Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 July	28 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK #3 applies. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 10:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Azoi

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

Azoi was a Medical gadget startup that eventually failed. The trademark is no longer owned so I don't believe there should be a page under this name, maybe the name of the article should just be changed, i would suggest to change it to 'Wello' the name of the one product that they nearly brought to production. Jobordan (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 27 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? 14:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Just because the company is no longer trading doesn't mean we don't have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~CHANGE NAME~~ "Just because the company is no longer trading doesn't mean we don't have an article." Well, at least the name should be changed.Jobordan (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the change of name to their product would be a better thing, even if they no longer own the trademark, in some point of time they did, and so there's nothing bad about an encyclopedic article about that in my opinion.
- Also 'the company' and 'the product' are different topics, and if there's only one article for both, then at least a redirection should be done from one to another.
- On name change I'd prefer something like 'Azoi (company)', 'Azoi (startup)', 'Azoi (digital health)'
- As extra info, Wello was an app, the physical product was the Kito and it reached production.
- Neko Spectrus (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~CHANGE NAME~~ "Well, what were to happn if somebody buys the TM and decideds to make a page? i Believe there is a not-for-profit that is registered in the US under that name.Jobordan Jobordan (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jobordan ~~You cannot vote twice~~. Infact you cannot vote ~~three~~ (effectively) four times... Do you want to delete, or change the name of the article??????? If you want to change the name, WP:RM is the place, it shows you how to. By placing this at AfD, you are voting to delete the article. Nightfury 09:35, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rickard

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

Fails Notability for BLP and for creative professionals. Body of work is not widely know, is not widely critiqued, is not cited or awarded, and all mentions of the subject's involvement in the body of work are trivial mentions. Searches have failed to produce any interviews, citations, commentary, or any acceptable sources which are not trivial mentions. Additionally, the account which created the page appears to potentially be a conflict of interest account because the vast majority of edits are related to this article or projects referenced in this article. MrStrang3rthangs (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:08, 2 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sagarmatha Higher Secondary Boarding School

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

Not notable school. ~SS49~ {talk} 10:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't verify the rankings claim. Both links are same lists and the list has Sagarmatha schools, just not this one. The third source is a primary source, by all appearances. The building on that (ad) one looks big! I don't know what policies apply, but there is no source to keep. Can we keep an article without references? Or maybe someone could try and find a source to verify it's a real school that's as big as in that photo? Otherwise, I'm inclined to think Delete, until we have RS's to maintain it with. I found this in edusanjal; unfortunately it's a cut and paste of that ad-looking third source that's in the article already. I don't know if it's enough to verify that the school is real. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The school exists, but there is a lack of adequate references to support the article. There is no notability established through the references that appear as they are primary or just listings. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Farcaş

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

The footballer never played in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:53, 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. For both notability and copyright reasons, as either point would suffice to justify deletion here. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hélène de Kuegelgen

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

no apparent notability .the references refer to her only incidentally in connection with her partner. DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge, her partner. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a presumptive copyright violation; the author was blocked for an extensive history of copyright infringement. MER-C 15:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dora Ohlfsen-Bagge her partner was notable, can't see a hook here and notability isn't inherited. W C M_email 18:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Delete with compelling evidence of copyright violation, delete per Uncle G. W C M_email 10:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to presume that it is a copyright violation. It is one. I compared the initial revision of the article to the sources cited. It copies them word for word, and the sources are not in the public domain nor free content. We really should not be merging non-free content into other Wikipedia articles. Or indeed copying and pasting it, as a substitute for actual writing, in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when an article opens with a claim of "probably committed suicide" and that is the most notable thing about the person the person is not really notable. It some times is discouraging how many articles on non-notable people Wikipedia is plagued with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gamble (socialite)

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

It is possible for socialites to be notable , but it takes more than this. None of the references are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a presumptive copyright violation; the author was blocked for an extensive history of copyright infringement. MER-C 15:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as being very poorly written, and lacking significant coverage on his own, assuming good faith. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For either notability or copyright reasons, as the arguments here justify a deletion for either reason. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Sellers Coxe Paul

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

I cannot figure out what she is supposed to be notable for. All of the references refer to her in the primary context of other people. WP is not Who's Who. DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find a bit more information (she divorced her second husband), but all the newspaper coverage is short reports of weddings, deaths, divorce, etc. There is no significant coverage, no profiles of her, in Newspapers.com, Ebsco, Jstor or Google that I can find. The portrait of her is already in the article about Ida Waugh. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a presumptive copyright violation; the author was blocked for an extensive history of copyright infringement. MER-C 15:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see a hook for a claim of notability per WP:GNG. W C M_email 18:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can explain why she should have an article here – the actions and achievements that make her notable by our standards. The present article consists of routine coverage of ordinary events in an ordinary life, flavoured with extensive off-topic digressions ("Her father was chairman of the Fairmount Park Commission" etc). Please note that if the article is kept, all text added by the article creator will need to be presumptively removed – please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Elisa.rolle. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no WP:Copyright violation here, so forget that, but there is no WP:Notability either. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:42, 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. After discarding a bunch of socks, consensus clearly favours deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lekhraj Bugaliya

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

I do not see why the person is notable. The article was moved multiple times out of the draft by the creator and moved back by other users. Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am striking comments from three accounts all of which are unambiguously block-evading sockpuppets. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete This person hasn’t achieved any coverage in WP:RS and no proper sources are even cited here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability. —Harshil169 (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article have right details with sources. This is Rajasthan local person who work to teach poor student and have Education YouTube channel for iit jee and neet prepration. I think wikipedia allow this article on main page WP:NPOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chota92 (talk • contribs)

Note that the creator of the article has been indefblocked for spam, and the above user is likely their sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No coverage whatsoever from WP:RS; all sources primary or poorly-written user-submitted list articles, that's about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Pure promo. Fails WP:GNG. COI editor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person passes WP:NPOL..... Caller92 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep passes WP:GNG. b4sky005 (talk) 13:26, 01 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— b4sky005 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 2 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Wells

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC, as per several WP:BEFORE source searches. Sources found are affiliated (non-independent) and primary. I located this Deseret morning news 2006 church almanac source, but from the snippet view, it appears to be a rather standard directory listing of sorts, one that may not consist of significant coverage. Otherwise, not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. Some news articles such as this are out there that provide passing mentions, but fall far short of being considerable as significant, in-depth of coverage about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC and WP:RS. All sources are either a passing mention or someone else. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:16, 3 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. The previous AfD raised issues around what is considered "independent" sourcing for notability, but did not reach consensus. This AfD raises similar issues, but there is neither sufficient participation nor sufficient agreement to resolve them. RL0919 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Octaviano Tenorio

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

Several WP:BEFORE source searches are providing no evidence of this subject meeting WP:BASIC. Searches are providing affiliated (non-independent) sources and primary sources, but finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I supported keeping this article in the first AfD three years ago. I explained my reasoning in great detail at that time, and feel the same way today. I encourage people to read that debate and the closing statement carefully before coming to a decision. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. p b p 13:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple indepdent reliable sources, such as the Salt Lake Tribune article, the section from Hearts Turned to the Fathers and others. Those pushing for deletion are using a far too broad criteria to exclude far too many sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very little is actually said about Octaviano Tenorio in the Salt Lake Tribune article, though. It is mostly about ARTURO Tenorio, who found himself in hot water a few years back. The only mention of him is: His brother, Octaviano Tenorio, was a member of the LDS church's First Quorum of the Seventy. The Salt Lake Tribune article fails the WP:NOTABILITY's mandate for significant coverage. p b p 13:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Salt Lake Tribune article only has a one-sentence mention of the subject. This certainly is not significant coverage, and does not qualify notability. Passing mentions are not significant coverage. This is not an overly broad interpretation of notability guidelines to exclude sources, it is an accurate and correct application of guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in the Tribune does in fact add a smidgen of notability; the article mentions him because he held a major position in the Church, and names the position, so it is an independent source on the fact that he held that position. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, though, is that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. The subject may be an important person in the LDS church, but passing mentions do not qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Note that footnote 6, an article in the academic journal BYU Studies Quarterly, see the discussion at RS Noticeboard entitled "Are university presses legally affiliated with the Univ. independent of the parent ORG of the University?" This scholarly journal is WP:INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock Rollidan (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kida Burns

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

No evidence of significant notability. The only accurate sourced statement which indicates notability is the award of "America's Favorite Dancer". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment I will come back to this one. Seems like this subject was a winner of a television dance show competition. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject easily passes WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor $250,000 and first place on the national television show: So You Think You Can Dance: The Next Generation. I also see enough non-trivial coverage of the subject and the subject has appeared in national television productions such as a the BET awards and the Ellen DeGeneres Show and others. The subject may also pass WP:ARTIST as a creative professional dancer. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers. The subject's notability is not temporary. WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, being the winner of a "reality" show, even one nominally based on talent, is not even evidence of a significant award. But, there may still be non-trivial coverage in other venues. I am certain the subject doesn't qualify for the slightly greater requirement for appearing in 2002#Births, which is why I noticed ~~her~~ him. For example, the first Survivor winner has the additional notability of being a tax protester (or at least, tax evader). But I won't complain if the closer disagrees. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is covered in multiple reliable sources and he won a nationally televised dance competition which seems a notable award (it does have it's own article here), thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm inclined to think that the award is significant enough (it doesn't have to be the nobel-equivalent), and the subject's also received significant coverage elsewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:17, 3 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. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 17:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bijan Zamani

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

No RS, nothing significant can be found to create a page, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories have been edited and corrected. Most of the sources are reliable sources such as MehrNews, TehranTimes, Jamejam, EverybodyWiki, Tabnak, ILNA and AsrIran and all of these sources have their own wikipedia page and are well known popular news agency websites. Blake44 (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of sources mentioned by you, are not reliable, unfortunately!Hispring (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interviews do not add to notability. Also, most physicians need to be notable as academics, which he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I have added more reliable and non-interview sources from Mehr News Agency, Tehran Times, Iran_(newspaper), Iranian Labour News Agency, Crunchbase, Jam-e Jam (newspaper) and the physician part being removed, is it possible for you to change your vote? Best - Blake44 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no doubt that he is a notable entrepreneur. There are many articles with reliable sources that talk about him other than the interviews, about the physician part I agree with John Pack Lambert so I think he should be mentioned as Iranian entrepreneur only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.73.122 (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC) .[reply]

