Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 July	1 August >

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. Nom-ed by a sock. W/o prejudice against any fresh nomination . (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 06:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Solanki

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

Notability in question, fails: WP:PEOPLE Roundmaster (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Roundmaster (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:29, 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 delete. Sandstein 19:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S. G. Collins

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

non-notable BLP; obvious COI; strictly promotional / resume; resources are primary and linked to subject; no substantial reason for inclusion found within WP guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists (talk • contribs) 12:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Writer who has had some articles published but who has not attracted much attention, certainly not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Has written several books, all or most of which were self-published, and none of which appear to have been review or otherwise written about. The sole instance of significant attention being taken of this writer is a couple of articles that mention an article he wrote on why the moon landing photos could not have been fakes, and it is not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Night Shades. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1Nite (One Night)

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

Does not meet notability standard for a single or a song; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Singles MurielMary (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - there is some coverage specifically for the song, at least as parts of other reviews, however WP:NSINGLE refutes that as coverage (oddly, but oh well). But I also think it's an unneeded CONTENTFORK, as noted as a possibility within NSINGLE, and a clearer cut argument. It's already got some coverage, but the review could be added in. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: There does not appear to be enough coverage to support an independent article, but it is a viable search term so a redirect back to the album would be helpful for users trying to find information about the song. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psilocybe kurac

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

An entry under this name may have existed briefly in the UniProt database, but I notice that the "failed verification" tag was added to the article the day after it was created.

The putative taxonomic authorities for this name did indeed publish a number of names in the genus Psilocybe, but this one was probably not among them. [1].

When I enter the supposed specific epithet 'kurac' into Google Translate it proffers only the suggestion that it is a Bosnian slang word for the penis, which is not the kind of "epithet" one would hope for. [2] William Avery (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. William Avery (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V - not coming up with much. I will note that Kurac is a spice (drug) dealing house in Armageddon (MUD) ([3], [4]). Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no hits in any databases, no mention in the literature, no search results except circular links. Based on the etymology suggested above, probably a hoax. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - nothing in the linked source, and nothing on Google except for Wikipedia mirrors. I skimmed the Uniprot database to see if "kurac" was a typo for something, and while I'm not a fungus expert I couldn't find any plausible candidates. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete per above. --Nessie (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you've made a fair point, I think I must have been delerious writing this article. Next time I'll make sure my information is legitimate. Thank you. BluePankow BluePankow ✉ 14:13, 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 keep. Noting tat the only clear !vote for delete came from the nominator; the only other such also, per policy, suggested an alternative to deletion. A rename discussion, of course, is for the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 10:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brantham TMD

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

Has very little notability. Is a train depot that hasn't been finished yet, with no apparent significance. Willbb234 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its well sourced but there is something about it that says to me that it wont be completed. ~~I would say soft delete until something substantial comes through. Nightfury 10:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)~~ Sourcing has improved so happy to change to keep. Nightfury 07:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly update and rename; it is now proposed to be built at Parkeston, although if the level crossing is the reason for this it may be built somewhere else as it is also on the route to the new location. (Harwich to get new depot, East Anglian Daily Times, 6 July 2019) Peter James (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion and renaming are two mutually exclusive outcomes for an administrator to enact. Which one do you actually want? Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How do we judge notability? By multiple reliable secondary sources. What do I see here already? This might not be complete yet, but it's way past WP:CRYSTAL. When it is in operation (and whichever site matters much less), it will be a significant aspect of regional rail transport. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've done an update with the reference provided by Peter James, others (particularly my spelling/grammar entourage) are welcome to correct/improve. Okay the underlying entity has relocated but that's part of the history. It will no doubt be renamed in time but we can wait until the new name turns up. The redirect from the old link should help people trying to answer the question: what happened to Brantham TMD?. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a reader, I enjoyed the infobox that told me about Brantham, per its title, and that its location was Brantham. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note your deep joy and have tweaked article though as per TOWIE the roads and names are unclear but shiny smooth wheels are expected. They might call the TMD Dorian for all I know.

