around the time of his first election which seem quite routine. The article reads like a resume/is highly promotional complete with "mission statemen". Most of the sources are not independent. MB 15:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are entire independent countries which are not as large as Lawrence. He is the subject of an article in the New York Times not just the local Lawrence newspaper. There have been more recent media articles than show up in references. The Wikipedia biograhy article is and is supposed to be biographical. The article states his experience and the references back it up.RichardBond (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MB 15:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MB 15:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lawrence MA is large enough that a well-sourced and genuinely substantive article about a mayor could be kept — but it's not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors, and "well sourced and genuinely substantive" does not describe this article. This is extremely overreliant on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the city's self-published website and the social media profiles of organizations he's directly affiliated with, and while there is a smaller amount that is reliable source media coverage, there is not enough of that. Politicians at the local level of office, including mayors, need to show a depth and volume and range of coverage that marks them out as significantly more notable than most other mayors of most other places, not just routine local reportage of municipal election results and glancing namechecks of their existence in coverage of events that took place in their city. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 27 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

House of Petrushko

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

Article is unsourced and as such draftified by a reviewer and moved back to main space without improvement. Nothing found to show this is a notable subject. The claimed famous representatives seems false, the bishop of Krakow doesn't have the same name and his bio states "the eldest of three children to the poor farmers Józef Pietraszko and Anna Migdał " and the other (in Russian) says nothing about him being born into a noble family. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wanted to nominate myself as helpless OR. Renata (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved and referenced Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Save Have you seen references in English and Russian versions? All tells that Dom from Paris lies instead of article! Гимназист1748 (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: [[User:[User:Гимназист1748|[User:Гимназист1748]] ([[User talk:[User:Гимназист1748|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/[User:Гимназист1748|contribs]]) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

I saw the sources that were in the original article or rather the total lack of sources. I have also checked the source that you added which doesn't help at all because

there are no foot notes so I do not know what this is supposed to support.
it is nothing more than a list of names
it does not cite its own sources for whatever it is supposed to be showing
it seems to be a personal genealogy website written by an local historian called Krasnolutsky, Alexander Yurievich and not as such considered as a WP:RS because as per WP:RSSELF "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable."

I hope this helps you understand why I will not be withdrawing my nomination.

Oh and p.s. accusing another editor of lying without proof is a personal attack and you should avoid this at all costs or a block may follow. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:30, 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 delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HDR Play Pictures

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

I found no independent reliable sources that establish notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and block the two SPAS. Praxidicae (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company that fails WP:GNG. Aspects (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough citations and information available on the internet to prove the authenticity and notability of the company. Wickeditx (talk) --Wickeditx (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Strike sock vote -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:43, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seed cycling

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

This article is a novel synthesis from primary sources combined with unreliable sources. I have searched for seed cycling diet and seed rotation diet and cannot find any sources that would pass WP:RS, so while it undoubtedly is a fad diet, it does not appear to be a notable fad diet that is covered in any reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought that Good Housekeeping was a reliable source for the existence of the fad. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, I have now found a whole two RS which discuss it, as a lifestyle bullshit thing. However, I have also removed great globs of WP:SYN from the article and most of the references there still don't actually talk about the claims made by proponents. Consensus appears to be: no evidence. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is in much better shape, and two RS are whatever you think evidence that the fad exists and has, however much people despise it, been noticed. And it's interesting to see an AfD nominator announcing consensus, specially while presenting evidence to the contrary. It'll only take one or two more usable sources and this'll be an obvious keep. I've chopped some more fluff and added a ref to The Telegraph. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added a Reception section; the press are interested but healthily sceptical. I've quoted and cited New York magazine's The Cut and Shape magazine, who both get experts to make critical comments about the diet. It's certainly a thing, and as such is notable, however. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Got to agree with Chiswick Chap: quite a reasonable amount of coverage from non-Kool-Aid sources. Thanks for heavily pruning the fluff, both of you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:21, 27 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) 15:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bro Code

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

Delete per WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY. Seems like a glorified dicdef that doesn't have evidence of standalone notability. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK (yes - this actually got published - google books - in German too). Coverage here - [13], other use of "bro code" - [14], [15]. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the book is called "The Bro Code". So, please note if your keep vote includes moving the article to that title and removing any info that isn't related to the book. Since the current article is about the concept, WP:NBOOK doesn't really apply._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:52, 24 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, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and has content (and potential for more content) beyond a dicdef. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Hall

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "Because Tina Hall deserves some recognition for people to know more about her, which could potentially help boast her musical career". Which is not an actual criteria for inclusion in WP. Only a single significant role doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the editor that originally placed the PROD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only obvious source is one human interest piece from a few years ago. Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 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 keep. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Reynolds II

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

Footballer who fails GNG and most likely NFOOTY. Does Leagues Cup even qualify as a fully-pro international competition? BlameRuiner (talk) 13:41, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, to save time, the Leagues Cup is a sanctioned tournament between MLS and Liga MX for the top clubs in respective leagues not to qualify for the CONCACAF Champions League, similar to what the North American SuperLiga did from 2007 to 2010, and the UEFA Europa League. I urge the nominator to do some research before going trigger happy on deletion. Quidster4040 (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Possibly barely passes NFOOTY with 58 minutes of play in the newly launched League cup (do the teams take this seriously?). He does have some coverage - e.g. Chicago Tribune (+ a whole lot of passing mentions) - so it isn't clear he fails GNG. He is active and on a MLS squad. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assuming that the Leagues Cup is indeed an official tournament as it seems to be, it's a current player with an FPL-related appearance. Which is, as NFOOTY consensus stands, enough - as seen at: AfD/Mats van Kins, AfD/Sean Karani, AfD/Danish Irfan Azman and, just last week, AfD/Ricky Kambuaya. Some may not take the competition seriously, but that's nothing unusual; e.g. England's EFL Cup. R96Skinner (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 18 years old and has just started his career and is (and is still playing) in the top division of a country for Chicago Fire Soccer Club in a WP:FPL league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - young player at start of career, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicago Fire Soccer Club until there is significant coverage in reliable sources. It is irresponsible to have a biography on this young fellow until that point. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Article about professional soccer player who hasn't yet played in a fully-pro league (his appearance in the "Leagues Cup" friendly is definitely not sufficient to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL), however there appears to be significant coverage that meets WP:GNG. Normally, I'd argue this is WP:TOOSOON for such an article, but I think it just barely gets over the notability hurdle. Jogurney (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep How in the hell did an MLS soccer player get listed here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The subject must pass either GNG or NFOOTBALL: See (Notability)