N.B. This user is using a confirmed and now blocked open proxy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John Pack Lambert. Most likely a WP:PROMO article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I have added more reliable and non-interview non-promotional sources from Mehr News Agency, Tehran Times, Iran_(newspaper), Iranian Labour News Agency, Crunchbase, Jam-e Jam (newspaper)... is it possible for you to change your vote? I also believe I can work on this and make it better. Best - Blake44 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment The article was poorly referenced and poorly formatted therefor I edited the article with new references and details. The writer of this article probably used the interviews to write the Wikipedia page and didn't know the Wikipedia should NOT be based on interviews. According to my research Bijan Zamani has been in notable and in the news for his work for the last 12 years, I found news archives from him that goes back to 2007. Please note that due to U.S. sanctions and relations many American websites do not cover the work of Iranian entrepreneurs but that doesn’t make this article less important. Many of the sources in this article are older and more reliable for Iranians than sources like “The New York Times”, “Huffington Post”, “Business Insider” or “Entrepreneur Magazine” or other sources that Wikipedia article creators’ usually reference to for entrepreneurs. I found many sources in Persian language but I tried to gather English coverage as much as possible for this article. By removing this article you are removing true and notable information. I have set aside the interviews at the end and all the links in the references that are connected to the main article purpose are all according to Wikipedia’s guideline and it’s based on notability and importance of the person’s work. Also to comment on users point of view dear John Pack Lambert the article is not about him being a physician at all and I think it was the article creators mistake at first, the category of the article was set for Iranian_People then you changed it to Iranian_Phycisians and his career or awards was never about his profession as physician. I see that the original writer removed the physician part which is the right move and I’m not arguing in that part. Dear Meeanaya according to Wikipedia page that you reference to WP:GNG and RS which I believe you mean Reliable Sources please note that all the references and details are more than “Reliable”. All the sources are secondary sources and the Interview links has been moved and now are not connected to the main article if needed the interview links can be removed or moved to External Links. In my point of view this article has more notability and reliable sources than many other entrepreneurs that have an article in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s List of Entrepreneurs (21th century). Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake44 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can Comment as many times as you want but you only have one vote in an AfD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are so unique and famous personality I have no problems with my biography page.Alexkia1399 (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Blocked sock. Bakazaka (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have serious concerns that this is a possible WP:SOCK situation, as I did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Bahram (another article created by Alexkia1399). Outside the creator's keep vote, the other two are by a now-blocked web proxy and an account that has made only one edit outside Bijan Zamani and this deletion discussion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reply to GPL93, I don't think it is wise to start editing or voting for Wikipedia pages without fully understanding the rules, guidelines, possible outcomes and the environment. That's why I'm reading, studying and monitoring not just this article but 2 other to see according to guideline how the editors and administrators work. I'm not connected to the creator or other editors. I don't think me and the creator have the same English skills and as I see his/her comments and writing, I don't think he/she should be even credited for creating this article as I did all the research and editing. I would like to suggest GPL93 to stay on the subject and comment about the reason(s) you feel this article's information and source doesn't meet the notability guidelines in Wikipedia and please do not violate Wikipedia's rules such as "address the arguments, not the person making them". I'm sorry Alexkia1399 and GPL93 if I'm being straight forward, I just want to be clear, professional and respectful to Wikipedia's rules. Best, Blake44 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see potential in several Wikipedia articles like this one and I will work on them if they get accepted and make them more complete and useful. Best, Blake44 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements. He is in multiple mainstream sources and won national awards which clearly meets WP:GNG. According to its [1][2][3] sources half the population of his country is using his services. Easily passes notability guidelines. The "Delete" opinions were based on interviews but now the references have changed and interviews not used I don't see any reason to delete this article and I don't see any new comments about this matter from negative voters after recent improvements either. - Jacobz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just googled the name of his "startup" in Persian: "Mihanpezashk" which is a copy of Zocdoc. Just found some minor results on non notable news websites:

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

And here is his name (Bijan Zamani) in Persian:

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

So I doun't think that the subject is notable enough, fails WP:GNG.Farhikht (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Farhikht please look at the articles references the sources are from Mehr News Agency, Tehran Times, Iran_(newspaper), Iranian Labour News Agency, Crunchbase, Jam-e Jam (newspaper) which they are not "non notable" sources, please check the sources and references in the article and if it's possible change your vote? I believe I can make this article much better and work on it Best - Blake44 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In reply to Farhikht your vote must be voided and you are wrong please look at the references of the article. Editors should not vote in Wikipedia if they don't have the necessary knowledge. The first reference is from MehrNews here is their Wikipedia Mehr News Agency the second source is from Tehran times here is their Wikipedia Tehran Times the third source is from IranDaily here is their Wikipedia page Iran_(newspaper) and many other from Iranian Labour News Agency, Crunchbase, Jam-e Jam (newspaper) ... if these are not notable news website then what are? , Best - Blake44 (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Report Note to administrators: I have serious concerns that this is a possible WP:VANDAL situation. Looks like users Farhikht and GPL93 have issues with the creator Alexkia1399 as they both voted on his/hers other creation and instantly down voted this article too without any reason and the other user Farhikht says no notable news website which is a total lie as I explained and showed on the previous comment. I also might not like the creator (Alexkia1399)'s activity but It is not right to take it to this article as these are not connected to each other at all !, Best - Blake44 (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but how exactly is expressing concerns about sock puppetry after notice votes from a proxy (immediately blocked by Malcolmxl5) and newly created accounts that have only contributed to articles and the AfDs involving the same editor Vandalism? Farhikht made very salient points but now his vote must be voided because you don’t like it?? Originally I believed that you and Alexkia1399 we’re not connected after your initial response, but this statement leads me to think that May not be the truth. GPL93 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "per John Pack Lambert. Most likely a WP:PROMO article. Best" here is your first comment and the second one about sock puppetry was related to the creator's other article that you commented on 18:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC) and right after on 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC) you commented on this article and Farhikht did the exact same thing, I'm not arguing on whether the creator made any mistakes or not and I don't care but this is a different article and I worked on it and added notable and high profile sources in reply to your first comment. Voting and judgement of the entire article as an editor based on another users activity on another article is not very professional and I call it Vandalism as you are deliberately intending to obstruct the article based on creator's activity not the article itself. You are saying you believe that me and the creator are not connected but before I opened this dispute it looked like you believed it and your comments made it look like that. Farhikht did not make a very salient point at all not because I don't like it because based on TRUE EVIDENCE like showing exact sources with their notability in my comment showing what he is saying is a total lie and should be voided. I showed and linked the sources and I asked are these high profile and notable sources or not ? I'm asking you too, read my last comment and look at the sources, are these "non notable news websites"? I will write here too are these "non notable news websites" Mehr News Agency, Tehran Times, Iran_(newspaper), Iranian Labour News Agency, Crunchbase, Jam-e Jam (newspaper)? , Best - Blake44 (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like me to expand on my vote, even after reviewing the new sources you have added I do not see notability. Firstoff, Crunchbase is an online database so it doesn't really contribute to notability. Also being mentioned in listicles, while better than nothing, also aren't great because the coverage is not generally in depth or significant (WP:SIGCOV) for one specific subject and interviews, while a source for adding content onto an article, generally don't establish notability either. Overall, I do not see the sustained and in-depth coverage necessary for an WP:GNG pass. I also stand by my earlier assessment of a WP:PROMO violation as well given the tone of the article. I hope that I have better explained my vote. GPL93 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This , along with every page created by this editor [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Alexkia1399\, appears to violate WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to thank everyone for their comments, I see the creator's account has been blocked, I didn't know about him/her activity, I was just trying to contribute and help with this article which I still think has great potential if it gets accepted, if not I will try to make this page with better sources and details myself. Blake44 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the situation I would like the sources evaluated through Template:Source assess table. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per request I created the source assess table:

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/147573/The-digital-health-startup-that-is-improving-healthcare	The source is a major Iranian news media Mehr_News_Agency	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/438058/Successful-Iranian-Entrepreneurs-You-Should-Know-About	The source is a major Iranian news media Tehran_Times	~ The article mentions the subject in a list	~ Partial
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/436733/Interview-with-MihanPezeshk-founder-Dr-Bijan-Zamani	The source is a major Iranian news media Tehran_Times	The article mentions the subject in details	✔ Yes
https://irannewsdaily.com/2019/07/why-startups-fail-and-what-you-can-learn-from-them/	The source is a major Iranian news media	The article discusses the subject directly	✔ Yes
https://www.asriran.com/fa/news/676753	The source is a major Iranian news media (Page in Persian Wikipedia added on left side)	~ The article mentions the subject briefly	~ Partial
https://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/906349	The source is a major Iranian news media (Page in Persian Wikipedia added on left side)	The article discusses the subject directly	✔ Yes
http://www.iran-daily.com/News/255778.html	The source is a major Iranian government agency Iran_(newspaper)	The article discusses the subject directly	✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20080414173309/http://www.webna.ir/news/?id=62034100	The source is the Iranian Website News Agency website (Archived)	~ The article discusses the subject briefly	~ Partial
http://jamejamonline.ir/online/3771896778105568423/	The source is a major Iranian news agency Jam-e Jam (newspaper)	The article discusses the subject directly	✔ Yes
https://www.ilna.ir/Section-medical-10/770899-interview-with-young-entreprenuer-bijan-zamani	The source is a major Iranian news agency Iranian Labour News Agency	The article discusses the subject directly	✔ Yes
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/146299/Dr-Bijan-Zamani-talks-about-an-easier-way-to-find-a-doctor	The source is a major Iranian news agency Mehr News Agency	The article discusses the subject directly	✔ Yes
https://click.ir/1398/04/23/best-digital-healthcare-startups-in-iran/	The source is a major Iranian technology magazine (Alexa Rank: 365)	~ The article discusses the subject in a list	~ Partial
https://arga-mag.com/360861	The source is a major Iranian technology magazine (Alexa Rank: 43)	~ The article discusses the subject briefly	~ Partial
https://www.alodoctor.com/articles/details/48485	The source is a major Iranian health magazine (Alexa Rank: 281)	The article discusses the subject directly	✔ Yes
https://profile.iwmf.ir/website/mihanpezeshk.com	The official website of Iranian Web & Mobile Festival		? Unknown
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/bijan-zamani	Crunchbase As explained in their Wikipedia page members can also add information but the ranking and rating are done by moderators only.		? Unknown
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/mihanpezeshk#section-related-hubs	Crunchbase As explained in their Wikipedia page members can also add information but the ranking and rating are done by moderators only.		? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