Keep - well sourced by reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. Bookscale (talk) 10:38, 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. Sandstein 19:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Guruvayoor

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Party, USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also found minor (not really significant) coverage on The Washington Post ([5]), as well as other mentions in reliable sources that didn't go beyond the organization appearing in an enumeration. --MarioGom (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gBooks searches can be a little random; I am getting none of the books you list except Elbaum on Books searches "Marxist–Leninist Party, USA". Searching "Marxist–Leninist Party" + USA I find Extremism in America: A Reader - Page 85 by Lymen Tower Sargent, "Marxist-Leninist Party One of the parties that split off from the Communist Party is the Marxist- Leninist Party, which was supported by the Communist Party of Albania" [6] The book then replicates a 1983 communique. the is not WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page should include material from Klehr: "In addition to former Albanian Communist leader Enver Hohxa, the Party's other hero is Joseph Stalin, it has proclaimed - 'Eternal glory to J.V. Stalin!'" And from Elbaum the fact that this party had "just 100 members."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Notability is not temporary. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page (or done in a WP:BOLD edit). Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nvidia Tesla Personal Supercomputer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge to Nvidia. There are just enough sources [7], [8], [9] to support this being significant when it was released, and I'd point out that notability is not temporary so it cannot have 'lost its significance'. However, I'd agree with the nominator that there is not enough substantial coverage of this specific device to merit a standalone article. Hug^syrup 11:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrie Nelson

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. Surely 18 starts at Bathurst 1000 counts. Got 7th one year, don't know how the rest went [10]. Looking in two books Greenhalgh, David; Thomas B. Floyd; Bill Tuckey (2000). Australia's Greatest Motor Race 1960-1999. Chevron Publishing Group. ISBN 1-875221-12-3. and Noonan, Aaron (2018). Holden At Bathurst - The Cars: 1963-2017. AN1 Media Pty. Ltd. would tell you more. Coverage also in [11]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Awadallah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GF. Last relist, no prejudice on closure
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to After School (group). A clear consensus for redirection has formed here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ka-eun

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

Fails WP:SINGER and WP:NACTOR. As a solo singer, she released only one uncharted song, while for passing WP:NACTOR you need to "have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" which she obviously doesn’t have, she had only one supporting role so far. Individual notability outside of her band is not shown. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band. Individual notability is not sufficient for a separate article. Coolbruh123 has reinstated this article five times, against the objections of four other editors. It's time this was made to stick. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Elmidae. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator. Have to agree - one acting role and a member of the band, no significant notability from either. Nothing significant as a solo singer yet. Evaders99 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, being one of the four editors who has already redirected the article. Elmidae's analysis is spot on. Might also suggest protection from recreation without admin approval.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DZMR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bro Code

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK (yes - this actually got published - google books - in German too). Coverage here - [12], other use of "bro code" - [13], [14]. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Jubilee Garden (Hong Kong)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allway Gardens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to explicitly favor deletion over redirection. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Watson Award

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

Student travel award at an Oxford college established in 2001, fails GNG. TSventon (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect: to University of Oxford. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nominator): I would recommend deletion rather than redirecting as article content is not encyclopedic. (Almost?) all Oxford colleges have travel grant schemes but they do not need to be included in college articles. TSventon (talk) 09:06, 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 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. But in the unlikely event that we end up merging or redirecting it should go to St Catherine's College, Oxford rather than the University. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nominator):I suggest that the closing administrator evaluate this discussion as an expired proposed deletion, as recommended by WP:RELIST. TSventon (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dickinson Valley

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It has sufficient notability, but i'am leaning toward to fail WP:NGEO. Sheldybett (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete not enough to seperate it out from McMurdo's dry valleys nor is it noted as being significant in the parent article. Fails WP:NGEO NealeFamily (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was a secondary source. I've cited the New Zealand Gazette for you now. Compared to the amount of effort for Falkie Atoll (AfD discussion), being able to rapidly lay one's hands on a source with the official name and location is a joy. ☺ Absent a suitable merger location, which would probably be a table of these valleys with notes such as whom they are named after, I think that we should keep this, remembering the remit to incorporate a gazeteer and giving a slight pass to an officially named place in Antartica, albeit with a view towards merger as I mentioned. No use of the administrator deletion tool is necessary, though. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be anything that makes this valley notable outside being one of the dry valley's and therefore would seem to be more appropriately incorporated into the article. NealeFamily (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anitha Karthikeyan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect to Amen (American band). RL0919 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slave (Amen album)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Or weak keep; at any rate, the article stays for now. Sandstein 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Salme