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right (WP:NFOOTBALL); and

It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it could conceivably pass ANYBIO as well (although this subject does not).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per all above, as he appears to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements, albeit barely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets WP:NFOOTY and has some coverage towards meeting the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MLS player is definitely notable. Why has this not been closed yet? Looks pretty unanimous to keep.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:06, 30 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. Lourdes 03:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latifa Mammadova

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. While accomplished, there are not enough in-depth sources to show she meets WP:GNG, and doesn't appear to meet any of the SNG's. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added several sources-- I think the subject passes WP:GNG, though it can be tricky to find sources due to language barriers / different transliterations of her name.Gilded Snail (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not pass notability guidelines for academics. She is actually an administrator of public libraries [16], and hardly a notable one. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi, My very best wishes, Latifa Mammadova is not only the head of a library, but she also is a historian, scientist and former chairwoman of Azerbaijan Committee of IFAP in UNESCO. She was the head of libraries in Azerbaijan from 2004 to 2018. Also, she is author many projects that can be seen in Library activities section of her article. Best regards, --Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notability guidelines for academics are on top of WP:GNG. That is, if the subject passes GNG, they do not need to also pass academic notability. Gilded Snail (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With sources currently used on the page, such as this, I do not think she has significant non-trivial coverage in 3rd party RS as required per WP:GNG, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is one of many promotional pages related to Azerbaijan. See for example, Academy of Public Administration (Azerbaijan) (linked from this page). I think it should be also deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A long and distinguished career as a pubic servant at the national level for which she received recognition according to a source in the article. Plenty of sources in the article to support the facts about her to meet WP:GNG. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 03:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the director of "Central Office of the Centralized Library System of the Yasamal District" is not really a pubic servant at the national level. Second, this page tells that "under the order of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, she was awarded "Medal for Distinction in Public Service". I have no idea if this is really a significant award, but the statement was sourced only to this. Is it even an RS? Does it tells anything of substance about the subject? No. This is a promotional page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear My very best wishes, of course "e-qanun.az" is an official government website. but in case i changed that reference to a better one, from the official website of the President of Azerbaijan. Being the head "Central Office of the Centralized Library System of the Yasamal District" is not an indicator for being an encyclopedic person, i fully agree with that, but that's not the main focus point on the topic. Being PhD in history, she is the author of several books and many articles, those i don't want to add to exaggerate the importance of the subject. Her biography are found in many books, but i only added the most respected ones. What about her earlier career? Please consider taking look at this fact as well: Latifa Mammadova was elected a deputy of the Baku City Council of People's Deputies (XVII, XVIII, XIX convocations) in 1980-1989. Sincerely, --Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed on an official government website, a PhD degree and authoring a couple of books about the "great leader" is not a proof of notability. I do not see significant coverage in any sources currently cited on the page, only mentioning the person in passing (I agree with Onel5969). This page is basically a CV of a person. My very best wishes (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - literally millions of people have had long and distinguished civil servant careers, not a valid reason for inclusion. Also, there is a difference between sources which prove the facts of an article, and the type of in-depth sourcing which shows the notability of an article's subject, which this one sorely lacks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete civil servants working at this level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Don't believe she's notable as a scientist despite claim to the contrary. Her career as a public servant doesn't show me any notability and I don't think the sources show the significant and independent coverage required to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I have found this difficult to assess, as my ability to find or understand sources in either Azerbaijani or Russian is very limited (practically non-existent, in fact). The only source I was able to find confirmed her appointment to a position, which does not add to notability. The awards do not seem particularly high. Are there reviews of her books? If there are, and they can be added to the article, then she might meet WP:NAUTHOR. Does Women of Azerbaijan have any more information about her than just the topic of her PhD thesis? So far, I have not seen, or been able to find, evidence that she meets either WP:GNG or any WP:SNG, and unless and until that can be provided, I don't see a reason to keep the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:22, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DZMR

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

Fails WP:BROADCAST. And the sources are a long way away from meetingWP:NCORP Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compared to most Filipino radio articles for smaller stations, this meets BROADCAST; plenty of sources to its existence. Nate • (chatter) 02:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep. Could you identify the sources that you are talking about? Dom from Paris (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of a flood of entirely non-notable radio stations that have had articles created recently. Does not come close to meeting WP:NCORP, which is the required standard. Hug^syrup 16:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough sources to prove that the station exists. You wanna ride in the Six. You wanna dine in the Six. 23:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't about if it exists. It's about notability. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 12 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tiger's Apprentice (film)

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

No evidence main film production has begun, per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON BOVINEBOY2008 10:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:24, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Sorenson

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

Does not pass any notability criterion D.Lazard (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clear pass of WP:PROF, but plenary speaker at a current major conference. Couple of mentions in news and books that don't focus on him [17] [18]. So clearly verifiable, but department headness and plenary speakerdom are only weak indications of notability.