There are other sources which I didn't know how to write them in this table. If anyone knows and thinks this needs editing please complete this table. If the article gets accepted I'm sure I can find more details and reliable sources. Best - Blake44 (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just found more sources and can make this article much better if there is still time to work on this as today is decision time from an administrator. Best - Blake44 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blake44-just as some advice. Interviews and reports of interviews are considered primary sources and therefore don't count towards WP:GNG. Also, some of these sources go into depth more on the subject of his startup or startup culture in general than Zamani himself. It's possible that his company is more of a candidate for notability than he is. I know sourcing and where notability lies can be confusing, especially when you start out editing. Also, I don't think that you need to rush to find sources by the end of the day. I'd be shocked if this discussion isn't relisted to be discussed for another week to generate a clearer consensus, so you have more time than you think-the week long period of discussion is not a hard deadline. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice GPL93 it's very helpful as I'm still learning, although I have a question specially in new sources I found out that what if the person (Zamani) has more than one startup and in a news agency or magazine website they talk about him and his other works, should each company or business have a separate page? or instead have this page and relate other companies or startups to this page? Because as I researched entrepreneur's in List_of_entrepreneurs this page many of them (example: Jeremy_Levitt, Phiwa_Nkambule, David_Karp) have one or maybe two works related to them but the businesses doesn't have a page or if they have the founder has the main page. can you give me a little insight about this as you said it's confusing. Best - Blake44 (talk) 18:49, 18 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) 14:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the wp:WP:BLPRS is not satisfied with used sources.Also as WP:BLP1E say, Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.Hispring (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reply to Hispring, the article is not about an event, your vote is voided. What you are saying does not apply to this article at all. Please read WP:BLP1E the conditions and rules carefully. Best - Blake44 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blake44 You do not get to unilaterally void Hispring or any other editors vote. We only void the votes made by sockpuppets. Secondly, WP:BLP1E applies to biographical articles about persons who's media coverage is limited to a short period of time, usually confined to someone being famous to one event. His main argument was about the sourcing if you actually read his statement. Please do not accuse other's of not following Wikipedia policy if you do not yourself fully understand per WP:CIR. Finally, at this time I'm going to ask that you disclose if you have any personal or professional connection to Bijan Zamani per WP:COI. GPL93 (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noted that the article has been speedy deleted two times in Persian Wikipedia in July 2019 by two separate admins.Farhikht (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reply to GPL93, I might be a little furious but it's due to discrimination that I see in Wikipedia and No, I don't have any personal or professional connection to Bijan Zamani at all. I have many information about entrepreneurs and startups all around the world as I follow their news every single day. I have read every single article and their references in Wikipedia’s List of entrepreneurs (21th century) as I mentioned before along with many other biographical pages in Wikipedia and I can name more than 20 pages that have less reference and notability than this article. Secondly, this article has 19 references and 10 of them are not related to any news website they are either magazines or festival websites and I’m sure WP:BLP1E does not apply to this article at all. Finally, I have sent messages to editors in this article to seek their advice and opinion on how to improve articles on Wikipedia but no one answered, but when it comes to negative voting and negative comments everyone just rush into it. Maybe I don’t understand the Wikipedia’s community so I don’t think my contributions are helpful therefor as my last contribution to this article I added 2 new references and made a source assess table as well. Personally I’d be shocked to see this page deleted. – Best

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/147878/Biography-of-Bijan-Zamani	The source is a major Iranian news media Mehr News Agency	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/438396/Bijan-Zamani-s-Success-Story-as-an-Entrepreneur	The source is a major Iranian news media Tehran Times	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Blake44 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC):[reply]

Comment: Both of them published today. Again two major Iranian media Tehran Times and Mehr News. By the way, Tehran Times article is somehow a copy of this one.Farhikht (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but how? this link that you provided the article is about why startups fail and startups in general then briefly talks about Bijan Zamani but this new article is about Bijan Zamani's life and success... how are they the same? I think you have a personal problem with Bijan Zamani or me maybe because I questioned your vote that was not related to this article. I don't want to be dragged into this game and will not answer to your replies. Just let an administrator make a decision. Blake44 (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New source added with assess table:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://en.isna.ir/news/98043116474/Meet-the-first-Iranian-doctor-programmer		The source is a major Iranian news agency Iranian Students News Agency	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep: Seems notable to me. Just need a little more editing Zinzoo01 (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)— Zinzoo01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as obvious WP:PROMO. This has all the hallmarks of a promotional package in which a press release is pushed to news agencies, interviews are offered, and online reputation/PR firms try to get a subject into Wikipedia. The cited sources are interviews and churnalism. As for the sourcing, well, somehow we've got this far without mentioning that Mehr News Agency and Tehran Times are the same company, which is odd. I'm sure the closing admin will give the socks and SPAs exactly the amount of consideration they deserve. Bakazaka (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Absurd and suspicious comment by Bakazaka. The article has more than enough in-depth coverage necessary for an WP:GNG pass from reliable sources. Out of 22 sources only 2 are interviews and they were discussed before on top of the page. No promotion is visible in the article if it is please remove the promotional part. The news organization that you talk about is almost a 70 year old organization with very high reputation. News agencies in the world will NOT publish a press release or promotional news without mentioning that this is a promotional article or sponsored content or not written by our editors. Mehr News Agency and Tehran Times are from the same company and so is many other news organizations in the world, as an example Postmedia Network own more than 30 newspapers and magazines and many other companies that have the same situation in the US, UK. Plus this article has many other sources such as Iran_(newspaper) which is the official daily newspaper of the government of Iran. Jam-e Jam (newspaper) is a daily newspaper published in Iran owned by the National Iranian Radio and Television. Iranian Labour News Agency, Iranian Students News Agency and many others. I'm sure the closing admin will consider the facts and sources only and not the suspicious game that some editors have started here. Please consider that this article has sources from the most reliable sources in Iran and has enough in-depth coverage necessary for an WP:GNG pass. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 … - Best Blake44 (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the argument? That the sources are not "notable"? According to Wikipedia these are “NOTABLE” List of Iranian news agencies in Iran and accordingly this article has at least 6 references from these notable sources. There is no denying that the sources in this article are very notable, reliable and independent. Other sources also have their own Wikipedia page and they are the most reliable notable sources in Iran. Some editors talked about interviews and without even reading the article itself and the comments that were made in this page and with closed eyes they made FALSE comments. On 14 July 2019 this issue has been resolved before relisting. At first yes, the original creator used interviews as main source then on 14 July 2019 I edited the whole reference and sources with non-interview sources such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 … Any editor is most welcome to remove the only 1 or 2 interview links that were listed as they have no influence in the article at all. In my evaluation according to Wikipedia rules and according to Wikipedia lists of notable sources this article has enough in-depth coverage necessary for an WP:GNG and probably will have a lot more sources and coverage in future. - Best Blake44 (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. As I can see the above table, its a well sourced article and its sources are reliable. The subject looks notable, too.Forest90 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A vast majority of comments are written against an outright deletion. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hairy Maclary Scattercat

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

No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails GNG and NBOOK. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just been having a look at the Hairy Maclary article, which has very few references, and a lot of redlinked titles (and has been like that since at least 2013). I'm thinking that any references that can be found for individual books would most usefully be added to Hairy Maclary, to support his notability as a character, and to verify information about him. Perhaps a short summary of each book could be added there too, and the redlinks removed unless there is clear evidence of notability for individual titles. I haven't yet found any reviews of this particular book, but I have found it listed in a Canadian Library Journal list of books about bullies .... I will come back and !vote when I've checked more, but I'm thinking either Merge to Hairy Maclary (though there are no independent sources anyway ...) or Delete. I don't think a redirect would be useful for this title, given that a search would easily find the main article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap; no reason not to have one, and people may well search for the exact title rather than the series. But I agree that it may be a better approach to curate the series article well, rather than trying to sustain meagre articles for individual books. (Dropped a couple of possible sources there) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ I can find coverage of this book in School Library Journal and Publisher's Weekly but I agree with Elmidae that redirects are cheap and it's better to have one well done article than several poor ones. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the reviews mentioned here, Cool's sourcing of a New Zealand award gives this book enough individual notability to warrant Keep rather than my previous redirect (really merge and redirect). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ("Meeow, rowr, mew", "yes mitskie, i know Scarface Claw is one of your kitty heroes, as is The Slinkster, but that doesn't mean that every book that includes him is notable", "Rowwrrr!", "okay, okay i will try to show the nice wikieditors that this book is notable...."), according to WorldCat this book is in over 900 libraries and has gone thru multiple editions (the 1st being 1985, the latest being 2011?), and has been published thruout the world ie. NZ, OZ, USA, England, so is a well known and popular book (in addition, its storyline is the basis for Hairy Maclary, Hide and Seek: A Lift the Flap Book more editions and holdings). It is the basis of an episode of a tv series - see here, the series of books are bestsellers, having sold 5 million, no i dont have sources about how many copies this book has sold to date but would expect this to be a bestseller (this shows it selling almost 100th by May 2004 is that enough?), illustrations from this book were part of an exhibition held at National Library of New Zealand Gallery - see here, in addition to the reviews mentioned by Barkeep49 above (although i dont see a review from PW on this specific title, please confirm) and the Canadian Library Journal listing (thanks RebeccaGreen), there is a short review here (but really, what more needs to be said:)) by Books for Keeps, and here is a review about the flapbook mentioned above (probably not suitable as a reference?), it also won the 1986 New Zealand Children's Book Awards Picture Book of the Year, so to summarise: heaps of copies/multiple editions held by libraries worldwide, part of a tv series, bestseller, book illustrations part of an exhibition, multiple reviews (2 or 3?), a national book award winner (oh, and includes one of mitskie's kitty heroes:)), so i reckon rather than a "delete" or "merge" this can be a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, I did not find the New Zealand award. That does change my thinking about it which I will note in a moment. The PW evidence I can find is from March 31, 2003 which is about the reprint but quotes the original review leading me to believe there was a review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a lot of Hairy Maclary titles have received awards/are bestsellers so in addition to expanding that silly dog's (mitskie's words, not mine) article, they could also have standalone articles, if only i could get my the cat to type.... Coolabahapple (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you, Coolabahapple! I had not found the Picture Book of the Year award - I've now added a link in that article to this book's article. With the reviews and award, this should be a keep - will you add the info, or shall I have a go? I notice that two of the other red-linked Hairy McLary titles in the Hairy Maclary article won the Picture Book of the Year award too, so should also have articles rather than having their redlinks deleted ... It does look like a lot of the existing articles about Lynley Dodd's books and characters need more references, too. I guess they were created when not many were needed ... RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yep, thanks, that would be good, must sleep zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Coolabahapple (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, oh, and this shows the tv series was broadcast nationally and not just sent straight to video/dvd. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just expanded the article using a reasonably detailed ODT article that deals with Dodd's cats upon which many of her books are based. Schwede 66 08:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NBOOK. Sheldybett (talk) 01:10, 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 keep. Consensus that the additional reviews added demonstrate notability per NAUTHOR, (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Vanita

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

Non notable person. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Author. No major coverage in WP:RS and no secondary source is cited as reference even though this is WP:Bio. All the claims are dubious and vague; not backed by sources. Wiki is the only source and can be used as circular reporting.

