Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Filelakeshoe (talk | contribs) at 22:31, 24 July 2019 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Hills Books (2nd nomination) (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< 23 July 25 July >

Purge server cache

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

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

Lost Hills Books

AfDs for this article:
Lost Hills Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails gng and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bruce Henricksen (where I have added some sources). This small press certainly published books by multiple writers, Poetry: "Tumbled Dry" by Charmaine Donovan, published by Lost Hills Books won a prize. (Book Awards announced at UMD; McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington [Washington]18 May 2012.) Also here [1]. I added 2 WP:RS about the publishing company to this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bruce Henricksen, which will add two more sources to that article, I think (plus more found by E.M.Gregory here). Then create a redirect from "Lost Hills Books" to Bruce Henricksen. It looks like Bruce Henricksen has possible notability (as author or editor or publisher or a combination), and that can be tested in a separate AfD anyway. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether or not the player meets nfooty is ultimately not relevant. Nfooty is a presumption of GNG. This has been challenged and no sources have been presented that come close to satisfying GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brown (footballer, born 1984)

Michael Brown (footballer, born 1984) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The Scottish 2nd tier did not become fully professional until 2013 when the Scottish Football League and Scottish Premier League merged to form the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL). Simione001 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Scottish second tier has always historically been considered fully-pro, meaning this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Says who? It is not listed - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Michael Brown played in the Irn-Bru Scottish Football League which consisted of a mixture of both professional and semi-professional clubs meaning the league is not fully professional. This is backed up by the first line of the Scottish Football League page article. Simione001 (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It's worth noting that the "Scottish Division One" was replaced by the Scottish Championship, which is on FPL. Division One was actually listed at FPL pre-Championship, as seen here. R96Skinner (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Michael Brown played in the Irn-Bru Scottish Football League which consisted of a mixture of both professional and semi-professional clubs meaning the league is not fully professional - the league as a whole had semi-pro and pro teams, but that does not mean that this applies to every division within it. FPL considers individual divisions in isolation (eg for Cyprus only Division One is considered fully pro, not Divisions Two and Three). If EFL League Two had semi-pro teams in it, we'd still consider the EFL Championship to be fully pro, even though they are both part of the EFL..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless someone can produce significant coverage in reliable sources, the discussion about whether and when Airdrie United was in a fully professional league is academic and irrelevant. All I see is routine transfer coverage and the like ([2]), which is insufficient sourcing upon which to build a biography of any kind. The article under discussion is 8 years out of date. Despite the opening (and, farcially, only) paragraph of the article, Michael Brown does not play for the Bonnyrigg White Eagles.[3] That's the atrophy that you get when you ignore the general notability guideline: a sea of flotsam and jetsam of out-of-date biographies that no-one cares about, except of course for the poor subjects about whom the biographies are written. It is irresponsible to argue that biographies like this should be kept without giving a moment's consideration to that institutional failure. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – even if he meets NFOOTY, there is no indication the article subject meets GNG. – Levivich 22:32, 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) 08:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Alexander (D.C. activist)

Leo Alexander (D.C. activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. Could not find much in terms of news coverage outside his unsuccessful mayoral campaign (lost in the primary) in the 2010 Washington, DC Mayoral Election. Maybe redirect to 2010 Washington, D.C. mayoral election? GPL93 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:21, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graphmatech

Graphmatech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article currently just an infobox and one sentence (which is a COPYVIO from the company's website) with no sources. I've searched for sources online, and found some rehashed press releases, blog posts, and routine mentions in business directories, but nothing that would satisfy CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP. GirthSummit (blether) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 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. Participation in this debate was rather poor and there also seem to be some misunderstandings (i.e., a "delete" !vote per someone who seemed to be arguing for "keep"). Therefore no prejudice to re-nomination in a month or so if better sourcing is not forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govt ENT Hospital