If I can be petty for a moment: that's "semi-plenary" speaker at a conference which has 10 announced "plenary" speakers. M.boli (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Kusma (t·c) 12:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm having difficulty finding his works in Google Scholar among all the other Jons Sorenson. But for someone who's been around this long, in a high-citation field (computer science), having a paper with 119 citations in Google scholar as your best known is definitely not enough for WP:PROF#C1. And there seems to be nothing else; being department head or plenary speaker is also not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicates a passing of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't see anything on his CV that said notable to me. Competent, successful, CS professor who is still publishing original work, but not encyclopedia-worthy. — M.boli (talk) 23:38, 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 delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Arnold

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

I feel I can best start off what I suspect will be a slightly contentious AFD with a quote from the article itself:

"The articles created by Arnold cited unreliable and often irrelevant sources, but rather a similar thing or topic to give it added authority."

Frankly that says it all in the case of this article. It is absolutely riddled with impressive-looking citations that actually do not back up the claim in the text, most of which do not even mention the subject of the article (by any of his various names or pseudonyms). I spent some time this morning checking these and stripping them out, but it's become exhausting particularly as I've come to the conclusion the article merits deletion in any case.

Leaving aside the carnage of the citations, this individual basically has three (maybe four) claims to notability, which I'm going to address:

Creator of British Furst. This has genuinely attracted a fair bit of press coverage, and could possibly be the subject of a standalone article, but Arnold does not get inherited notability from this, and most of the articles about BF do not actually mention him. Those that do, mention him briefly and in passing. The same goes for BFNN, which seems to be broadly the same thing.
The LID Bible / LAD Bible case. A parody Facebook account that attracted a bit of attention for being sued by the subject *might* just merit a mention on LADBible. Maybe you could make a case for a standalone page for LID Bible given the coverage, though I'd argue against it, but a standalone page for the creator? Nope.
And then there's his recent behaviour re Jared O'Mara and twitter. Clearly this is a recent event and we can see how it develops, but, while it will undoubtedly generate some stories that name Arnold, it seems unlikely to be enough to be more than a brief news story that might merit a mention on O'Mara's page, and is not sufficient to overcome WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP1E.

Even if it turns out that consensus is that those three items above are sufficient for Arnold to merit a standalone article, I'd make the case that this is one of those very rare situations where WP:TNT really might be called for. Hug^syrup 09:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator comment on the sources checks out, looks like obvious self-publicity. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. A poorly sourced article and little objective evidence of noteworthiness Little Professor (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Definitely looks like self-promotion; he even had his Wikipedia page linked on his Twitter profile (although now removed). Ollie231213 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear self-promotion, few sources.Manzarene (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, and only per WP:TNT - subject meets WP:GNG.--Laun chba ller 14:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a self-created article on a minor subject. Everything in this article can be covered by a small mention in already extant articles, or does not deserve to be covered at all. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article has been linked to in the news media - [19] 128.243.2.60 (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Obvious self promotion Taewangkorea (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Risingbd.com

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

This is not notable news media or is not a news media approved by the Bangladesh government. this only news related website. References are used from own and official sites. No reference was given as a significant source. — Delwar • 19:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Delwar • 19:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this news portal not notable newspaper in Bangladesh. Not established online newspapers, Fail WP:GNG. In Bangladesh there are lot of online newspapers available but that’s means all of newspapers aren’t notable. I’m not agree with @DelwarHossain: mention that news media not approved by the Bangladesh government on this point. Since this is a Walton Group newspapers , then of course, this newspaper registered by the government but on the main point this is not a popular newspaper in Bangladesh also no important newspaper for need to be keep on Wikipedia. This article don’t have any WP:RS and last 6 months added WP:GNG tag not meet General Notability Guideline. according to this source here Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission has ordered the closure of 58 news portals in the country. This was the second of the portals ordered to close. this article should be deleted. This is a fully functional newspaper with professional journalists and is owned by a major corporation also User:Vinegarymass911 added reliable sources --Nahal^(T) 07:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NahalAhmed: I am Online News Portal Journalist. No online media has been declared in Bangladesh. However, the application for recognition of online media has been submitted as per the policy. However, there are some online media articles based on the significance of popularity news in Wikipedia. example: Bdnews24.com Banglanews24.com Jago News Bangla Tribune etc. Online News Potarl Ethics --— Delwar • 07:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@DelwarHossain:- I'm agree with you. there are some online media articles based on the significance of popularity news in Wikipedia. The Bangladeshi magazines which are notable are those that mainly print Bangladesh magazines and especially the kind of online news papers that they have already gained a lot of popularity, they can only be considered significant.--Nahal^(T) 10:22, 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) 🐱 08:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I have addded content with citation. This is a fully functional newspaper with professional journalists and is owned by a major corporation, Walton Group. Since I have added references, there are now references in the article. I am of the opinion this passes GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911: Please can you provide a source which one passed on general notable guideline? The main two reason for I voted to delete it , that time there was no reliable source found and it was ordered by the BTRC 58 websites to be blocking in 2018. There was a list of interrupted newspaper lists. If there is a credible source that has been unblocking by government. i will change my vote! I didn't agree with who Nominated this page. because The Walton Group is a Bangladeshi biggest company and they are must be an online news paper registered by the government. Thanks --Nahal^(T) 07:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if they are blocked by the government of Bangladesh, that's entirely irrelevant to notability guidelines.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be cautious, the website is a news organization that covers national news in Bangladesh where the government has a record of not respecting freedom the press. The press in Bangladesh generally does not cover rival publications. The fact that it is managed by professional journalist and financed by a large corporation should indicate some importance and at least notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:16, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Party, USA

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

Cities exclusively to self published sources; the only non-self published source is a mention in no detail of another organization. This group does not appear to have received significant, non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources, which means it fails the notability guideline and should be deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 21:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now The article has been here for 15 years, and as far as I can tell, no one has objected until now. Given its longevity, I think the first step should be a call to establish notability in third-party sources, not just remove it. Can we wait until the end of the year before revisiting the matter of deletion? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to try and find sources to improve it, please do, but if it doesn’t meet ORGCRIT (significant non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources), it has to be deleted. There is no reason to remove this nomination and that is not how things are done here. Toa Nidhiki05 18:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that it has been tagged for third party sourcing since 2014.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a few books that cover the organization:

Drachkovitch, Milorad M.; Gann, Lewis H. (1987). Yearbook on International Communist Affairs. Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. p. 153. ISBN 9780817986513.
Klehr, Harvey (1988). Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today. Transaction Publishers. pp. 125–126. ISBN 9781412823432.
Sargent, Lyman Tower (1995). Extremism in America: A Reader. New York University Press. ISBN 9780814780114. (starts at page 85)
Alexander, Robert Jackson (2001). Maoism in the Developed World. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 37–38. ISBN 9780275961480.
Leonard, Aaron J.; Gallagher, Conor A. (2015). Heavy Radicals - The FBI's Secret War on America's Maoists: The Revolutionary Union / Revolutionary Communist Party 1968-1980. John Hunt Publishing. pp. 155–156. ISBN 9781782795339.
Elbaum, Max (2018). Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che (PDF). Verso Books. pp. 236–237, 341. ISBN 9781786634597.

Also found minor (not really significant) coverage on The Washington Post ([20]), as well as other mentions in reliable sources that didn't go beyond the organization appearing in an enumeration. --MarioGom (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the WaPo article reads: "At least four separate groups of protesters will be marching"..."The fourth and smallest group is a Marxist-Leninist organization" it was part of what the Post describes as a group, called the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) Committee for a Fitting Welcome or RCP (USA) that came together for the purpose of staging a single organization. Whether it is the same at our Marxist–Leninist Party, USA, is not clear to me, but, then, one of the main problems with Marxism is the effort needed just to figure out which Marxist faction is which.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is this coverage substantial or is it just saying “this organization exists”? Because the latter doesn’t count as substantial, non-trivial coverage. Some examples of what would qualify:

Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement:
A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger,

A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization,

A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products,

An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization,

A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product,

An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies).

Toa Nidhiki05 20:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Elbaum citation is wonderful, as a parody of Marxist factionalism, it is priceless: "Second was the Central Organization of US Marxist-Leninists (COUSML), which had been formed in 1973 mainly by the Cleveland-based American Communist Workers Movement. In january 1980 this group, too, held a founding congress and declared itself to be the Marxist-Leninist Party. The MLP thus became the sixth antirevisionist group to declare that it had founded the vanguard of the US working class -but with just 100 members it was the smallest vanguard yet. The shrinking size of newly proclaimed vanguards constituted a definite pattern: the MLP, CPUSA(ML) and CWP gatherings in 1980, 1978 and 1979, respectively, were all smaller than the first wave of founding congresses, CLP's in 1974, RCP's in 1975 and CP(ML)'s in 1977."E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems straight out of Monty Python. Toa Nidhiki05 20:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that Elbaum cites the Pythons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I provided 6 book passages spanning from 1987 to 2018. I didn't expect anyone really going into detail about The Washington Post coverage, which is obviously not significant. Keep in mind that an organization being considered ridiculous is completely irrelevant to determine notability. Low membership count does not necessarily imply non-notability. I'm currently looking at other sources beyond Google Books to check if there's further coverage. --MarioGom (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were plenty of mentions in USA local newspapers about events involving the MLP and its various predecessor groups, in particular the COUSML. However, all of these are routine coverage on protest attendance and subversive activities at universities and factories, nothing standing out. As far as I've seen. --MarioGom (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven’t given any quotes or answered if the coverage was significant and non-trivial. Being mentioned in passing doesn’t count as notable. Toa Nidhiki05 23:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All these books have specific sections (1 or 2 pages) that cover COUSML/MLP specifically. I think all of them have available previews in Google Books. I can provide links and quotes if necessary. --MarioGom (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

gBooks searches can be a little random; I am getting none of the books you list except Elbaum on Books searches "Marxist–Leninist Party, USA". Searching "Marxist–Leninist Party" + USA I find Extremism in America: A Reader - Page 85 by Lymen Tower Sargent, "Marxist-Leninist Party One of the parties that split off from the Communist Party is the Marxist- Leninist Party, which was supported by the Communist Party of Albania" [21] The book then replicates a 1983 communique. the is not WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maoism in the Developed World - Page 37 by Robert Jackson Alexander - 2001 - ‎"The CPUSA (M-L) traced its origins to a small split in the pro-Moscow Communist Party of the USA in 1958, establishing the Provisional Organizing Committee for the Reconstruction of a Marxist- Leninist Party. In 1965, the majority of that ..." and continues, very briefly, to tell us which Albanian faction sided with whom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this sort of fine detail about a political party that never qualified for a ballot belongs in arcane accounts of infighting in the very tine U.S. Marxist parties of the 1980s, but I do not see that brief accounts of vote tallies at tiny partisan "congresses" passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ an American political party with fewer than 100 members that lasted only a few years and never contested an election belongs right where it is, in a small sub-heading of a chapter of book published by Verso Books. It could be mentioned if we have an article dedicated to untangling marxist factionalism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Communist movement. The books I provided above are probably enough to source a section in New Communist movement discussing COUSML and MLP together with other similar groups active at that time. --MarioGom (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Keep and improve. As there are enough sources to justify a short article too. --MarioGom (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate that the citations above are about this splinter group and that the sources you cite offer WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the sources? It will be necessary to do so and to establish that they contain WP:SIGCOV by bringing the material to this or the article page before arguing that they do more than mention the organization's existence. It is rare for us to keep a political party as a stand alone article unless it wins elections.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY. XavierItzm (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- This article has been here for 15 years, and no one has objected, therefore I think the first step should be redirected to New Communist movement and not be deleted. -MA Javadi (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid rational for a Redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Keep in mind that these articles on small parties only get a handful of views a month, so it’s very easy for them to slip between the cracks. Toa Nidhiki05 12:37, 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) 🐱 08:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Redirect~~ to New Communist movement. In sum, although the book list may look impressive, the ones I can access have mere mentions, or are actually about a different "Marxist–Leninist Party." The editor who posted that list has not responded to requests to provide the texts he found. In fact, no one has provided WP:SIGCOV of this short-lived political party that never ran a candidate and that, in the only detailed source anyone has found, this "party" is said to have had 100 members - with no evidence that it ever got on a ballot, let alone won an election. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory: I started adding some inline citations to these books in the article itself (still work in progress). Other than expanding the citations there, I'm not sure how to proceed on this AfD. Should I just add all the pending inline citations to the article so that we can evaluate the coverage? Or is it better for me to add here excerpts from the sources? Thanks! --MarioGom (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be useful, citations need to be more than mere mentions. They need to qualify as WP:SIGCOV of this party. The way to do that is to add text, quotations from the source, to the footnote. And, of course, the source itself has to be a WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are the sources that merit consideration for notability:

Alexander, Robert Jackson (2001). Maoism in the Developed World. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 37–38. ISBN 9780275961480.
Elbaum, Max (2018). Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che (PDF). Verso Books. pp. 236–237, 341. ISBN 9781786634597.
Klehr, Harvey (1988). Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today. Transaction Publishers. pp. 125–126. ISBN 9781412823432.

All of them have links to full text or exact page in Google Books preview, so that should be enough for people participating in this discussion. As far as I know, the article missing more quotes and inline citatiosn is not a factor to consider for deletion. When reading the sources, keep in mind that we should consider their coverage for ACWM(M-L), COUSML and MLP-USA, since most sources (primary and secondary) establish a clear lineage for the organization (ACWM(M-L), COUSML and MLP-USA). --MarioGom (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that (Sargent, 1995) covers the organization, but just as a collection of primary source material, adding little additional context. --MarioGom (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page should include material from Klehr: "In addition to former Albanian Communist leader Enver Hohxa, the Party's other hero is Joseph Stalin, it has proclaimed - 'Eternal glory to J.V. Stalin!'" And from Elbaum the fact that this party had "just 100 members."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 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 no consensus. Notability is not temporary. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page (or done in a WP:BOLD edit). Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nvidia Tesla Personal Supercomputer

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

The topic isn't significantly more notable than daily developments happening at its time, and has now lost significance. Even the 1st linked webpage in External links section had changed title. Dannyniu (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This 2008 article at Tom's Hardware suggests that it was a milestone at the history of supercomputers. Quote: "Desktop supercomputers became a reality today as Nvidia announced the release of its new GPU-based Tesla personal supercomputer". --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one source, are you very certain that's not over-hyped and unreliable? I think the article is just a routine report of a niche product. The article in its current form is just a description of a proprietary technological setup, having no mention of its sigificance. And after all these years, Nvidia is no longer the sole provider of GPGPU ICs. Dannyniu (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, the French Wikipedia removed the corresponding article back in 2012. Dannyniu (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nvidia. There are just enough sources [22], [23], [24] to support this being significant when it was released, and I'd point out that notability is not temporary so it cannot have 'lost its significance'. However, I'd agree with the nominator that there is not enough substantial coverage of this specific device to merit a standalone article. Hug^syrup 11:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milagros Schmoll

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

One of the innumerable amount of articles that relies on the obsolete, defunt NYMag directory (which does not establish notability) and Fashion Model Directory (which is a last resort at most). Outside of that notability can't be established (no, Perfil doesn't count it's a tabloid.) Trillfendi (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The Spanish Wikipedia also links to this interview in La Nación and there's another in the same paper, so it seems there might be some RS from her home country of Argentina if a Spanish-speaking editor wants to look into it. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 09:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is they don’t address the verification aspect of the BLP template. None of them give the adequate information required for her career. Therefore it comes down to: what’s the point? Trillfendi (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model. Interviews do not add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 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. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F. Harmon Weight (director)

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

I'm not seeing anything much more than passing mentions and credits which don't satisfy WP:FILMMAKER. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created his article(Harmon Weight) and have added a few cites for flavor. Some info on him from old trade publications if you can find them. Since he was a silent film director, I created an article on him as most other people who were even near a film camera at this time have a Wiki article.Koplimek (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seem to be notable enough per WP:AUTHOR Peter303x (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AUTHOR? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the director of eleven notable films with multiple reliable book sources and more offline as mentioned above. It seems a strange nomination as silent film directors are of historical, encyclopedic interest and there is no promotion involved, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odette Henriette Jacqmin

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. No significant coverage found in my WP:BEFORE, only two GNews hits, both of which appear to be interviews for a Thai tabloid (and hence not a reliable source) and are labelled as press releases on Google (and thus of dubious independence). Could find no reviews of her musical output. FOARP (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google news search of the Thai name โอเด็ต [25] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Paging through the results these appear to be entirely Gossip sites (e.g., GossipStar). I don't see any RS - can you see one? FOARP (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are websites of paper newspaper, not gossip site: Thai Rath [26], Kom Chad Luek [27], [28], Manager Daily [29], Khao Sod [30], Daily News (Thailand) [31]. Even Gossip Star is a published magazine. [32] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, are there any stories here that aren't essentially gossip? I don't see any. The Thai Rath piece is about her new boyfriend and abortion. The Kom Chad Luek story covers the same subject as well as her new husband. The Khao Sod story covers her leaving her husband and having an abortion. The Daily news piece is about her divorce. Gossip stories seem likely to fall under WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:ROUTINE (strangely, on Wiki something can be both SENSATIONAL and ROUTINE!), and unlikely to substantiate the notability of the subject. Some reviews of her musical output, an award, some kind of evidence of charitable or political activity - these are the kind of things that're likely to save this article. FOARP (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Orphan, all OR, no sources, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Her active career was during the 2000s, so availability of online sources will naturally be limited. There's this half-hour talk show interview on Channel 9 from 2017[33], but it's not really the type of in-depth third-party coverage that would satisfy the GNG either. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article needs expand and improve her works from Thai text. @Paul 012: could you help? 103.200.134.149 (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a currently unsourced BLP article. One musical release is almost never enough to make someone notable. Most "one hit wonders" have multiple such releases, although there are a few totally true one hit wonders. However nothing here suggests her release was in any way, shape or form a hit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Tech Consults