This article should be removed as soon as possible because the Ruth Vanita was involved in the editing the Article. Violation of WP:COI

--Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Deleting this article makes no sense. Ruth Vanita is a major academic and researcher. Her books have been published by Penguin India, one of the most important publishers in India, and her works are regularly used in courses around the world. She is one of the leading scholars in the world on the history and sociology of queer people (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans) in South Asia, a part of the world that accounts for more than 15% of the world's population. She did not start this Wikipedia article: I did. I have never met her, and this article was not started as any kind of promotion. It was started precisely because she is a major figure in an important area of research and teaching. I'm not sure whether she has contributed to it. If she has, those portions can be edited. Interlingua 14:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Interlingua: let’s accept that she’s major scholar and notable person who should have page on Wikipedia but why not a single secondary source has been cited in the page to support her notability? If someone is being taught in studies then it doesn’t mean she should have Wikipedia page. —Harshil169 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just look at the contributions of @Ruth vanita: in which she is adding details about herself and her colleague Saleem. Clear violation of WP:COI and this page should be removed or should be started from scratch. --Harshil169 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is obviously notable given independent sources that are easily found by doing Google, Google scholar, JSTOR and news searches. Article could have been improved before nom as per WP:BEFORE. She is not only widely published and reviewed, she is a full professor and the director of the South & SE Asian Studies Department at the University where she teaches. She has received grants & fellowships from the American Philosophical Society (the oldest learned society in the US), Fulbright Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, and others. Netherzone (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Main concern is conflict of interest(NPOV) and verifiability is too. Ruth Vanita herself is a contributor in the editing article and adding details about her books which are not published yet and that too without any proper citation. Whole article was written on the base of one reference and that too is not reliable. I tried to improve the article but so much details and that too about her parents are added in the article which isn’t even publicly available. Obviously, her associate is editing article on her. According to me, she’s not notable scholar who received multiple coverages and interviews in media to have Wikipedia page. If you think article should be improved then we can work together but no unsourced information about her should be tolerated as it violates WP:BIO —Harshil169 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her work does seem to be reviewed in various scholarly journals, and additionally she is described as prominent in other RS and cited in more. Seems to be a notable academic. I agree that the article's poorly written, but that's hopefully fixable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: You can cite those RS here if you think she has received enough coverage and her article should be kept. And another main concern is she herself was editing her article and adding details about her upcoming books. Obviously, violation of WP:SPAM --Harshil169 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is sufficiently prominent; article should be rewritten however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevindongyt (talk • contribs)

Sign when you're commenting on important issue. Cite reliable sources to prove that she is prominent. --Harshil169 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some book reviews, enough I think to pass WP:AUTHOR. As nominated the article needed cleanup but that's not what AfD is for. And Harshil169: Please see WP:BLUDGEON. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this policy. Thanks for bringing attention of me. --Harshil169 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not policy; merely advice. Anyway, you're welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of coverage and reviews of her books. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing brought by David Eppstein]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR as demonstrated by the reviews included by Eppstein. PROMO can be managed through editing. I placed COI banners on the talkpage. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR with room to spare. As edited, it is not overly promotional at the moment. The remaining biographical claims are dry stuff that can be sorted out through ordinary editing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What the....hell ? Harshil169 Shame nominator! what reason you nomination for MPs (member of parliament) and notable articles only?? You did many deletion reqs for notable persons with base on WP:IDONTLIKEIT! Shame on you. should be report this nominator to check user request.Burmese pokemon (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than shaming, try to stick on policy and debate on the issues. I already said that at time of nomination, only one reference and that too personal blog was cited as reference and Ruth Vanita was also contributor in article. Is this Wikipedia’s policy to write article? I didn’t did any crime to nominate this person’s article. Read WP:Civility before shaming on me. —Harshil 14:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR, and AfD isn't the place to fix problems with the article. PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 20:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy B. Lyman bibliography

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

Qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This article consists of a lengthy listing of non-notable magazine articles the subject authored. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This isn't a bibliography, it's a collection of external links pointing to one single magazine. Not a single piece of work from this author is notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rarely is it worth creating a seperate listing of a subjects works. However in this case, all that is needed is a mention that Amy Brown Lyman wrote many articles published in the Relief Society Magazine. Generally we restrict bibliographies to books and significant scholarly articles, neither of which any of these are, and almost never seperate them from the biography of the person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Amy B. who?" Biblographies are only appropriate for the sort of extremely well-known writers whose well-sourced pages are lengthy, who are the authors of many impactful works, and whose every work is significant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, one of my student workers created this page. There are not clear guidelines about bibliography pages. In the Bibliography guideline, it states "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists." It does not mention restricting those lists to books or scholarly articles. It also does not state that lists of published works should be restricted to "extremely well-known writers." The recommended structure on WikiProject Bibliographies encourages including URLs for works. As far as I can tell, there are no requirements that the works themselves be notable if the author passes notability criteria. That said, I can agree that the list is overly long. Would it resolve the issue to delete this page, but list some 10-15 of her articles on her main page? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rachel Helps (BYU). Notable articles can be listed on a writers page, but only when notability of those articles has been established, most commonly this is the case where a scholarly article has had a significant impact on a field of study, or where an article has been widely discussed in WP:SECONDARY, WP:RS publications. Exceedingly few articles meet these criteria. User:Johnpacklambert's comment above, "all that is needed is a mention that Amy Brown Lyman wrote many articles published in the Relief Society Magazine." is exactly on target.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- E.M.Gregory, is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline that states that only notable articles should be mentioned on a person's Wikipedia page? I've written many author pages where including a list of their works is standard (even if those works were not discussed in secondary sources). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is common to list all books published by reputable presses. And notable papers/articles are listed. But it is poor practice to list every article someone wrote, or to list articles at all unless there is sourcing to show that each listed article is significant. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to agree with you, but is there an actual Wikipedia policy or guideline to this effect? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Notability of bibliography articles czar 20:53, 3 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Fetzer Bates

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

Source searches are providing no evidence that this subject meets WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Searches are providing name checks and passing mentions, the latter of which are in primary sources. None of this establishes notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.~~ CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that she can be considered to meet WP:COMPOSER #1 "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." She has written two LDS children's hymns (though maybe they're not called that) which are, it seems, both well known and well loved within the church. We have many articles about hymnwriters, some of whom have written many hymns, some only one or two well-known ones - but "well-known" meaning within the church or denomination they were created for; only a very few are widely known. I have added references from independent secondary sources - the only one that is not independent, I believe, is the obituary in the Deseret News. So the issue of primary sources is addressed. I have also added some information from the sources I found. There is one long profile, some shorter articles and some sources that verify information. (I am not at all sure why this has been included in the list of "Fictional elements-related" deletion discussions.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this AfD from the Fictional elements deletion sorting page (diff) and struck its entry above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added during AfD carry her past WP:BASIC, WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur with above keep !votes. Sources added during the AfD carry this article past WP:BASIC. Rollidan (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The impact of her songs is hard to gage, but Book of Mormon Stories is a truly widely sung song. I may be a little biased here because my grandmother lives with Bates for several years in Salt Lake City, and I am good friends with Bates daughter, and was at her son-in-laws funeral. However the sourcing shows her being covered in multiple sources over a broad time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Kenya relations

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

Tagged for notability since 2016. The cited sources are three government press releases (upon the appointment of an ambassador, upon his presenting his credentials, and when one leader sent a congratulatory message to the other upon her re-election), and one 2012 article speculating that Kenya would buy US$8M worth of jute from Bangladesh "soon".

Relations are much the same as Bangladesh has with most countries: no state visits, no bilateral agreements, and negligible economic ties. The Atlas of Economic Complexity shows 2015 bilateral exports from Bangladesh at $9M (0.03% of total), and from Kenya at $11M (0.2% of total).[1][2]

Insufficient coverage in third party, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Possibly merge to Foreign relations of Kenya, although I don't see anything more than diplomatic boilerplate here. Worldbruce (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG based on these two sources: [3], [4]; both are third party reliable sources with indepth coverage discussing bilateral relations between Bangladesh and Kenya. The Kenyan FM has just concluded a visit to Bangladesh this year and signed agreements on education, science and technology as well as on initiating regular foreign office consultations. The national cricket teams of Bangladesh and Kenya have exchanged several bilateral tours, pointing out the extensive cultural relations between the two countries. --Zayeem ^(talk) 00:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm of the belief that all bi-lateral relations articles should be kept; per WP:XY there's no redirect target. As Kmzayeem notes, there's sufficient coverage here in any case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess, per above. Passes WP:GNG (shown above), and per WP:XY there's no redirect target. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:14, 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 merge to West Yorkshire Metro. Selective merge, as most commenters indicate that the sourcing is not good enough. The editors carrying out the merger may want to note Peter James's argument about redirect targets in mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TLC Travel

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

Non notable bus company, Found this but that's it, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Nothing turns out significant with a quick Google search, lack WP:RS, non-notable local bus company. Meeanaya (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What are the grounds are for speedy deletion? Simply doing a Google search is not a sufficient search to determine the notability of an article - most sources about bus information are likely to be offline too. Bookscale (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West Yorkshire Metro (the local transport brand) for the moment. Although the article lacks some sources, the article is written in an encyclopedic manner and actually contains some information about the company's bus operations. There are some sources about the bus company albeit limited (e.g. here). An example where an alternative to deletion (but without retaining a standalone page) is appropriate. Bookscale (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article TLC had won Bradford AccessBus contracts from West Yorkshire Metro .... but that's it .... so IMHO it seems pointless merging into essentially an unrelated brand ?, I have no objections to merging but only if it's being merged to related things which doesn't really seem to be the case here?. –Davey2010^Talk 14:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intention was that it was one of the companies contracting under the brand (similar to other deregulated transport contracts). Happy for a better suggestion if available? Bookscale (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article, it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean, your comment doesn't make sense? Bookscale (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the merger proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively (a couple of lines only) to West Yorkshire Metro, per Bookscale. Agree that the article is properly written, but it lacks evidence of notability, offered or to be found. As such, the amount of detail in current article would be excessive to port into the target article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of its services seem to be subsidised, and therefore probably contracts for West Yorkshire Metro (although wymetro.com doesn't specify whether this applies to all services on a route or only certain times or days). However, it is not part of West Yorkshire Metro, so a redirect would be misleading. Peter James (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Booksacale and Hobbes... Out of curiosity, aren't you meant to be retired Davey2010? Or have you caught the Wiki bug again! XD Nightfury 10:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not flaffing around with the above but I have no objections to merging - Admittedly I didn't quite get it but having read Peters rationale I think merging would be best perhaps. –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neverwinter Campaign Setting

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

No independent reliable sources available. The BEFORE search reveals this book (supplement) in PDF format, for sale on various websites, and one blog post. Page was previously a redirect twice [5], and [6] (redirect from merge), hence it appears an AfD is the correct solution. Fails GNG and NBOOK. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Neverwinter. BEFORE is intrinsically difficult because there are some references to the campaign setting of Neverwinter separate from the specific product called Neverwinter Campaign Setting. However, insofar as I can tell, there are no WP:RS outside of what is contained in the article and, except in cases of inherent notability, articles can almost never be sourced to a single source and still crest our requirements for WP:SIGCOV. That said, the content here might be useful at Neverwinter, though, it's unclear if even that article is safe from deletion based on its current state and without investigating further. Chetsford (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on BOZ's note, below, regarding the addition of new sources I've struck my redirect alt; the combination of the Applecline book and MTV News is enough to solidly warrant a merge. Some of the other sources I'm not as taken with (e.g. the GAMA page simply proves the campaign setting exists by including it in a list of publications nominated for an Origins Award) so can't convert to Keep but I do think Merge is acceptable. Chetsford (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draft~~ I've found a few sources (reviews on game sites such as Diehard Gamefan) but I don't have much time to fill in the article right now. I think if additional sources can be found and someone has time to flesh it out, then it should be kept. If it doesn't have enough sources to stand alone, then ~~Redirect~~ to Neverwinter. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, there are plenty of reviews for almost anything WotC publishes to meet WP:N. That said, I don't think every book should have its own article. This one probably less than almost any. Ideally we should probably have a list article just for the 4th edition campaign settings book. Redirect to Neverwinter for now I think is best. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found before the AFD closes, otherwise Draft per Sariel Xilo until such time as they can be found and the article put through AFC to restore it. BOZ (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the article has been expanded significantly earlier today. BOZ (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 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 18:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've updated it with the sources I could find so I don't think it needs to be moved into drafts anymore. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:08, 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 redirect to ABS-CBN. Any content worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBN Foundation