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

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

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

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

Non-notable WP:BLP1E. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. I have just reported what I consider to be promotional editing in this article at WP:ANI, where I remarked on the questionable notability of someone who's sole evidence of 'notability' (notoriety would be a better word) is to be found in a few short press articles from the time of his conviction. Evidence elsewhere on the interwebs seems to indicate that Salme is keen on promoting himself, and that he thinks that his story makes him deserving of further publicity, but I see no reason why Wikipedia should assist him in that. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)~~— 86.143.229.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .~~ This IP has come to my talk page and identified himself as someone who "has been editing Wikipedia for years (longer than you have, it appears), with a dynamic IP." I will AGF and strike this as he requests.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly re purpose either to the crime, or to the book by Salme (En bluffpilots bekännelse: Thomas Salmes 13 år i himlen). As evident in even a cursory BEFORE - the incident (a pilot without a flying license - flying for 13 years as first officer and then captain of large passenger carrying civil aircraft (737)) gained very international coverage - continuing coverage - that clearly passes WP:NEVENT/WP:NCRIME. Further more, Salme has penned a book that would seem to pass WP:NBOOK - e.g. coverage here in Svenska Dagbladet on the book in 2012 - [15]. (I'd further note that Salme has publicized this - so we do not have BLP privacy concerns (nor would BLPCRIME be an issue - as he was convicted)). Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but this is not the Swedish Wikipedia... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes... And? Your comment has no bearing on notability - please see WP:NOENG. While we do prefer English language sources, Swedish language sources may be used as well. The book (in Swedish) seems to pass NBOOK on Swedish sources. The incident/crime/event (flying without a license) - passes NEVENT/NCRIME even just with English sources (though the scope of international coverage here is such that a multitude of additional sources in available in other languages as well). Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think people might find your arguments about notability being demonstrated by sources more convincing if you provided a few more. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure - CBS, 2010, book from 2011, Aftonbladet 2012, RTL 2016, Panorama 2017 (seems the book got translated to Italian - [16]), Expressen 2019. (also - also coverage in English on the book, but possibly not independent as he works for Lucire) This is a trivial pass for NEVENT/NCRIME (meets GNG and furthermore - WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE, WP:GEOSCOPE, and would seem to be WP:LASTING (given that the subject is mentioned in coverage of subsequent similar cases)). Also trivially meets WP:NBOOK - as I've produced two independent non-trivial works on the book (and more are available). Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book hits [17], major international news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call a link to a Google search that merely shows that Salme's book can be found on the google.books website evidence for much in the way of 'major news coverage'. Particularly when the fourth item on Google's list (after three links to their own website) is to a book published in 1737, on the subject of 'The Church History of England'. And nor do subsequent items on books published prior to the Thomas Salme in question here ever entering an aircraft cockpit. Or books published since, on subjects such as 'Social Constructionism', or an autobiography of Sven-Göran Eriksson. Writing a book that Google advertises doesn't make you notable... 86.143.229.185 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You missed the - quite obvious - good book hit, now added to page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think I missed anything 'obvious' from the Google search I saw. Google search does not give consistent results, which is why linking to it isn't a good idea. If you want to cite something as evidence for notability in an AFD discussion, do it properly. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Xe did not miss it. It does not turn up as a search result, for me either; and Google Books does not permit me to search the book for anything. A handwave in the general direction of a search engine, Google Books or otherwise, is not a citation. User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes. Uncle G (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I added ~~a book~~ 2 reliably published books to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but consider moving) - reading the relevant paragraph of BLP1E "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident [...] For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.". I wouldn't say the latter circumstance arises. But the article could be renamed the "Thomas Salme incident" or such. Alternatively, it could be said that this is a set of incidents, and possibly BLP1E doesn't apply. In any case, the content should be retained, whether retitled or not. I don't know why Nom didn't just consider moving and rephrasing this rather than AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has accrued international and persistent coverage in reliable news sources (CBS, RTL, Telegraph, Il Sussidiario, Panorama, aftonbladet, Der Standard, etc) as well as literature ([18]), from the incident occurring in 2010 to the present. ——SerialNumber54129 13:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, Icewhiz, whose post I omitted to see but says much