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Note - I already removed the first sentence of the lead; given that it was a two-sentence stub, that leaves the article looking pretty strange, but the first sentence was a direct COPYVIO from the company's profile on an on-line directory. I considered rewording, but since I can find zero significant coverage in reliable sources (just directory listings and the odd rehashed press release), I didn't see the point in rewording prior to nominating here. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability. Sources (or potential sources) appear to be either non-independent or small, niche publications. Nothing amounts to the significant coverage needed per WP:CORPDEPTH. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP as already noted above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP and probable UPE creation. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:55, 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 speedy delete per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pavan (actor)

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

Non-notable apart from breakthrough role in Bhanta. It fails WP:NACTOR. Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep reference is added.Wikiboots (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Wikiboots (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Comment He is an actor and Enterprenuer. He featured in Some of the major International newspapers.
Newspaper Source:
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37] Wikiboots (talk)

@Wikiboots: You can't !vote twice per AfD policy so I've changed your second !vote to "Comment". GSS (talk|c|em) 15:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NACTOR. Also, please note this article was previously deleted under various titles.

More at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar/Archive. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt The majority of the sources added by the article creator were for another person Pawan Kumar (director). None of the other sources meet the neccessary standard to show notability. The subject has acted in one film at the age of 10 which is not notable. The web site that he created squad doesn't seem to exist yet. This is way way way WP:TOOSOON. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - possibly SOCK: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar, if so, then speedy delete. --MrClog (talk) 23:49, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrie Nelson

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

The second source gives the only non-stats details about this racing driver, but makes it clear he didn't compete in major circuits. The third reference states he won one race in the 1979 Australian Touring Car Championship, but nothing else, so WP:SPORTSPERSON is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely 18 starts at Bathurst 1000 counts. Got 7th one year, don't know how the rest went [38]. Looking in two books Greenhalgh, David; Thomas B. Floyd; Bill Tuckey (2000). Australia's Greatest Motor Race 1960-1999. Chevron Publishing Group. ISBN 1-875221-12-3. and Noonan, Aaron (2018). Holden At Bathurst - The Cars: 1963-2017. AN1 Media Pty. Ltd. would tell you more. Coverage also in [39]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 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 06:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any significant independent coverage of him. I found some passing mentions and results, but no significant coverage. I'm not sure if he meets any criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT. He hasn't competed in any series mentioned in those criteria but it's not an all encompassing list. I would lean towards delete since he fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I definitely don't see the coverage necessary to meet the GNG. My search found him in results, lists of competitors, and some passing mentions--none of which is enough to show notability. Don't know why just competing at the Bathurst 1000 would show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final. Commenting seems to have picked up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme. Bookscale (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as The Bathurst 1000 is "Widely regarded as the pinnacle of motorsport in Australia," according to it's article, alternatively he could be merged there Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Kull Warrior

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

I am the creator of this article, but I did it a really long time ago back when Wikipedia was still where you put fictional cruft about things. Currently it doesn't meet notability standards at all and is better off in Wikia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This content looks good, but I agree that it might not necessarily need to be a stand alone article. Would you be OK if I instead tried to see if I could condensate and summarize this content and include it in the Stargate article? Michepman (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I am concerned about is that all the info comes from sources that are WP:PRIMARY and even if merged would not be notable in secondary sources. I'll leave it up to the discussion though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent point. I'll admit that I haven't reviewed the sources in detail yet, and it may be that all we need is to simply mention that the Kull Warriors exist in the Stargate universe if these characters are significant and relevant enough in the broader context of the show to warrant such a mention. Thoughts? Michepman (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I really, really want to !vote keep here but I do have WP:NOR concerns due to the WP:PRIMARY issue. I'd like to see as much of this retained as possible though! --Goobergunch|? 04:55, 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 06:37, 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 Rhondda Urban District Council. MBisanz ^talk 22:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1896 Ystradyfodwg Urban District Council

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

The results of a local election in Wales, 1896. Fails a combination of WP:NOT and WP:N. We are not an electoral database. We do not carry pure tables of election results without any discussion or context of who the parties, candidates, issues, etc. were. And coverage of such topics is very unlikely to exist for a 19th century local election. Sandstein 11:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been two previous AfDs on urban/rural district council elections, which resulted in merge and merge. Number 5 7 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge also 1894 Ystradyfodwg Urban District Council election. A UDC was a very low level of local government, often consisting of a single parish that happened to be very populous. It is axiomatic that within WP that local politicians are NN, unless for notable for other reasons. It may be legitimate to have a table showing political party representation in the article on the UDC itself. The particular election we are discussing involved the re-election of most of the candidates unopposed. Quite apart from the wider issue as to such e3lection articles generally, this one is about a thoroughly NN election. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rhondda Urban District Council. There is a good source for the information. Ultimately, it would be good to have a political history of all these councils but there's no need for separate articles for each election now. Cavrdg (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rhondda Urban District Council. Not notable enough for a standalone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 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 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 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 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jepson School of Leadership Studies

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

Insufficient evidence of notability (notability is not inherited so merely being a school at a notable institution does not make this constituent organization also notable) ElKevbo (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E. Claiborne Robins School of Business

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

Insufficient evidence of notability (notability is not inherited so merely being a school at a notable institution does not make this constituent organization also notable) ElKevbo (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Richardson