Govt ENT Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both sources mentioned in the article fail WP:ORGDEPTH - they discuss a lack of suregeons at the hospital, but not much in depth information about the hospital (year of founding, etc.). Same goes for the sources I could find when searching on Google. MrClog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: The hospital serves throat deceases, and also serves patents. These are really remarkable feats. I mean, how many other hospitals serve patents, or try to cure E/N/T problems of deceased people? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is pretty rudimentary. I'm not even sure if the name of the hospital is accurate. But it would be very surprising if a public hospital of this size was not notable, and there seems to be plenty of coverage of it in reputable sources. Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been able to find any WP:ORGDEPTH stuff. If the hospital really has a different name, that may explain it. --MrClog (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is almost impossible to find detailed coverage of any hospital. They are too complicated. It have to be pieced together over time. Rathfelder (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If there aren't sources meeting ORGDEPTH yet, then the article should be deleted and recreated once these sources exist. --MrClog (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consensus needed at this stage to decide an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 01:21, 1 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) 02:37, 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. Tone 14:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Boyd Roberts

Gary Boyd Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have searched the Googles (scholar, books, news), Proquest (Global Newsstream; The New York Times), and JSTOR. While Roberts has assembled and published various genealogies, and though these findings are occasionally picked up by the press, he himself does not meet notability. There is scant biographical information on him in this article, and so little of it is cited. In sum, he fails WP:GNG: ...a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a prolific book author (if one counts compiling a genealogy as a form of book authorship) only contributes towards notability if those books have published reviews, and I can't find any in this case. Nor is any other form of notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just deprodded so that this would get a closer look like what David Eppstein did. I thought there was a possibility that something might show up.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding published reviews: publishing a well-researched and well-sourced genealogy certainly does count as book authorship. Genealogical books are reviewed in genealogical journals such as the NEHGS Register, which Gary Boyd Roberts contributed to, or the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, or others. Most of these journals are not on JSTOR, but are well-respected within their field and often peer-reviewed. His close involvement with the NEHGS shows he is more than an amateur genealogist, but a respected researcher. He definitely appears to be notable within the field of genealogy. Notable enough for Wikipedia? I am not sure. There do not appear to be many genealogists who bother to edit Wikipedia. They are too busy doing genealogy. Tea and crumpets (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC) What I mean is, there does not appear to be much consensus on Wikipedia regarding what is notable within the field of genealogy. Tea and crumpets (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have actual references to in-depth and reliably published book reviews of his books? Preferably ones that not published by an organization for which he was director of publications. It would also be helpful if they could be viewed online but that's not a requirement. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one review for Ancestors of American Presidents in the NEHGS Register that was not written by him, but by the main editor, Henry B. Hoff, although Roberts was also a consulting editor at the time, and the book was published by the same organization. It is in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Volume 163, page 75. I have access at [4], and it looks like those with access to university libraries should be able to find it on EBSCO. Still looking for other reviews. Tea and crumpets (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like there is a review of The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States in a Canadian journal, Reference & Research Book News, volume 19, issue 2, starting on page 25. I can't figure out how to access. Another review in Arkansas Family Historian, Fall 2018, Vol. 56 Issue 3, p45-46 at EBSCO. Tea and crumpets (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found it [edit: the Reference & Research Book News review]. The entry reads: 'Roberts (New England Historic Genealogical Society) outlines the "best" royal descendants--from the most recent king--of 600-plus immigrants to the American colonies or the United States from the 17th century to the present, who were notable themselves or left descendants notable in American history. The immigrants fall into three categories: colonial notables; noted 19th- and 20th- century figures, or their wives, parents, or grandparents; and colonial immigrants who left sizable, often huge, progenies. The text includes a subject index and guide, alphabetized by title or surname, followed by the listings grouped into three sections: descendants of late medieval and early modern kings, high medieval kings, and early medieval kings.' Is this a review? If so, it's light/not critical.----DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is not a critical review. The NEHGR review (not written by Roberts, but by another editor, Henry B. Hoff) gives a touch of criticism: "The only disappointing aspect of the book is that the ancestry of more recent presidents is taken back only a certain number of generations, not necessarily to the immigrants." The review is three paragraphs long, and mainly describes the format of the book. It touches a little bit on the research, saying "This book, an updated version of the compiler's previous books and articles on the ancestry of American presidents, represents the current state of scholarship on the subject...There are many major additions and corrections from previous accounts." Still, not a very thorough review. Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would imagine any published biographical information would be limited to promotional "about the author" or "about the speaker" materials in books he published and conference materials. I don't have any in my hand at the moment. Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was some discussion of what constitutes a reliable source in the world of genealogical publications in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Dylan Goodwin, where it was suggested that a genealogical journal that is national in reach and has a firm editorial process might be considered reliable, but journals of non-national genealogical societies probably are not (Arkansas Family Historian would be an example, and probably also The New England Historical and Genealogical Register). Reference & Research Book News is perhaps more likely to be reliable, having wider scope. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I would consider The New England Historical and Genealogical Register to be national in scope because most genealogists in the United States trace their lineages to New England. But it's debatable. National Genealogical Society Quarterly is a better example of a national in scope, peer-reviewed genealogical journal with critical book reviews, but their free searchable index is down right now so I am unable to locate any articles that discuss Roberts. Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean by "such society"? Genealogical? New England? Historical? Do you have a source for NEGHS being the "premier such society"? The NEGHS article was in violation of copyright, promotional, and, for my lack of a better term, bloated until recently; that's the sort of phrasing the article used, which I haven't found elsewhere but might be able to add back if there is an independent source. Most of the news articles I found (on the genealogies of presidents and royalty, some of which wouldn't have been Boyd's own work) stemmed from several press releases. If you have something more than that, I would be interested to see it. Thanks! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A few thoughts:
1. The article was started by what appears to be a primarily single-purpose account (Gary Boyd Roberts and genealogy edits). It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Gary Boyd Roberts, or someone associated with the New England Historic Genealogical Society, is the author, but it may just be a fan of his work. Regardless, the article is better now than it was before.
2. Some of Roberts' works are highly regarded within the genealogy community, but most of the press on his books and articles come from within the organization that publishes them/and/or that he works for. So far, I believe we have one source that reviews one of his works (that I pasted above). NEGHS is a large organization. Perhaps the genealogy community does not write scholarly reviews of other works as much as other disciplines do.
3. The biographical information has not been verified despite work done by several researchers here. No one has unearthed an interview or feature piece on him by any media. Should the biographical information be removed if it cannot be verified by those looking into improving the article now?
4. Wikipedia:NACADEMIC #6 could work, but I don't know whether "Senior Research Scholar" is indeed the highest position at NEGHS.
Thanks, all. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have only just started searching for sources on this person, but a quick Google News search shows that he is cited by news reports in many languages (eg Spanish, German, Indonesian, Czech, Hungarian, Italian, Arabic, etc) about the genealogical research he has done showing links between various well-known people (Clinton and Madonna, Elvis Presley and Jimmy Carter, Obama and Bush, that one of President Bush's ancestors was a slave trader, and of course that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are related). These articles go back to 2008, in the current google news (ie not archived). So I am thinking that he would meet WP:AUTHOR #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."
I have also just done a quick search on Newspapers.com, and there are 744 results! I will need to spend time to cull the event listings, the occasions when he was a pall-bearer, etc - but I do see reviews of his books and reports about presentations he gave at conferences, in papers such as The Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. I think it's likely that he will also meet WP:AUTHOR #3. I will try to add sources and any information in them to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tea and crumpets: Thanks for all your comments. I see one of the databases is MasterFile Complete; I have MasterFile Premier, which is not so aptly named as it does not contain the article you cited. It sounds like Gary Boyd Roberts may meet notability based on his media coverage after all. And I too question whether NEGHS is not national... New England colonies were settled so early that it now has a wide national reach. And if not going back to immigrant generation is the main criticism in that one review, I'm actually satisfied that Boyd Roberts did not rely extensively upon commonly known research in that book (as Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's combined ancestry is). Not that that matters for our purpose here.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RebeccaGreen: When I searched for him on the open internet, I mostly got upcycled press releases picked up by the popular media due to celebrity connections, and nothing much to show his peers/successors took his work further, unless we count the book for which he wrote an introduction or foreword. Hmm, I had not checked Newspapers.com. On looking at it now, I see he does have much more coverage there than in ProQuest newspapers! Thank you for offering to improve the article with what you've found. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that Who's Who is considered kind of fishy for notability I'm not sure if receiving their Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award (as Roberts did earlier this year) would qualify for WP:PROF#C2. However, the Who's Who website does describe it as very prestigious. [5] IntoThinAir (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have started adding references to the article - so far reviews of two publications, and sources that verify his early life, education and career. I'll try to do more tomorrow. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per WP:AUTHOR "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Good work by Bearian and RebeccaGreen Lightburst (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A dearth of reviews by independent reliable sources, certainly not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. No specific in-depth biographical coverage of him either, so does not pass WP:BIO. The "Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award" is a well-known vanity gimmick award by a vanity press. The presence of this award here is a major red flag. Nsk92 (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsk92: I don't see any mention of an "Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award" in the article about Gary Boyd Roberts under consideration here. Did you perhaps intend that as a vote on another AfD? RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Comment three paragraphs above mine, by IntoThinAir, with timestamp 22:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC). The Nelson "award", with a link, is mentioned there. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I think I could defend either a relist, or a close of NC, but I'm going to take it on faith that the sources added during this discussion are sufficient. If somebody still feels there's insufficient sourcing, feel free to bring this back to AfD for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Witten