of what I tiresomely repeated. ——SerialNumber54129 13:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - barely notable, but squeaks over the line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read the AftonBladet source. It's a report of someone on Facebook (one Malin Johansson) decrying the book on Facebook. It is not a particularly useful source of information for documenting this article subject's life and works, as it contains little in the way of solid facts. So I read the Panorama source. It's an infomercial for the book that ends with an outright instruction to buy it. I thought to then try the Expressen source. It's actually not about this person at all, but about someone else entirely. This person receives a one sentence namecheck at the end, that does not add any actual information about this person's life and works that could have been sourced years ago. It is not continued coverage at all. ilSussidario is a trailer for a television interview with the subject, promoting xyr book, again that does not actually discuss anything else than the original events.
I think that people need to start actually reading these sources that are being waved around. One needs to actually read the things that one's searches turn up.
Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator: My feeling is that this wiki article is in essence promotion for the person and his book. He's already infamous for his self-promotion, and his friends wrote this article for him. Most of the links I find online are passing mentions or mentions of his book(s). Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMO, and I find this article an embarrassing example of just that. He does not pass WP:NAUTHOR, and his putative notability is strictly his one-event stunt -- which may have lasted over time, but it's still one event. Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've no idea whether the article was originally written as promotion, but I don't feel it reads as such. It certainly doesn't rise to the level to warrant deletion, rather than cleanup. Notability is reasonably well shown, even if not glowingly done. BLP1E seems the most reasonable grounds but you've not specified why you think it can't just be moved to being the event and slightly tweaked. BLP1E isn't supposed to remove content from the encyclopedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as textbook WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Followup to Uncle G above, if you look at the book on Goodreads & Amazon, it's pretty patchy and doesn't seem to have been curated at all by a publisher, it looks self published although the Google Play edition is definitely by established publisher Norstedts. It's not actually BY him, it's ghosted, although that hasn't stopped Blair etc al. But if he is to be notable for the book, it's not a very notable book - and not by him! I keep coming back to Nom's assertion of WP:BLP1E... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment revisiting in the light of comments above, I again considered the WP:BLP1E aspects of this pilot's, er... career. Certainly privacy concerns do not have much weight because Salme published a book about the flying with a forged pilots license. But the main thing is, there has been some ONGOING interest in the story over the years. In a book. In articles about the tightening of resume vetting in the wake of this and other scandals. And, most recently for similarity to Fake SAA pilot: How William Chandler flew illegally for 20 years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have thought that the fact that other people have been caught doing the same thing would make this particular example less noteworthy. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a source that makes no mention of this article subject at all prove that point? It would seem to demonstrate the opposite, if anything. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to an article in English, the connection is made in articles published in Swedish and other languages - I put the Swedish article on the page. The point, however, is that there has been ongoing coverage. But it was the articles that discuss this case as part of a group of fake-credential scandals that led to a wave of more thorough corporate resume vetting that persuaded me that this is not quite a BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If 'fake-credential scandals' in general are being discussed in multiple reliable sources, that is a justification for an article on the general subject, rather than this one. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes our notability guide per WP:RS Tonereport (☎) 18:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- passes WP:RS and WP:GNG barely but still enough to justify inclusion at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a OneEvent topic. Article is not about any single event (eg: his arrest), but about his career, covered thinly but adequately. More than sufficient RS to establish N. The lede sentence could be revised to avoid inadvertent impression of BLPIE: "Thomas Salme is a pilot who flew commercial airliners in Europe for 13 years without a valid license." DonFB (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing the WP:GNG. WP:BLPIE does not apply. I made some improvements to the article and its references before adding my support to keeping the entry. gidonb (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP1E > WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, do note that this perp self-publicizes his crime, writing a book, and so forth. I can see a NOTPROMO argument for deleting more easily that I can see a PRIVACY argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if someone wanted to create a List of fake pilot credential scandals and propose merging this to said page, I would support such a move. It's quite remarkable how many of these there have been.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ivor Browning (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McGurk