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

No claim of notability. Nothing to indicate WP:MILPEOPLE is met. MB 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MB 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recorded subject position and station but subject has not done anything to meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:MILPEOPLE to merit a page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awful name to BEFORE. There is a playwright with the same name ([40]) that might be notable. During WWII an individual with the same name was the manager of NBC London ([41]) and sent reporters to D-Day - and might be notable. There is another D-Day sailor - who served on the Canadian HMCS Bayfield whose diary was used in a book ([42]) - who is probably not notable. Having found all these other Stans, I can't quite see why our Stan would be notable from the description in the article and I've been unable to locate sources establishing notability. Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Afraid I'm not seeing any notability at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:MB or someone else - Where is this page? Is this page in article space or in draft space? There seems to be some edit conflict, and it seems to have been nominated in both spaces. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I procedurally closed MFD:Draft:Stan Richardson because this was better attended.
Technically, Draft:Stan Richardson needs to go to WP:RFD instead for deletion since it's now a redirect. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't go to RfD. If this AfD results in "delete", the redirect goes per WP:CSD#G8. If this AfD does not result in "delete", the redirect can stay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know... ^{I am not very funny..} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if in article space. Does not satisfy GNG or military notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible sources found:

~~https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/06/06/nbc-radio-reporter-who-witnessed-d-day-told-world-what-he-saw/?utm_term=.b5e18aea2947~~ "NBC London manager Stan Richardson" different person same name, mentioned co-incidentally in relation to the same d-day.

https://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/people/littlehampton-d-day-veteran-99-to-unveil-commemorative-plaque-at-75th-anniversary-event-1-8955798 "99-year-old D-Day veteran Stan Richardson". Good source.

~~Leaning keep~~ due to unlisted sources being about to be easily found. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some about other people... E.g. WaPo which you link to has a passing mention of "NBC London manager Stan Richardson" - not our subject. I found at least 3 different people with this name with coverage in WW2.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am counting one good source for notability. Where there is one, it is worth scratching deeper for another ... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But what is his notability? Just a Royal Navy petty officer and later a mid-level business executive. What possible notability guideline does he meet? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like just the one, a newspaper story on the family friends Probus club surprise party, the cardboard cut out of his 16-year-old self making a good photo for the paper. Not enough for an article. Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the relevant notability guideline. Fails GNG, because the purported source s for notability do not hold up:one is a tribute to a local person in a local paper, and the other is about a different individual . DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above the subject does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reference and not seeing any notability at all. Best - Blake44 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim to notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:25, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The John Reed Club (band)

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

DePRODed by creator. Concern was: Fails WP:NMUSIC.
A plethora of sources that are neither mainstream press nor reliable, or bearing only fleeting mentions does not add up to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 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. kingboyk (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Maximilian de Gaynesford

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

I am unsure of this person's notability, a cursory Google search brings up nothing, and all I the books I can find on Google Books is a few books where he's credited as a author, and some books that are just copies from Wikipedia. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that a major contributor to this article, @Phenomenologuy: seems to be Gaynesford himself. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant COI noticeboard discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that if his chair is an established one instead of a personal one then he qualifies under WP:NACADEMIC #5. However, I can't determine whether it is or not. If kept, the article should be renamed Maximilian de Gaynesford, which appears to be his common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite PEACOCK nature of page, book reviews on JSTOR establish notabliity. Some with, some without middle name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and per E.M.Gregory. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is tricky to figure out how the Wikipedia:privacy policy and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy should be applied here. There is an exemption in the former for this, but this is such an extreme outlier of a case that I think that an argument can be made for removal of the article and the edit history in the interests of the spirit of the privacy policy, even if the letter allows it. Uncle G (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not sure what you mean in regards to the articles you have linked. Do you think that you could elaborate further? TheAwesomeHwyh 01:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - My concerns about this have been resolved via some oversighting. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the person referred to in this article, which was created without my knowledge by someone unknown to me in or before 2005. Whether the original decision to include an article about me was correct, I happily leave to others. But if it helps make that decision, I can testify that the information in the body of the article is factually correct - I have checked and corrected it regularly over the years. The name itself, however, ("Robert Maximilian de Gaynesford") is misleading - I am known and publish as 'Maximilian de Gaynesford' - so if Wikipedia continues to keep an article about me, I would ask that this correction be made. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of help. Phenomenologuy (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment moved to bottom by —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable academic, and move to the more widely used Maximilian de Gaynesford when this AfD closes. —Kusma (t·c) 14:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is retained, this selection of the most notable academic articles and reviews discussing the work of its subject by others in the field could be included:

Here follows a pretty impressive list of academic reviews and other material. Drmies (talk)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Reviews of de Gaynesford John McDowell (2004)

by Alexander Baggatini and Marcus Willaschek in Philosophical Books Volume 47, Issue 3, July 2006, Pages 281-4^[1]
by Alexander Miller in Philosophical Quarterly Volume 55, Issue 221, 2005 Pages 667-9^[2]
by Arif Ahmed in Mind Volume 115, Issue 458, April 2006, Pages 403–409^[3]

Reviews of de Gaynesford Hilary Putnam (2006)

by George Engelbretson in History and Philosophy of Logic Volume 28, February 2007 Pages 101-2^[4]
by Robert C. Danisch in Metascience Volume 16, 2007 Pages 107–110 ^[5]

Reviews of de Gaynesford I: The Meaning of the First Person Term (2006)

by Stephen Williams in Times Literary Supplement April 2007^[6]
by Jose Luis Bermudez in Philosophical Review Volume 117, Number 4, November 2008, Pages 634-637^[7]
by Richard Vallée in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews November 2006^[8]
by Maria Alvarez in Philosophical Quarterly Volume 58, Issue 231, April 2008, Pages 372–374^[9]
by Daniel Morgan in Dialectica Volume 61, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 583-7^[10]

Reviews of de Gaynesford The Rift In The Lute: Attuning Poetry and Philosophy (2017)

by Richard Eldridge in The British Journal of Aesthetics Volume 59, Issue 2, April 2019, Pages 236–239^[11]
by Lowell Gallagher in SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900 vol. 58 no. 1, 2018, pp. 219-277^[12]

Articles in response to de Gaynesford on Poetry

by Christopher Mole The Performative Limits of Poetry in The British Journal of Aesthetics Volume 53, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 55–70^[13]