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

No acceptable independent secondary sources available for this topic. All but one source (found via BEFORE) are primary and produced by the organization. Fails WP:ORG, WP:N and WP:ORGCRITE. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete At best, a small mention (and yes, Filipino TV editors, I mean small) is justified in the main ABS-CBN article; all television networks have charitable foundations, and this article seems more of a promo for the network than a neutral article about a charity. Nate • (chatter) 18:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it's not independent of the TV network. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 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 18:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be a sensible option here. I'm sure the foundation is supporting some useful causes but I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and it does not seem to be notable in its own right. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections

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

WP:FUTURE Theoallen1 (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure speculation. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, what, precisely, is "speculative"? 2020 interference is already happening. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? — JFG ^talk 06:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JFG, says the reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources speculate on all sorts of things; we are not required to echo it all. — JFG ^talk 07:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JFG, the reliable sources are reporting on the heads of U.S. intelligence. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fine, U.S. intelligence agencies say something, Russians say otherwise, and the opposite is happening as well, with Russian intelligence agencies claiming that the U.S. has been interfering in their elections, and the U.S. denying it. Same with numerous other countries: these are run-of-the-mill geopolitical struggles and propaganda messaging. That deserves not more than a paragraph under the generic Foreign electoral intervention page. Why not just merge there until and unless there's more meat to the matter? — JFG ^talk 19:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JFG, because there's already enough "meat" for its own page. This is no "run-of-the-mill geopolitical struggle": that phrase is an oxymoron. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you don't believe that geopolitical struggle is a run-of-the-mill affair? Well, let's agree to disagree then.

— JFG ^talk 22:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not staring into a crystal ball to write about something that has already started. (To elaborate upon a reference already in the article, "They are doing it as we sit here. And they expect to do it during the next campaign" [7]. And it's not speculation on our part to report that Mueller expressed fears that hostile government interference in US elections, and political candidates failing to report it, may become “the new normal” [8].) XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that should be mentioned is the Senate Intelligence Committee report from the other day which includes recommendations for 2020 (some of them blacked out). XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say this before, but WP:FUTURE literally states, Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, which is the only kind of "speculation" that this page is doing. XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I knew someone was going to nominate this for deletion. As XOREaster, Robert Mueller, Christopher Wray, and Dan Coats have said, interference in the 2020 elections is already happening. I have more sources to incorporate into this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections: WP:FUTURE does not apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth echoing a point that @Jbhunley, among others, made in that previous discussion: For those of you who are not familiar with the US election process ... they are long drawn out affairs. Not the relatively short things you see in most Parliamentary Democracies like Australia or the UK. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are plenty of reliable sources about it.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination --SalmanZ (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The November 4, 2024 Presidential Election is blocked for 15 months and is currently a draft page. The 2018 page needs to be substantially reworked, or merged into the 2018 investigation timeline. The page should be moved to a draft until we see evidence of interference.Theoallen1 (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination counts as your !vote. This page is not the place to discuss improvements to the article on Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first four sources in the current version of the article, all specifically about Russian interference in the 2020 US elections, published in Reuters, The New York Times, Time, and NBC News, and another later source on the same topic from Newsweek, make a clear case for WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per XOR'easter, this is not "speculation" of the kind WP:CRYSTAL talks about: it is verifiable that these things have been claimed by notable authorities. It does not even appear to be a future event, in that the interference is supposedly happening right now. May merit a POV check but that's all. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until after the election, then create it and say how surprised we all were. Just kidding... Keep, obviously. E Eng 01:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV, much as we keep pages on major candidacies and ballot campaigns for upcoming elections.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fake news. People have been beating this "Russia bad America good" drum endlessly.80.111.42.123 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is, to put it mildly, not a deletion rationale based on Wikipedia policy. XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked as a sock of Claíomh Solais (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is specifically discussed in reliable sources. Robert Mueller's statement that this is occurring was extensively reported on. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - I wouldn't be opposed to recreation if more stuff comes out from reliable sources about interference in 2020. Right now, though, there's not enough, so I'm voting in favor of deletion. Jdcomix (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extensive significant coverage. Neutrality^talk 01:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has already been extensive significant coverage in a variety of independent reliable sources, and this is only going to increase in the next months and years. Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, it'll probably increase tomorrow. Such is life, these days. XOR'easter (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... Case in point [9][10]. XOR'easter (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether this is actually happening or we merely have political scaremongering (or in extremis even if this were a conspiracy theory) - enough WP:RSes (and notable US political figures) are discussing this - passing GNG. One could lament Wikipedia editors spending so much time on speculative future American political issues (and on this issue being rehashed over and over again - one could perhaps argue for a merge to a general Russian interference article (as opposed to having a separate one for each country/election year)) - however it does pass Wikipedia notability thresholds. Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A merged page would actually be a splendid idea. Too much of the same information and same context is being rehashed between those articles indeed. — JFG ^talk 22:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe anyone is suggesting deleting the content. However, there is need for a greater discussion and a common talk page for the Russian Interference articles.Theoallen1 (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the intent was not to have the content deleted, then a merge discussion should have been initiated, rather than an AFD. XOR'easter (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since 2016, alleged Russian interference has been discussed in every single election in the West - so some sort of merge (+discussion/referral in the main election article) could make sense (and our relevant pages look like intel assessment timelines). While merger can be an AfD outcome, in this case this is a multi-page merge (including more established pages than this one) into a non-existing combined page - which is a complex outcome for AfD (and probably should be discussed in a merger discussion published in the relevant wikiProjects).Icewhiz (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can think of multiple organizational schemes that would be at least defensible, and hashing out that kind of thing is not what AfD is suited for. XOR'easter (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only will this article be created, if it were deleted, the new RSs regarding this topic would be best suited going here now; as per previous "Keep" arguements. X1\ (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only this is already a significant subject and actually happening (as Mueller said), but this is going to be a lot bigger. Poor USA. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable and relevant subject for an article. Follow WP:PRESERVE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's creator had this in it [11] before anyone else edited the article: "President Donald Trump said that he would accept foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 United States presidential election". That is not what the referenced New York Times article said, and it is worded to mislead people. I changed it [12] to: "President Donald Trump said that he would accept information from other nations about his opponents in the 2020 United States presidential election." Any valid information about this can be found in Foreign electoral intervention no need for this article to exist. Dream Focus 05:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. What specifically did Russians do that we can write about in this article? Right now it's mostly speculation.

The Russian descriptor should be removed if an article like this is to stay.

"Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, believes that Russia and China will both attempt to influence the elections."

"In his Congressional testimony, Mueller stated that "many more countries" have developed disinformation campaigns based partly on the Russian model. Between January and late July 2017, Twitter had identified and shut down over 7,000 phony accounts created by Iranian influence operations." Blumpf (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blumpf, I was thinking of either moving this article to Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections, or splitting off the pieces on Iran and China to a different article. But that will have to wait until after the AFD closes.– Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu I support the creation of Iranian and Chinese interference articles, but I cannot support lumping all foreign interference in the 2020 elections. Russia is quite clearly the main actor, and I fear Iran and China may not have enough documentation for 2020 to deserve splitting the article with Russia. We already have Foreign electoral intervention anyway, which is where the less documented Iranian and Chinese interferences should belong in my opinion, until more RS coverage and development happen at least. --Pilaz (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has plenty of references on this subject, concerns about misleading information on/being added to this article can be mitigated by pagewatchers and possibly protecting the page, discusson about a possible merge to a catchall article can be made on the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Editors in favor of deleting have raised two main criticisms: #1 WP:FUTURE, on the grounds that this constitutes speculation (Theoallen1, JFG, Blumpf); #2 That the information is redundant to Foreign electoral intervention (Dream Focus). Let me address each separately. Argument #1 rebuttal: First, while per WP:FUTURE it is policy that Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions, WP:FUTURE also clearly states that Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. Moreover, WP:FUTURE states that 1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Given that the election is an expected future event and that Russian election interference is expected to continue in 2020 according to the intelligence community, WP:FUTURE would actually be argument to keep the article, and not delete it. But I dispute that WP:FUTURE applies here, like several other editors have done before me, on the grounds that Russian interference in the 2020 election is already happening. That's because the term election isn't strictly to be interpreted as only election day, but also as the campaigns that precede it, the nominations, and political processes that culminate in the election; in short, election stands for election cycle. The Russian interference in the 2016 United States election article can be a good illustration of this point. Let's now turn to examples which show that this event is not happening in the future, but as we speak. (1) When former FBI director and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, one of the foremost experts on Russian interference in the 2016 election, was asked by congressman Hurd at a hearing on July 25 at the House Intelligence Committee whether the 2016 interference was an isolated attempt by Russia or whether he found evidence that they would interfere again, Mueller stated under oath that "They're doing it as we sit here". [13] (see also 4:22). (2) FBI director Christopher Wray also stated on July 24 that "My view is until they stop they haven't been deterred enough", implying that the Russians had not stopped interfering. [14] Wray had previously stated on April 26 that disinformation by Russia has "pretty much continued unabated", stating that "That is not just an election-cycle threat. It is pretty much a 365-day-a-year threat." [15] (3) DNI director Dan Coats also listed political interference second in his list of threats while at a congressional at a January 29 hearing about worldwide threats, notably releasing a joint written threat assessment that reads "Russia's social media efforts will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities, and criticizing perceived anti-Russia politicians".[16] This multitude of examples highlights that national security experts believe that Russian interference in 2020 elections is underway. If Delete supporters still think that WP:FUTURE applies here, I believe that they will have to confront the fact that Russian interference in 2020 is near-certain based on the expertise of the national security and intelligence community, which fulfills the almost certain to take place WP:FUTURE standard. Argument #2 rebuttal: the claim that information present in the current article is a duplicate of what is found in Foreign electoral intervention can be invalidated by simply looking at the latter article - there is no mention of 2020, yet. That is because the article deals with foreign electoral intervention in multiple countries by multiple foreign entities over the course of over 150 years. This means that each interference gets a few lines of content and is later expanded upon in a dedicated article. One can see that the content found in the Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections is already at least triple the size of the portion allotted to each interference in the article. While a small heading for 2020 interference is surely welcome, it should not act as a substitute for the article here. A word of conclusion: this does not mean that the article is bulletproof in many ways - as other have pointed out, some material such as Iranian interference may be removed and NPOV should be checked given the development of the issue, but those are best addressed in the Talk page and not in the AfD. Hence, the clear answer to me: the article is a current event which passes WP:GNG, and even WP:FUTURE if it is not current as other have argued. --Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article, perhaps renamed to "Foreign interference" instead of just "Russian", would be the thing that a paragraph-sized subsection in Foreign electoral intervention would link to with the {{main}} template. XOR'easter (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections would fine, as the potential for more than just Russia has been raised by various US officials. X1\ (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this article as "Russian interference" and potentially having a catch-all too of "Foreign interference" with Chinese/Iranian/etc would likely be better. We need to get past the AfD before details. X1\ (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this decision is to keep, a controversial move discussion of this article to Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections is needed. Currently, this page is a redirect to the page Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections. This article is about foreign interference, not specifically about Russian interference.Theoallen1 (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pilaz. This is the subject of significant coverage and commentary in reliable sources. It's not in the future - Robert Mueller swore it's going on in July 2019. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per my !vote in the AfD for the earlier article this should be kept. Reporting on Russian (and other nations') interference in US elections is ongoing, both historical and in the upcoming 2020 elections. CRYSTAL does not apply here at all. The Democratic Primary campaign season is ongoing and "election" refers to the campaign season here in the US not simply to polling day.
I strongly disagree which the idea, above, of renaming this to "Foreign Interference" or any similar, diluted, title. The issue is the ongoing Russian operation to screw with the US elections. Other countries may hop on board but none other have been reported as having a significant, government sponsored policy of messing in Western elections for strategic purposes.
I am posting this as a "comment" rather than a "keep" since I was pinged here and would not have commented here otherwise. Jbh ^Talk 16:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not for renaming the article to "Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections"