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

Delete It is of a minor priest and doesn't include details about his career— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Browning (talk • contribs) 07:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 07:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm holding off on a final !vote for now, but I disagree that an archdeacon is a "minor priest." Though Anglicans use the terminology a little differently than you might expect, archdeacons are actually pretty high-ranking within Anglicanism - they're almost like assistant bishops. When we have a named article like Archdeacons in the Diocese of Liverpool, of which there were only 2 at any one time until very recently, I am inclined to err on the side of inclusion for holders of the office. But I will wait to see what others have to say. MarginalCost (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Liverpool is a relatively modern diocese, so that there has been little opportunity for a long succession, but we commonly have had articles on Anglican archdeacons and Cathedral deans. They are not assistant bishops, but have an administrative responsibility covering a diocese or part of one. In some dioceses, the suffrigan bishop does this job as well as a bishop's own. Elsewhere it is a freestanding post. Many previous holders of the office have articles, as so the other three archdeacons in the diocese. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - we have more often than not kept such articles. Note that the Episcopalian Archdeacon is ordinary, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk)
Keep as per WP:Outcomes detailed above, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not typically keep clergy below the rank of a bishop unless they are independently notable from RS coverage. This is reflected in WP:OUTCOMES which oddly appears to have been miscited above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Archdeacons are high enough up in the Church of England hierarchy to be considered notable on the basis of their position. We have many stub articles on archdeacons of the Church of England, and I see no reason to delete any of them. I also question the motives of Ivor Browning in nominating this article for deletion when an article he wrote about a Liverpool priest is currently being discussed for deletion -- seems rather WP:POINTy to me. BabelStone (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Subject has been at AfD for two weeks and is still completely unsourced. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark City (magazine)

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

Russian music magazine. Significance is unclear.--Сергей Саханский (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 07:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 13:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references in the article, and none found. While the magazine is in Russian, the title is in English. Their Facebook page lists a few stores where it is sold, which suggests there is not wide circulation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects at editorial discretion and with consideration of the point raised by Enos733 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Mues

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this does not pass WP:NPOL -- people get Wikipedia articles by winning the election and thereby holding office, not by being candidates in elections they have not yet won. But this does not make any credible case that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons, and does not cite nearly enough reliable source coverage to make him a special case of significantly greater notability than most other candidates. No prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is a reason why he would already get a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links and the lightening fast review. I'm shocked, a little sad, and confused. I noticed that notability is not temporary. I read Wikipedia:Notability, WP:NPF, and WP:BLP... I think I understand. However, I feel that my Wikipedia article is still valid. Please try to understand my thoughts/feelings on this. I came across this: "On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."^[1]. I know the election of a US Senator is not as important as the assassination of a US president. However, being a key witness in a parade... even if the President was shot, is not as interesting to the public as being a potential US Senator. I felt a need for this page because I live in Montana and I noticed that I wasn't able to fairly compare potential US Senators on Wikipedia. I also thought that it might be unfair or even bias against candidates who were not already small-time politicians. The lack of exposure to diversity could hurt my democracy. In essence I was worried people would not view both candidates because only one had a page(he's a mayor). So I made a page for the second candidate.

As you may know, the United States only has 100 Senators and I was shocked that being one of the two opposing candidates didn't warrant enough notability. It certainty should warrant enough interest.

Just for fun, though it doesn't prove anything, I thought you might want to look at this article. John Mues, since his candidacy is more popular with the world than Howard Brennan. Perhaps there is a fair middle ground we can reach?

Additionally WP:NPF seems relevant.

I can find well over a dozen news articles which solely reference John Mues. Did I just need to cite him more? Saintmeh (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Notable for only one event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate. The coverage in Montana newspapers is routine and expected. The proper place to cover this person is in an article about Montana's 2020 US Senate race, where all candidates can be given neutral coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has to be notable outside of their Senate run, which Mues is not, unless the candidate has received an abnormal amount of national coverage. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a place to educate voters about candidates in their elections. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Montana (plausible search term, redirects are cheap). Fails WP:NPOL (and unlikely to pass in 2020 - he has to pass the democratic primary (a few different contenders) and then unseat a sitting republican senator in a deep red state (+20 for Trump in 2016)). Looking at coverage prior to 2019 - I wasn't able to find much of anything about our subject. Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am ok with a redirect, but at this moment, the subject fails WP:NPOL (per Bearcat and Cullen328) and a redirect feels premature at this point as we do not know if the subject will even be the Democratic party nominee in 2020. --Enos733 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm in agreement with Enos733. We should wait until after the primary before applying a redirect, Mues could very well drop out before then also. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would not object to a redirect. COI alert: I have supported his candidacy as a volunteer on social media. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but no objection to redirecting to 2020 United States Senate election in Montana. How many times do we have to go through this? WP:NPOL says a politician has to get elected before they qualify for an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:21, 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of roundabouts and traffic circles in Canada