For biographical evidence on the subject, this data could be included:

Lincoln College Record 2001-2 reports de Gaynesford leaving Lincoln College Oxford in 2002^[14]
Leiter Reports: A Philosophical Blog reports de Gaynesford's move to the University of Reading from the College of William and Mary in 2006^[15]

References

Phenomenologuy (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable by our standards: He's got four books out and they've received a decent number of academic reviews, so he passes PROF. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GS cites [43] low, but as expected for philosophy. Book reviews routine but pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk).
- I am not sure that "routine" is really the right word. This is not pseudonymous reviewing from Amazon or similar, which would be routine. This is reviews by identifiable experts, some peers in the field. Richard Vallée is another philosophy professor, for just one example. Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By "routine" I mean that academic books from reputable sources are routinely reviewed in the scholarly literature. There is nothing special about being reviewed in this way. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 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 redirect to Amen (American band). RL0919 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slave (Amen album)

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

This article was boldly redirected, restored, redirected again, and restored again - instead of trying to redirect it a third time I'm bringing it to AfD as I agree with the redirecters it fails WP:ALBUM/WP:GNG. Done a before search and can only find database/directory listings of the album. Currently cited only to a primary source and a database. Willing to withdraw if other sources can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 02:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Amen (American band) I was the original redirector, as I didn't believe there were multiple reviews that passed the requirements of sig cov/independent/reliable, nor was any other criterion of WP:NBAND satisfied. Obviously it's possible some might exist, in which case great, but I think a redirect is appropriate. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some of the band's later works got pro reviews and the like, but this early album was largely unnoticed and can't get beyond the WP:EXIST standard, with nothing to be found beyond basic retail/streaming entries. I am voting to delete rather than redirect because the article title (a common word) is a vague search term, and this article has already been un-redirected too many times. If the ultimate decision here is to redirect, there should be some sort of protection to prevent yet another reversion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)

I generally feel that any album (proven to exist) should logically be redirected. You're right of course that it will need protection of some level (EC will probably suffice) but any closing admin can do that. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relister query - @Yunshui: - I was just wondering if there was a specific reason that you relisted this discussion, if only to make sure it was actually considered? Nosebagbear (talk)

It was pretty clear that there's no good reason to keep the page, but there isn't an obvious consensus here as to whether it should be redirected or just deleted outright - there are good arguments for both. Relisting allows for a bit more discussion as to which option is more appropriate; after all, it's not as though we're in a rush! Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: - that's fine, I just wanted to check that it was the delete/redirect disagreement as opposed to, say, rejecting one or more of the arguments made. Tah Nosebagbear (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amen (American band). I agree with Nosebagbear that any album should be redirected to the artist's main page as it could be a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lunatic fringe (term)

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

Completely a WP:DICDEF and non-notable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the page is deleted it'll leave a redlink at the dab page Lunatic fringe. How should that dab page be modified? Note: I'm the editor who created the page by moving material from the dab page. DexDor^(talk) 05:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. The DAB page will do fine without the pipe. We have many DAB pages on common words and phrases that need a disambig to point people to sundry songs, novels, rock bands, etc. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor: The link to it should be removed. The Wiktionary box on the dab page is sufficient, no changes need to be made to it otherwise._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge WP:DICDEF tells us to cover topics by their meaning not their spelling. This means we should combine this with other similar pages likes moonbat and wingnut. This could be a start on a glossary of American politics. Andrew D. (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't merge into an article that doesn't exist. Either way, once it does, surely someone can look in the dictionary and find the definition of lunatic fringe again without this page needing to exist._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Completely a WP:DICDEF and non-notable. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DICDEF. If it didn't have the disambiguator in the title it would make sense to redirect, but lunatic fringe already exists as a disambiguation page and I don't see much point in redirecting there (nobody's searching for it with "(term)"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:29, 30 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. kingboyk (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rapsittie Street Kids: Believe in Santa

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

As another editor mentioned on the talk page, this article was deleted after an AfD in early 2017, with the reason for nomination being "No reliable sources found. Only sources are a Wayback link, a 404, and a YouTube link. Special only aired once. No third party reviews found, only 128 unique Google hits and no relevant hits in Books." Concerns raised then do not appear to have been resolved. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Has received coverage and general notoriety for its poor quality:

Rabin's review is particularly in-depth, but none of these are truly just incidental or trivial. They all go in to some detail about the film, and multiple sources have called it one of the worst holiday specials in history, a strong sign of notability. It has also been reviewed by the Notalgia Critic. All of this combined with the unusually strong voice cast lend a strong weight that this is indeed a notable article - substantial coverage has, indeed, been met since the last deletion, which is not surprising given the film had remained lost for years and thus could not receive any new coverage until it had been found again and widely circulated. Toa Nidhiki05 01:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another source from Quest News. This is a school paper FWIW but I think it lends credence to the film's poor quality being notable. Toa Nidhiki05 01:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep the article, there was already a version made ages ago, but it never got verified simply because nobody thought to give it more than two sources. There are more than enough verified sources for this version. The Rabin review posted earlier might need some looking at, but the rest the sources listed checks out IMO. Zucat (talk)

Keep per above, sourcing is maybe not top-shelf but clearly substantial enough to suggest notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The AV Club, passes WP:GNG thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:43, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sagarmatha Secondary Boarding School

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

Not notable school. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per burden of proof . There's literally dozens of schools of this name; how else are we to verify anything is anything. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 20:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:ORG. Mccapra (talk) 04:23, 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.

[1] "Baggatini and Willaschek".

[2] "Miller".

[3] "Ahmed".

[4] "Engelbretson".

[5] "Danisch".

[6] "Williams".

[7] "Bermudez".

[8] "Vallee".

[9] "Alvarez".

[10] "Morgan".

[11] "Eldridge".

[12] "Gallagher".

[13] "Mole".

[14] "Lincoln Record" (PDF).

[15] "Leiter Reports".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]