Matt Witten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly source biography on a living person and the person has questionable notability. Sociable Song (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:12, 24 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? 21:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:13, 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dickinson Valley

Dickinson Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability and poorly sourced (one primary source). Sociable Song (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 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 08:33, 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 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that was a secondary source. I've cited the New Zealand Gazette for you now. Compared to the amount of effort for Falkie Atoll (AfD discussion), being able to rapidly lay one's hands on a source with the official name and location is a joy. ☺ Absent a suitable merger location, which would probably be a table of these valleys with notes such as whom they are named after, I think that we should keep this, remembering the remit to incorporate a gazeteer and giving a slight pass to an officially named place in Antartica, albeit with a view towards merger as I mentioned. No use of the administrator deletion tool is necessary, though. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does not seem to be anything that makes this valley notable outside being one of the dry valley's and therefore would seem to be more appropriately incorporated into the article. NealeFamily (talk) 04:13, 10 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) 20:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carter (real estate)

Carter (real estate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not appear to be a notable company, either from the references I see in the article or from my own search. Almost all the references are to the company's own web site, and those that are not are either directories or mentions in routine news stories not focusing on the company.

It was previously speedily deleted under G11, as being solely promotional. It's still pretty promotional in tone, but that's not the issue for which I nominate it; my nomination is based on lack of notability. TJRC (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Masum Reza📞 20:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely self-serving and promotional - fails WP:SPIP. While the article has 49 references, the vast majority are primary sources from the company's website. Of the others, most are based on company announcements or run-of-the-mill inclusions in listings. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia page should not be deleted. Further digging into research provides a plethora of notable works from around the country, particularly in Atlanta. The initial research the user above did could have been confused because the company has changed its name multiple times. None of the links are self-referential to the company's website anymore. I think the article should remain online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimsr (talk • contribs) 19:56, 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 weight of PAG argument is pretty solidly in favor deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Say No More (Les Dudek album)

Say No More (Les Dudek album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced and not notable. Sociable Song (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep: this album did make the Billboard 200, although it peaked at a relatively lowly number 107 on June 25, 1977 [6] (this is the following week's Billboard where it is placed at number 166, but you can see the previous week's peak of 107 next to it). It also received a brief review in Billboard on its release in April 1977 [7], and there is another review in the October 2007 issue of Record Collector when the album was reissued along with Dudek's self-titled debut [8]. I know a low chart position and two short reviews may not be enough to convince all editors, but Dudek was by no means a nobody – he got his major label deal with Columbia Records after becoming one of the most highly-respected blues-rock session guitarists of the early 1970s, playing with the Allman Brothers Band (he plays on "Jessica", one of the group's best known tracks), and on Silk Degrees by Boz Scaggs and Fly Like an Eagle by the Steve Miller Band, two of the biggest-selling albums of the year prior to this record coming out, as well as being in the touring band for both artists. Given his pedigree, and the fact his debut album certainly did receive some reviews in the music press, I'm inclined to think there might well be more coverage for this album in the music press of the time. The articles for all of Dudek's albums are currently in an abysmal state, but I have a suspicion that all would pass WP:NALBUM if the sources can be found. Richard3120 (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:12, 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 09:03, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 08:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rollable display

Rollable display (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too much overlap with flexible display? ViperSnake151  Talk  19:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • snow close So if we've produced enough interest in a topic to end up with two articles on it, the answer is to delete them?
Any discussion of merging them doesn't need AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 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 redirect to Maía (singer). (non-admin closure) MarginalCost (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El Baile de los Sueños