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

Does not fulfill WP:LISTN and violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOR. Obviously indiscriminate and roundabouts are pretty much non notable. The only one in the list that has an article, Armdale Rotary, probably should be nominated as well. Ajf773 (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the list in its entirety was derived from an all-inclusive source, and there is indicated notability for the whole set (explained in WP:LISTN as per nom), it then also arguably fails WP:NOTDIR as simple listings without context information, in addition to the above concerns. ComplexRational (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is there really less than 200 roundabouts/traffic circles in the whole of Canada? thats less than in the city i live! even if there are sources out there that discuss using them for traffic management in Canada that does not make it appropriate to provide a directory listing. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 200; it's just hard to reliably source them as you note, so this list would likely only include roundabouts that people who knew about the existence of the list could personally attest to having driven on. But also, it's only in the 21st century that Canada has started building any significant number of roundabouts at all — Canada historically stuck strictly to conventional street intersections and highway interchanges, and only started importing the roundabout concept within the past 10 or 15 years as highway design practices evolved. So there are certainly more than 200, but there still aren't as many as you would expect if you're thinking from the perspective of a country where they've been a thing for decades. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above - Fails NOTDIR. –Davey2010^Talk 13:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ten years ago, when roundabouts were still a novelty on the Turtle Island side of the pond, this might have made some sense. In 2019, however, they're dime a dozen, so there's no value in trying to curate or maintain a comprehensive list of them at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - weird and useless article. Fails wp:indiscriminate Nixinova T C 22:47, 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. Tone 06:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alakkuu

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source in the article that might help to establish notability is the Forbes piece, which I don't think meets WP:INDEPENDENT since it's an interview with the subject of the article. Outside the sources in the article, I was only able to find this from OnlineMarketplaces.com, which appears to plagiarize the Forbes article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a gsearch brings up the usual commercial/blog sites, appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for relisting. A gsearch of "alakkuu" shows the subject as an author with a verified google knowledge panel. Also scraped an interview the subject conducted with Voice of America (Upfront Africa) https://www.facebook.com/UpfrontshowVOA/videos/this-young-poet-alakkuus-debut-poetry-collection-wet-grass-vanilla-is-a-thought-/245815489638053/ and a podcast on iheartradio (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-the-nader-shehadeh-podcast-43042518/episode/alakkuu-44074616/)
The subject was a 2019 Ted Talk speaker and he published his book last year; in which he is currently a top 5 best selling African author on amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment TEDx, not TED. TEDx is not TED. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When commenting be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source that counts toward notability is from Forbes, which is a brief bio and then all interview, so is worth little. He gave a TEDx talk but this is not notable in the way a TED Talk is notable. I searched but cannot find any other suitable sources, not even unsuitable sources apart from the very unsuitable onlinemarketplaces.com that copy and pasts the Forbes article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. WP:TOOSOON. All this article says is that he cofounded a company, wrote a book of poetry, and was interviewed by Forbes. I think that given all the inline external links, and references, to Amazon this article had, that I removed, it was likely written so as to draw potentially profitable traffic to him. This impression is further confirmed by the article's author making similar claims about the book and about Amazon here at this AfD. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing any links that may potentially result in profit towards the subject. Per WP:PRODBLP all biographies of living people have to have at least one reliable source - the Forbes article meets this requirement. I provided references of notability regarding a US tour the subject did with Boonaa Mohammed who is also deemed a notable Poet by this community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yortay: WP:BLPPROD only applies to biographies that are nominated for deletion using the proposed deletion process; I have nominated this article for deletion using the Articles for deletion process, which is entirely different. I have specifically said that Alakkuu doesn't pass Wikipedia's general notability guideline, which requires coverage in multiple independent sources. As both Lopifalko and I have pointed out, the Forbes article isn't exactly independent coverage, since it mostly consists of an interview with Alakkuu. Regarding your point about Boonaa Mohammed, please refer to the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists—your arguments should be focused on this specific article, not on its similarity to other articles. The factors that were considered in the AfD for Boona Mohammed (such as winning an award from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) don't apply to Alakkuu, so they shouldn't be considered in this deletion discussion. (Pinging Coolabahapple and Lopifalko in case they would like to add to my comments.) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