Keep per Pilaz. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, because they're already using proxy troll farms to influence the election right here on Wikipedia; see, e.g. this vandalism from the wee hours of this morning. Bearian (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've already made use of your !vote on July 30. --Pilaz (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot! Bearian (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, it's too bad we can't write about Moldovan troll farms trying to edit Wikipedia until someone else writes about it first. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt Putin & Friends would love to see this page deleted, but there are citations documenting attempts to influence the next election. The subject is therefore notable. Zaathras (talk) 16:42, 3 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revathi Chowdary

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

non-notable actor. Fails WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unknown person. TheEditster (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable --Harshil169 (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is atrocious. The films do not appear to be notable, and nothing demonstrates her roles in them are significant, but since they are not notable that does not matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. Fails WP:GNG.--Nahal^(T) 10:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top Hat (company)

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 23:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? The article does cite some press release stuff but also several sources that do seem independent. Maybe some more critical coverage exists as well? I found this, which isn't much: [17] Haukur (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The company has some sources that are likely to pass WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:PROMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP. The page was created by a contributor paid by the company but this fact should not affect the article's worthiness either way. An admission above by a Keep !voter that nothing much can be found in support of subject's notability is telling. -The Gnome (talk) 06:51, 9 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. Consensus appears to be that there is no evidence of notability here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Bolyard

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBASEBALL. Sure there are tons of sources that mention him, but none rise above WP:ROUTINE John from Idegon (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and the sources don't indicate that he was particularly notable as either a player or manager in the minors. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems unlikely that a person who played for 10+ seasons and then managed for 5 more seasons wasn't profiled enough times to pass the very low deletion bar that's been set here for baseball pages. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have any sources to show significant coverage?Sandals1 (talk)

delete Fails to meet the GNG or WP:NBASEBALL. He never made it higher than AA and spent 7 years in levels below A that no longer exist. His entire managing career was in levels B and C. Doing something for a long time, especially with no outstanding achievements, does not show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never did anything notable, fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trackside (record producer duo)

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

A non-notable recording producer team. Sources consist only of passing (one word) mentions. No significant coverage is available. Fails WP:N and WP:NMUSIC. The topic is merely mentioned in articles that cover recording artists. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Several song and album articles linked to here – wbm1058 (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simply a matter of WP:TOOSOON, I think, since they worked on a charting song, which kind of arguably meets the qualifications of WP:MUSICBIO. I just have trouble thinking it passes GNG as well right now, although again, charting song is great. JamieWhat (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - of all the references, only one is about the duo and that is a one-paragraph article from a WP:NONENG questionable source (WP:QUESTIONABLE, without a reputation for fact-checking or editorial oversight) - all other mentions in other sources are in passing (WP:TRIVIALMENTION) - does not meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSICBIO; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:01, 17 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. If people want to change the inclusion criteria for state lawmakers, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) would be the right place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Roy Cousins, Sr.

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

The article was thinly sourced at best, apparently conflating two or more individuals with similar names into one topic. Additional attempts to seek out external sources were very unsuccessful. In addition, this individual falls far short of the general notability guideline as well as the "Politicians and Judges" guideline, which only covers leaders who have held international, national, or state/province-wide office or major local leaders who have received significant press coverage. The only coverage this guy got was a blurb in the local government website indicating when he died -- hardly notable. Michepman (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm confused. Are you saying that he was not a member of the Texas Senate? If he was, then he is presumed notable (and there will almost certainly be coverage in contemporary newspapers). RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was definitely a member of the Texas Senate, and is therefore presumed notable per WP:NPOL. More sources can be added. The name of the article is wrong - the father was William Roy Cousins, and the son was Wilfred Roy Cousins (if the son doesn't already have an article, he should). It would have been simpler to move Wilfred Roy Cousins, Sr. to William Roy Cousins and create Wilfred Roy Cousins than to bring this to AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify, this was previously discussed and stated by Magnolia677 on the talk page of [Beaumont,TX] the region for which Cousins served as a locally elected lawmaker. It is clear from the discussion that this person is not notable and that this article was created solely as a fork in an effort to cram these names into that article despite falling short of notability and having insufficient reliable sources in existence. They even failed to create one of the articles, because no sources could be submitted. Michepman (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was a member of the Texas Senate, so he's presumed notable. See [18]. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State senate is an office that passes WP:NPOL #1 right on its face. That criterion is not limited to the state governor, but most certainly does include members of the state legislature. Yes, this needs some referencing improvement, but for a person who held office beginning over 100 years ago and ending in 1934, the bulk of the sourcing will be in news archiving databases rather than out on the Googles — but we don't judge the includability of a person like this solely on the state of sourcing already present in the article, we judge it on the state of sourcing available in the world, and the simple fact is that no state legislator in the history of US state legislators has ever gone completely and totally uncovered by any reliable sources. Further, the discussion the nominator alludes to does not "establish" that Cousins is non-notable; it merely questions the utility of a city's list of notable people always listing everybody who ever represented it in the state legislature when there's also a category for people from the same city already. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I of course agree that it would be unfair to judge the article solely by the sources already within the article. What I was trying to say above (and I apologize if it was unclearly worded previously) was that there are no sources available, other than a brief passing mention, even when going through archival materials such as what can thus be found on places like newspapers.com. It's not at all clear that the information present in the article is even referring to the same person as the subject, since as noted above the person who created this article even used the wrong first name of the alleged senator and also combined materials from both the subject and his erstwhile son in a way that is dificult to tell which sources are relevant and which are verifiable (not to mention the few which are both). While this article may barely clear the bar for verifiable sources as written, digging in the details as I have done will indicate that a lot of the material was inappropriately transcluded and is actually related to the son, who may or may not be notable in his own right, and not the elder. Michepman (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Newspapers.com is not the only possible place to find sources for a state legislator. There can be other news archiving databases which include more Beaumont-area and/or rest-of-Texas newspapers that would have covered him; there can be books that would have covered him; and on and so forth. As well, in that era one would almost certainly have to search for multiple different forms of his name, including "Wilfred Roy Cousins", "Wilfred Cousins", "W. R. Cousins", "W. Cousins", repetitions of the "Wilfred" searches under the possible misspelling "Wilfrid", and on and so forth. So, yeah, if the creator messed up and conflated Wilfred Sr. with his son, then by all means we can fix it — but I don't believe that no sources exist at all, just because you couldn't find anything in one specific database that doesn't necessarily include every newspaper in the United States. It would actually be deeply unusual, literally to the edge of completely unprecedented, for a person to serve in a state legislature for 20 full years without ever having received any reliable source coverage anywhere at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he was William Roy Cousins - W.R. Cousins Sr, but not Wilfred Roy Cousins Sr, confusingly ... that has been one of the problems with the article. So the automated "Find Sources" here doesn't help at all! RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable and passes WP:NPOL as member of state legislature. Bookscale (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and then of course fix the issues. Every member of a state senate ever is notable. As long as the sources demonstrate he was such, we keep the article. Since he held office in a state wide legislature, it does not matter how important to Beaumont he was. He was involved in making laws to effect the whole state, appropriating money for the whole state, ect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES, WP:SNOW. Although consensus can change, the long-standing precedent is that state senators in the United States are presumed to be notable. The burden shifts to the nom to prove, once verified, the this person did not serve or is not otherwise notable. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Member of a sub-national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was elected to and served in the Texas Senate for two different districts. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES, WP:SNOW --SalmanZ (talk) 21:06, 2 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prarambhik Islamic Aakraman Evam Bhartiya Pratirodh

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

Non notable books. Clearly promotion and fails WP:Notability. No coverage in WP:RS Harshil169 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title except one word appears to be in a foreign language, which raises doubts was to whether it is notable for the English WP. A review by an RSS magazine suggests it may be portraying a Hindutva POV of history, not an objective one. And that is before the question of the commercial tag, which suggests it is a mere ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Without an opinion on the article subject, I just want to say that I don't think any of these issues (besides the advert part) are reasons to delete the article. Articles subjects don't need to be covered in English language sources to be considered notable, and the book having a POV also isn't a rationale to delete the article. Sam Walton (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can see, it fails WP:NBOOK. There are no reviews to be found in my searches, and it's unclear whether the references even cover the book and how much. Also WP:PROMO issues, which Wikipedia is not. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:03, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Service Center of Central Ohio

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

Non-notable organization per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an ESC (known also as ISD in some states) is a service vendor set up under state auspices not that much different than a janitorial supply company. They have no taxing powers, they do not directly or indirectly run any schools. The exception we have always had for schools and school districts is pinned partially on their taxing power and the resultant coverage by sources. This is lacking for an ESC. It must meet WP:ORG, and this one doesn't by a country mile. John from Idegon (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the requisite notability criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earthsong Camps

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Trivedi

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

The article had very dubious and ridiculous claims without any citation and I removed all those claims. Such examples are extensive training in Yoga, won several awards in college, citing links of prestigious college which even don't support the claim she studied there, her show is number one in 2017, her family is first family of Madhya Pradesh etc. Violation of WP:Verifiability. Details about her personal life were added which aren't even publicly available and photo was also added. Obviously, violation of WP:COI.