El Baile de los Sueños (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability unmet. Sociable Song (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: having lived in Colombia for ten years, I'd say it's unlikely. There's no history of music (or film) reviews in newspapers or music magazines, it's just not something the country is interested in, and they simply don't understand why anyone would be interested in someone else's (even a respected professional writer's) opinion of an album. Articles about singers or their music tend to be light puff pieces, as evidenced by the El Tiempo sources in the article for Maia herself. The only dedicated music magazine in the country is Shock, now an entirely online magazine, and it doesn't do music reviews. This is always a problem with sourcing albums outside of North America and Europe, because other countries just don't have the history of music magazines and critical writing and reviews. The only way I would say this would pass WP:NALBUM is if someone finds evidence of a certification, but as Colombia's certifying body doesn't even have a website, never mind a searchable database, it will be tough. Richard3120 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anitha Karthikeyan

Anitha Karthikeyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Allatra IPM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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., [9]). 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)

Ultimate Warrior (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Belle 9ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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


JK! Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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:
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

Nitanshi Goel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

K. S. Srinivas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

SwanFest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

Hardee High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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

Jan Howard Finder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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

The Boys in the Band (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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. [13] (Hollywood Reporter), [14] (Yahoo), [15] (Vulture), [16](Entertainment Weekly), [17] (Deadline), [18] (NY Post), [19] (LA Magazine), [20] (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

Allway Gardens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)

Jubilee Garden (Hong Kong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Vinod Guruvayoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Icon Savings Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

AfDs for this article:
Reyna I. Aburto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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. 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Sarika Sehgal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Jai Gurudev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Journal of Oregon Ornithology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
  • 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

Devika Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Dan Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

House of Petrushko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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
  1. there are no foot notes so I do not know what this is supposed to support.
  2. it is nothing more than a list of names
  3. it does not cite its own sources for whatever it is supposed to be showing
  4. 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

HDR Play Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Seed cycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Bro Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
  • 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]
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

Tina Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Andre Reynolds II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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

Latifa Mammadova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

DZMR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)

The Tiger's Apprentice (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Jon Sorenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 [25] [26]. 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

Gareth Arnold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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. Hugsyrup 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Risingbd.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

Marxist–Leninist Party, USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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 ([28]), 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:

  1. A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger,
  2. A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization,
  3. A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products,
  4. An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization,
  5. A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product,
  6. An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies).
  • 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]
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" [29] 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]
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]
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]
I think these are the sources that merit consideration for notability:
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

Nvidia Tesla Personal Supercomputer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Milagros Schmoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)

F. Harmon Weight (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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]
  • 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

Eugene Mackaben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

AfDs for this article:
Odette Henriette Jacqmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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 [34], Kom Chad Luek [35], [36], Manager Daily [37], Khao Sod [38], Daily News (Thailand) [39]. Even Gossip Star is a published magazine. [40] --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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Tim Tech Consults (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)

Pavan (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
@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]
More at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N R Pavan Kumar/Archive. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:12, 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

Lawrie Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 [46]. 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 [47]. 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Kull Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

1896 Ystradyfodwg Urban District Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 57 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Binish Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

Kenneth Estenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Amr Awadallah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Jepson School of Leadership Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

E. Claiborne Robins School of Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

Stan Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 ([48]) that might be notable. During WWII an individual with the same name was the manager of NBC London ([49]) 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 ([50]) - 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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)

The John Reed Club (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

Robert Maximilian de Gaynesford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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. TheAwesomeHwyh 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. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the relevant COI noticeboard discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:25, 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]
  • 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

  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".
Phenomenologuy (talk) 10:29, 26 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)

Slave (Amen album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)

Lunatic fringe (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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

AfDs for this article:
Rapsittie Street Kids: Believe in Santa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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:
  1. "Believe" it: "Santa" sucks! from TV barn
  2. Exploiting the Archives Week: This Looks Terrible! Rapsittie Street Kids: Believe in Santa from film critic Nathan Rabin
  3. We dare you to watch the worst Christmas special of all time from KTEM
  4. 7 completely bizarre christmas specials you probably forgot existed from Rotten Tomatoes
  5. Spread some holiday fear with this horrific 2002 computer-animated Christmas special from The A.V. Club
  • 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]

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)

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

Sagarmatha Secondary Boarding School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_July_24&oldid=907734486"