agree with LB above. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a podcast available on OwlTail that labels Alakkuu and Boonaa Mohammed as "two well respected, solidified poets of our generation" https://www.owltail.com/podcasts/qKFTx-Lets-Talk-About-It — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LB - Boonaa Mohammed has 1 of 3 references of notability; one of which is a TedX talk. Why isn't Alakkuu's TedX talk given the same weight in notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable that the award from CBC was considered, but Alakkuu is a best selling African poet, and I don't see why that isn't being considered. Also, an accepted article pertaining to [Boonaa Mohammed]] (https://web.archive.org/web/20110823202903/http://oromiatimes.multiply.com/journal/item/1237/Oromo_-_Canadian_Poet_Boonaa_Mohammed_Celebrates_African_Legacy) was very similar to the Forbes article of Alakkuu, but from a much less notable source (bio and answers from the subject himself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that references produced by the subject him/herself are accepted , e.g. Nayyirah Waheed wrote https://www.vibe.com/featured/afeni-shakur-mothers-day-poem and this was used as a viable reference on this subject's page. Due to this, I'd like to bring into the discussion an article written by the subject that was published on a notable African News platform - https://www.hiiraan.com/comments2-op-2010-jan-light_skin_vs_dark_skin.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 19:21, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Calvoz

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

I was brought to this page by an RfC questioning the subject's notability. I've since gone through the page and removed the promotional and unsourced content. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources thus not meeting general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NLAWYER. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a garden variety lawyer whose publications do not stand out enough to support notability. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 10:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLAWYER. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLAWYER Taewangkorea (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 17:26, 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. czar 02:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monastic HSEB, Janakpur

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

Not notable school. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do we have the WP:MASK hall of fame? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 05:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete: Verified from HSEB link that it's a real higher secondary school. May deserve keeping, as an education institution that's big enough to substantially impact the lives of the community it services. However, being a for-profit institution, it needs to meet WP:ORG guidelines which it doesn't. No independent RS that I could find except for the HSEB member listing (which is enough to verify it's not a hoax, but doesn't aid notability in any way). Edusanjal lists it, but still am not clear what the status of Edusanjal is, on reliability/credibility. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 08:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: When commenting be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines if possible. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. Above all, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG or WP:GNG - has not "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" - not notable, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:43, 22 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 and redirect to Ally Fowler. Sandstein 19:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Fowler

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

Player does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fl.exic.77, you claim Fowler meets WP:NBASKETBALL because she "played in more than one game at National Basketball League level". As far as I can tell, however, "signing an amateur contract as a development player" for a Women's National Basketball League team doesn't pass NBASKETBALL; that guideline says that a person must have actually played an NBL game, not just signed as a development player. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Bolingbroke, within the NBL amateur contracts are signed so athletes may maintain their college eligibility, Fowler played in six NBL games within the season, therefore I believe it does meet WP:NBASKETBALL. – Fl.exic.77 (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually nowhere does WP:NBASKETBALL say the quote above. Fowler never played in the NBL, she signed a development contract with a WNBL team, which is not the same thing. The WNBA is listed, as is the NBA, but the WNBL is not listed in the SNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me}
Delete and redirect. As Onel5969 points out, WP:NBASKETBALL never says that playing in the Women's National Basketball League gives a presumption of notability. Simply playing "at National Basketball League level" is a really flimsy rationale for inclusion. I can see no other SNG-based reason to keep the article, and Fowler clearly fails GNG. The original redirect to Ally Fowler should be restored, however, since Alexandra Fowler has several incoming links that refer to the actress. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Notable for only one event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]