Most of the sources cited here are primary sources like her website, her books, her talks, her articles and TEDx talks which don't help to achieve the criteria of the WP:Notability and violation of WP:Primary sources. I tried to find secondary sources and to improve article but failed as she is not much notable. Only her allegations about #Metoo on Chetan Bhagat (who is famous author and anyone accusing him can get famous) and recent controversies on Beef received coverage. Apart from it, only her self written articles such as to improve postures have been found. Hence, I am starting the AfD here. The person fails WP:Author and she didn't achieve the enough coverage in WP:RS. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Harshil169 (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable, Google search and news search brings up coverage, and reviews not to mention the two New York Times articles here. Article needs improvement not deletion. WP:BEFORE Netherzone (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read those two articles and just trivial mention about her in article doesn’t mean that subject herself is the notable person. Most of the claims made in the article were vague and humbug and person’s details were added to that level which can be used as circular reporting. —Harshil169 (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Harshil169, you must have read other articles. Perhaps WP:JDLI? New York Times article contains three paragraphs framed by calling her a "best-selling author" to shed light on the condition of women in India. Netherzone (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, it will be better that you will stay on the policies of Wikipedia. Try to add the details about Ira here with proper citation and removing unnecessary and exaggerated claims about her. If you think she is notable then remove unnecessary primary sources, add reliable sources like New youk Times. Read WP:Civility. Thanks and regards, --Harshil169 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per plentiful coverage, stuff like Financial Times book review of India in Love: Marriage and Sexuality in the 21st Century, ('India in Love', by Ira Trivedi, Pilling, David. FT.com; London (Jun 6, 2014).). She and her books draw coverage. Page needs improvement, most pages do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR. That the article needs (or needed) substantial work doesn't mean the subject doesn't meet our notability standards. Marquardtika (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somatosensory rehabilitation of pain

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

Article creator User:Spicherc is a the inventor of this therapy. No randomized control study of it has been done to compare it with other pain-reduction methods. Needs better support from WP:MEDRS HouseOfChange (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability of a subject is defined by coverage in sources. If the method performs better than others is not really relevant. From what I see, this is a sufficiently well written and sourced page; the notability seems to be established by the currently cited sources. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:49, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonelle Matthews

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS Comatmebro (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTNEWS #2: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." As with the disappearances of many children, there has been significant coverage over the years, including in 1985, 1989, 1991, 2010, 2015 and now 2019. I have added some references and some more information; more can be added (eg a reward was offered). RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. TheEditster (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - who are these puppets on wiki that call for obvious stuff to be silenced - I quote, "President Ronald Reagan mentioned Jonelle Matthews in a speech on March 7, 1985, in Room 450 of the Old Executive Office Building. She was mentioned in the Congressional Record for the United States House of Representatives on April 2, 1985, page 7224." as per the wiki article itself - who in their right mind would say that Reagan mentions her but we should just forget about it like it is came from some tabloid newspaper - patently ridiculous.--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:1962:B311:16B2:F79B (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated before that information was added. Comfr (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and taking a look at the 1st dotpoint of WP:GNG we read "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." so a mention in a speech by Reagan could also be deemed "trivial". Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple the band isn't notable, Jonelle Matthews is. StonyBrook (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen above. PohranicniStraze (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sustained coverage over many years - meeting NCRIME/NEVENT. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event, per above Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i feel like Canute here ("your humility is astonishing coola, equating yourself with a king":)) but doesn't WP:BLP1E apply here ie. a low profile individual known for only one event that is not wikisignicant ie. someone who disappeared a long time ago whose remains has just been found? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple: I think that WP:BLP1E is only for living people. And, although this AfD has the article name as "Jonelle Matthews", the name of the article is now Disappearance of Jonelle Matthews: it seems to have been moved just after it was nominated for deletion. So, the relevant policy would probably be WP:EVENTCRIT, and specifically WP:NCRIME, which says "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines [depth and duration of coverage, and diversity of sources] and those regarding reliable sources. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged." That's why I looked at the duration of the coverage; it's also in depth, from across the US, and from various sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

me bad, i will allow the tide of notability and consensus wash over me. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this subject can be mistaken for NOTNEWS, it definitely isn't, since not all coverage is from this week; interest in this cold case has been sustained for decades, and now may finally have a chance to being solved, with all the resultant coverage that will generate. StonyBrook (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenPsych

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

The article about the editor of this journal has been deemed non-notable in a AfD before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard.

I don't see independent notability for this journal. All the sources relate to controversies related to the people who wrote in this journal. The Noah Carl controversy is covered, well, at Noah Carl, and the London Conference on Intelligence article exists as well (the SPLC source relates to this). The only independent thing here is the OKCupid controversy, which was covered in the Emil Kirkegaard article as well that was AfD'd. I suspect that this was created by a sockpuppet, although it's not confirmed yet, still FYI. Pudeo (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Pudeo (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The journal itself does not seem independently notable, but only through the controversies. I think that they could be merged into the respective articles. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep upon closer review, it seems that the article meets GNG. Taewangkorea (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no suitable redirects exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Keep, upon review, this does meet WP:GNG. Kirkegaard et al can be redirected here if needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:39, 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 01:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article does meet WP:GNG.Knox490 (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the creator has now been blocked as a suspected sockpupppet. But perhaps this does not qualify for WP:G5 after some fixes by Randykitty, so notability considered. I would note that half of the sources have beem written by the same journalist in three different publications, some of which are less weightier like student newspapet Cherwell amd London Student. --Pudeo (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the current version has several acceptable sources for relevant statements. A Wikipedia article is just the right place where to keep such information on a controversial (pseudo)journal. Nemo 06:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are these several student newspapers reliable sources? Do they have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy and do they offer something other publications do not? Without those sources, the article becomes quite anemic. czar 00:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What student newspapers? At a glimpse I only see two such citations. Most of the citations seem to go to a New Statesman author. Nemo 07:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Ivanišin

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

Does not meet WP:NACTRESS. Lack of third party coverage. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's got a lot of news coverage, but we should try to find someone who speaks Slovenian to help add the refs to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. or modify to add references. It currently lacks any news references. Peter303x (talk) 20:48, 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 01:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's got a long article in Cosmopolitan with photos. https://www.cosmopolitan.si/zvezde/klemen-janezic-usodno-vino-se-je-porocil-poglej-kako-lepa-je-njegova-nevesta/. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BeenAroundAWhile, and how is that significant coverage?

And the subject of the article is her husband Klemen Janežič not her.

This is a fluff piece at best. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found more coverage, for example an extensive interview in Slovenia's leading newspaper, [19]. The article is subpar but the notability is there. She was the lead in several notable Slovenian films and won festival awards as well. --Tone 14:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tone, hmm. Most interview articles aren't strong proof of notability.

However, WP:NACTRESS says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" but on the article, it says she's only in 1 major film. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This interview is, it's from Sobotna priloga, the weekly feature of newspaper that contains high-quality articles and interviews. I added some awards and films, Idyll, where she was lead actress, won best film at Slovenian Film Festival. That makes it at least 4 relevant movies. That should cover the notability requirements. --Tone 17:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources exist. Just because they're in Slovenian doesn't mean they don't count. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bondegezou, prove. You can't say source exist without proof. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple links are given above. A Google News search shows plenty more. I and others have added yet more to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's likely she would meet WP:NACTRESS for the lead roles in Slovenian Girl and sl:Idila (film), and she meets WP:BASIC with in-depth coverage in Delo (newspaper) [20], a paragraph in Jutarnji list [21] and a bit in 24ur.com [22] (not counting the WP:PRIMARY interview parts). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:44, 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 redirect to List of Highlander characters. The consensus on a redirect target is weak enough that a WP:RFD discussion can be started if people think there is a better target. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Four Horsemen (Highlander)

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

In-universe fancruft which relies entirely on primary sourcing and offers no indication of real world notability. This is not the Highlander Wiki. PC78 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to our List of Highlander characters, Methos is a major character in the franchise, but the other three Horsemen appear only in a few episodes of the series. Thus, if that article is correct, then this group lacks in-universe significance as well. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:58, 14 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) 18:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT List of Highlander characters. Someone might find some information to merge over. Dream Focus 17:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Methos and recreate that page. Prior to February 2013, Methos was its own article before it was needlessly merged and redirected into this one. As a main character Methos is worthy of a page but the other characters were one-shot villains. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Main character or not, that article was just as bad as this one – entirely reliant on primary sources with no indication of real world notability. It should not simply be restored in its former state. PC78 (talk) 17:00, 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 01:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Highlander characters. Even if one of the members of the group is arguably more notable than the others, there are no reliable sources that give any notability to the group as a whole. A redirect to the main character list for the franchise seems like the most logical answer. Rorshacma (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Highlander characters per above. A redirect to the existing character list seems like the best option for a group of characters with limited notability. I would be opposed to a recreation of the Methos article as I agree with PC78's assessment on that article being far too reliant on primary sources. Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 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. There's some suggestions here for redirects and mentions on other pages, but in the same comment, it's said that this fails WP:V, so I don't see how we can do anything with it, so just delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranka

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

Removed prod regarding a supposed ethnic group from India. The article has has a "no citation" banner for nearly a decade. After an extensive search, I was unable to find any sources on the topic: I found sources on a location and company called Ranka, but not on an ethnic group. Even assuming this ethnic group meets notability requirements, the article is so poorly written that it would need to be completely rewritten to be suitable for Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can’t find anything in English either. I wonder if anyone reading Marwari or other possibly relevant languages can turn anything up?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 03:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a source in the text - "Mahajan Vansh Muktavali" [23]. Unfortunately, I can't read the language the source is in. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki, this book was authored by some Jain monk in 1921, and is not an academic source, thereby unacceptable for history/religion/caste-related content on this project. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Ranka is just one of the 1,444 gotras of Oswals. At best, it can be mentioned at the Oswal page. As far as the page in question is concerned, it should be moved to Ranka (disambiguation), as there is no primary topic here. BTW, three articles of persons with this (sur)name – namely Ranka Velimirović, Arpit Ranka, and H S Ranka – can aslo be listed at the disambiguation page.

A relevant quote regarding Ranka

Choudhry, P. S. (1968). Rajasthan between the two world wars (1919-1939). Sri Ram Mehra & Co. p. 78. Retrieved 31 July 2019.
The Oswals are peculiar to Rajasthan alone.¹ They get their name after a former town in Marwar called Osia or Osinagar. They are supposed to be the descendants of a number of Rajputs of different clans who were converted to Jainism by a celebrated Jain priest, Ratna Prabha Suri. They are said to have over 1,444 exogamous sub-divisions, some of which are Abhani, Bhandari, Hirawat, Khazanchi, Chajer, Daga, Juniwal, Guglia, Lunawat, Muhonot, Nahar, Patwa, Ranka, Sankhla, Tolawat, Targar etc.

NitinMlk (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and turn it to a disambiguation with Ranka (disambiguation) becoming a redirect, nothing meaningful to be found about the subject in my searches, fails WP:V since nothing can be verified, and WP:GNG since there are no multiple WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:33, 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 keep as a charted artist per WP:NMUSIC. RL0919 (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Punch

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

A new girl group who were announced all of five days ago and have yet to do anything. I'm struggling to find any sources that aren't just blog entries. Fails WP:BAND. Contested prod. PC78 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or redirect to Woollim Entertainment. On the contrary, you can find reliable Korean sources for the subject on Naver easily, such as Hankook Ilbo, TenAsia, iMBC, Herald Pop, etc. The article needs a lot of work, or it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Heolkpop (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted, I've only looked at those links via an online translator, but they all just look like promotional fluff. That doesn't demonstrate notability. PC78 (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be fair, some info that weren't known are revealed in those sources, such as the names of members, its debut date, etc. I would still say it is a case of WP:TOOSOON, and a redirect is enough. The label Woollim is pretty known in the Korean music industry with three members of this girl group competed in Produce 48 – one of them is a former AKB48 member. Heolkpop (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They've achieved a top 10 in Korea. I am sure there are more sources out there than there was in July, even if most would be in Korean media. Ss112 02:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they haven't been around long but with a high charting release they pass criteia 2 of WP:NMUSIC and therefore should be included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw this one given that things have changed in the last three weeks, but note that the article was premature at the time of creation and would probably have benefited from some time in draft space. PC78 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly an article to promote the group (WP:NOTPROMOTION) - a case of WP:TOOSOON - Epinoia (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes point two of WP:BAND, debut album ranked number six on South Korea's national Gaon Album Chart. Ə XPLICIT 07:44, 18 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ko-fi

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

No sources cited on page constitute as RS - either routine or affiliated with the company. A BEFORE search did not satisfy enough significant, independent coverage needed. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lulz, I'm not affiliated to Ko-fi, I've not even used it in any form but is one of the most popular donation site for independent illustrators after Patreon. Most of the info I got from web archives from Archive.org, if I missed some sourcing I'd love to add them ;) Neko Spectrus (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added several sources after a quick WP:BEFORE. Seems to have enough reliable sources from newspapers/magazines.Gilded Snail (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Hi Gilded Snail can you please post here any two links to articles that meet the criteria for establishing notability. "enough reliable sources" is not the full criteria - the sources must also provide in-depth coverage of the subject (WP:CORPDEPTH) and contain independent content (WP:ORGIND). I have examined the links added to the article and I do not see any that meet the criteria - perhaps I have missed something? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe needs more sources, I don't see GNG being passed here. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Of the non-Primary sources and the non-obvious business-as-usual sources, this Vice reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH, this Image reference does not cover the topic in any depth (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) and relies on information provided by the founder (fails WP:ORGIND), and finally this The Week reference is churnalism, relying almost entirely on information provided by the company, quotations from the founder, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sketchy references such as Twitter (WP:TWITTER) and the company website - Ko-fi is not the subject of the articles in Verge, Vice Media and VentureBeat - does not meet WP:ORGCRIT - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 19:10, 17 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 merge to Fritter#United Kingdom. First off, I see there are some concerns about the nature of the deletion nomination, but little detail on what these concerns are and a look at the page history or elsewhere does not give clarity. There are two plain keep arguments, one of which has been contested on the grounds that the sources mentioned are not actually about the topic (Fritter roll) and two which do not offer much beyond "it's notable". One delete argument was struck for being socky, the other is conditional on there not being any reliable sources. Finally there is a suggestion that the topic Roll and Fritter may be the correct topic but there is little evidence either pro or con notability. Finally, there are plenty of merge arguments pointing to Fritter#United Kingdom and to reliable sources which are not necessarily mentioned in article. Per the analysis it seems like the strength of argument favours a merge in this case and so does the headcount, so merge it is. Selective merge only involving the material supported by WP:RS that is, not just any content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fritter roll

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

Until today this was PRODed and entirely uncited. Some additional material was added today and purported refs given but all fail verification. I'm unconvinced this is commonplace as an entity, distinctively Scottish or notable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or redirect~~ to Fritter The nominator was mistaken about all of the items failing verification.

The NY Times ref (caption of the photo) in the very first NY Times reference Haggis fritters in Edinburgh.
And the BBC reference: the proprietor stuffed the fritters with Peas.
Scotland.org and The Sun references I erased. It seemed from these references and from basic research that the most common fritters in Scotland were the crispy deep fired potato fritter. However I erased it rather than defend it.

The subject should be ~~redirected or~~ kept based upon the references. I will not spend too much more time on the Fritters, however WP:NEXIST Fritters do not appear to be uniquely Scottish, however it appears from the research that fritters are served in a majority of establishments in Scotland. Lightburst (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a bread roll containing a potato fritter. These sources are not about potato fritters nor bread rolls, let alone in combination. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...That is exactly what is pictured here in the NY Times reference. Please remove your incorrect failed verification tag after you verify. There are variations of Fritter Rolls. Just as there are variations of Hot pockets. Traditionally a potato is used as the filler, and other times, as the references show...Peas, or haggis. Here in the US the fritter traditionally is just fried dough. Lightburst (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming that a picture captioned "Haggis fritters at the Orchard restaurant in Edinburgh." that manifestly has no bread roll in it is in fact "a bread roll containing a potato fritter". Ok, let's see if anyone is convinced of that... As to why you go on to supplement this with a list of yet more things that are not a bread roll containing a potato fritter, I am at a loss. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the verifiable content into Fritter#United Kingdom, plenty of space for more content there. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be content with a merge, if there actually is verifiable content therein. One source is a blog, so doubtful if a WP:RS; regarding the other source, I'm unsure whether it is a RS or not but I have my doubts and there are several factual errors in the piece. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that one of the two sources may possibly consitute a WP:RS in Wikipedia terms (factual errors therein aside), as nominator, I'd now be satisfied to change from advocating delete to Merge to Fritter#United Kingdom, but only of the material based on this source - not that based on the blog. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was on PROD patrol and saw areas to improve this article - I did some research and added some references to this stub. Also created a category for the readability. The nominator immediately tagged all of my refs "failed verification". I went to the nom's talk page and explained why the "failed verification" tags were incorrect. By the time I was done typing the nom had an AfD slapped on the article. I went to the article and did clean up of the referenced material - verified that information was cited correctly, removed the "failed verification" tags. But... the nominator put the "failed verification" tags back in based upon the nom's evident desire to delete the article. I suggest that it is a conflict of interest for a nominator to delete, tag, and revert during this deletion process. This is two hours of my Sunday that I will never get back. Lightburst (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday's the next one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:45, 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 00:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because now I want a fritter roll (also due to procedural abnormalities which DQ this nomination). Lightburst, thank you for your dedication, it matters more that you care about the world than that you prevail against stinky behavior. The two hours you spent may hone your concentration skills against future trials.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not WP:VOTE, unless substantiation of the innuendo of “procedural abnormalities” is forthcoming.

I’d dearly like my two hours (and counting) back too please, vainly trying to explain the self-evidently off-topic nature of the additional material being dumped into the article. This waste of everyone’s time was compounded by a spurious submission to the admin noticeboard (not upheld). Now the addition of WP:JUSTAVOTE, coupled with encouragement of the first editor's imperviousness to the questioning of their additions. These indicate neither “dedication” nor “care about the world”; take a sniff closer to home. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat kneejerk. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mutt LunkerI do hope you will allow edits on the article. I took a long break from Fritter roll's hoping that the temperature would be lowered with the passage of time. At the time, you had deleted nearly all of my attempts to edit the article (editing that you refer to as "dumping"). I am saddened to see that you continue to WP:OWN the article, and the temperature does not seem to have been lowered. Maybe the article can be saved if you will now allow other editors to improve it. Lightburst (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they can find sources which, contrary to the bulk of yours, actually address the subject, I'd be delighted. Containing the term "fritter roll" therein, if not necessarily sufficient, would be a minimum starting point. The material you added based on sources which do not fulfil this, I have removed; the material based on the two sources which do fulfil this, I have not removed, even though one is a blog and thus not a WP:RS, so should really have been removed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've attempted to post but were having difficulties with a mobile device, so I'll quote it here in order to respond: "Thanks. Yes I said it was a blog in edit summary. Placeholder."

Yes, I am aware that you did but notifying us of that you have used a source which is "largely not acceptable" does not thus allow it. See WP:BLOG. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt, It is still a bit too hot in here for me to edit this. I will exit and unwatch and let others see if they want to try to edit in this environment. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's your choice but there's nothing to stop you, should you unearth material that is both pertinent and reliably-sourced. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search did not reveal sufficient RS coverage to establish notability. Content could potentially be merged with Fritter#United Kingdom if more reliable sources can be found. Many of the suggested sources are actually about pea fritters, haggis fritters, etc. and do not actually mention the fritter roll or suggest that they are variations. –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to fritter. I went carefully through the page history, and looked at every source that has ever been cited on the page. The sources that are no longer there do not actually include anything about fritter rolls, just assorted mentions of fritters in general. The two sources cited on the page as of when I write this comment ([24]) are web postings that appear to be blog-like (one of the two is explicitly someone's blog), and they are suspiciously similar to each other, such that one of them may have been written off of the other. I also did searches via the various Google sub-sites, and what keeps coming back is "...fritter. Roll...". There is just enough reliable sourcing to say that the thing exists, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah, I think that this meets notability guidelines for food. The two sources do indicate the significance of fritters in Scottish cuisine.Worldlywise (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised by your mention of notability guidelines for food. I could not find any: list. I think it's just GNG that applies. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to fritter. I find places like this [25] where they show something called a "Finest bubble and squeak fritter" and then in the survey poll call the same product "Tesco Finest bubble and squeak fritter roll". Various other places describe similar things, sometimes calling it a roll and sometimes not. There are many different types of fritters. Not a lot in the article right now to justify its own article. I say merge it to Fritter. Dream Focus 22:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the fritter and the roll are distinct items in combination. The latter is a bread roll (in all likelihood, a morning roll), containing the former. No mention of the bread roll and it's not a fritter roll, it's just a fritter, so not the subject of this article: the combination. There are vanishingly few mentions of the combination. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and the Tesco item appears to be a 2017 inclusion in their sandwich range; from the picture and description, in a bread roll. The full title is "Finest bubble and squeak fritter with spiced red cabbage roll", so a "(list of contents) (bread) roll (sandwich)". It's also mentioned here. Not notable, certainly not independently. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Cuntfinger (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC) user has been blocked by Bbb23 for being a sockpuppet.[reply]

That's WP:JUSTAVOTE. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to fritter, which is...a type of roll. p b p 01:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the sense that the concept of a bread roll may be something alien to Americans. Is that the case? A fritter and a bread roll in Scottish and wider British parlance are very much not the same thing and this article's subject, non-notable as it is, is not a single entity called a fritter roll but a combination of two things, the former placed inside the latter. I'm bemused at how difficult a concept this seems to be to many contributors here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And another source of confusion may be that an American fritter would seem to be largely dough, whereas in Scotland, wider Britain and large parts of the world outside the US it is a variety of battered items, in this case potato. Mutt Lunker (talk)

Merge very sparingly to Fritter#United Kingdom, with information from the one non-blog source. The term "fritter roll" refers to one, very specific, combination of foods, thus sources talking about fritters in general are not valid in establishing independent notability for this very specific variation. Rorshacma (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fritter#United Kingdom seems the neatest arrangement of content. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comments: Believe it or not I have not been thinking about fritter rolls at all. Today on ARS someone posted another food item and used the terminology "chip barm" That caused me to reflect on the fate of the fritter...The correct name for this article should be "Roll and Fritter". When I used the search "Glasgow roll and fritter" I came up with numerous establishments and reviews for this food item. Not WP:RS but nonetheless. It exists.

So if the article is retained it should be renamed Roll and Fritter. Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 2 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.