Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 August	3 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 keep. Tone 14:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naziru M Ahmad

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

Seems to be UPE or COI , since the article creator was warned and blocked multiple times. The only point of significance I see for this singer is that he won the award for best Kannywood singer 2013, basically a regional film industry inside nigeria. I must admit the award has a wiki article as well Kannywood Awards Is that enough to establish notability? Daiyusha (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a BLP without WP:Reliable sources. There's also no evidence he's ever toured or gotten a top 10 hit. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, the comment above mine is partly not true. Two of the current sources in the article (Daily Trust and Premium Times ) are national papers and are reliable by any standard. Yes, it's true he has not "toured or gotten a top 10 hit" but then, there's no this concept where he predominantly works (AFAIK). I am no music fan but I couldn't even found Nigeria entry at WP:GOODCHARTS.
Now on the article; I believe he passes WP:SINGER criterion 1; he's received non trivial coverage about his work by BBC, Leadership, Daily Trust, Premium Timesand Aminiya just to mention a few. His wedding is of public interest [1], [2] likewise his day to day life [3],[4], [5], [6]. Note: I know the article currently contains some unreliable sources, I ignored them and I believe there are sufficient reliable ones above to replace them. The nominator hinted at likely UPE or COI, I don't believe in the likely of that here. The author was blocked (temporarily) for disruption—more like CIR issue, if you'd like— but anyway, that has no relation to notability of this subject. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above which show that WP:GNG and criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC are passed (only one criteria needed) so deletion is no longer necessary, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moukdavanyh Santiphone

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

I am on the edge with regards to the notability of this singer. Also, a quick google check does not hield reliable sources. The added sources do not mention her in detail. I thus leave it here for community scrutiny. 10MB (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could pass WP:NMUSIC if the Lao Music Award is a major award? Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find significant coverage. The Laotian Wikipedia page has no sources to help us, just links to her Facebook and Youtube pages. I can't find much coverage of the Lao Music Awards either to prove her significance that way and their own website registration has lapsed. The language difference is a barrier and I'm open to the possibility that she's more important than I can verify, but unless a Lao speaker can help improve the article or at least find sources, I don't think this should stay. › Mortee _talk 20:15, 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 merge to University of Richmond#School of Professional and Continuing Studies. No secondary sources cited, but still can merge some primary source paraphrase. czar 00:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Richmond School of Professional & Continuing Studies

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

No evidence of notability ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is being one of the five schools of the University of Richmond not considered notable in and of itself? Must a school or division of a university be considered independently notable to have its own page? University of Richmond is tied at #25 in national liberal arts colleges according to U.S. News & World Report College Rankings. ^[1] Degree programs listed on the rankings page^[2] include degree options offered exclusively by the School of Professional & Continuing Studies, including Post-bachelor's certificates and Post-Master's certificates. The majority of the University of Richmond's graduate degrees are offered through the School of Professional & Continuing Studies as well. --Ifrabjousday (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

- Notability is not inherited. We need independent sources that specifically focus on this organization, not its parent organization. I don't think that self-published materials or rankings of programs offered by this school are sufficient to establish notability for the school itself but we'll see if other editors agree or disagree. ElKevbo (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand the issue and recognize this is discussion that goes well beyond this school and this university. In the meantime, I've started adding references to faculty publications that help make the case for notability. However, school faculty generally align themselves to the university before the school in their publication bios. This may in fact make the case for, rather than against, deletion. --Ifrabjousday (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I agree that it's likely that many constituent units of U.S. colleges and universities - colleges, departments, schools, etc. - are not notable by Wikipedia's definition because there aren't many sources that explicitly focus on them but instead focus on the entire institution or much smaller parts particularly the individual faculty members. There are certainly some exceptions and we must accommodate them but in my experience most of these units exist not as genuinely cohesive units with distinct identities and purposes but they're administrative collections that help with organizational issues e.g., budgets, supervision. Hence they are rarely the explicit focus of independent sources. ElKevbo (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd like to make the argument that the School of Professional & Continuing Studies is notable as a constituent unit because it's unique among small liberal arts colleges (SLAC). Most SLACs in the top 25 do not include a community-facing, open-enrollment continuing and higher education unit (CHE) that offers part-time degrees separate from the main institution. While the main institution offers BA and BS degrees in a number of majors, our school offers its own degrees and majors, taught by its own faculty, and scheduled and priced completely separately from the main institution. Our undergraduate and graduate degrees are professional focused and generally unavailable to students in the main institution. Our unit is not simply an organizational or budgetary unit. We have our own full-time and part-time faculty, our own application processes, our own academic procedures. Our focus as a CHE on a SLAC is making accessible and affordable the often-exclusive resources of the institution to our local community. While this would not be notable at a state institution or land-grant university, this aspect is notable among our competition. --Ifrabjousday (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend deletion for the reasons enumerated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smacktalking (talk • contribs) — Smacktalking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge. Not notable to be a stand alone article - Redirect or merge to University of Richmond. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Richmond. When you strip out the simple listings (everything except the lead) per WP:NOTDIRECTORY there are only a few sentences. There is no reason why these can't be contained in the University of Richmond article.----Pontificalibus 07:27, 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. Arguments to delete this based on the absence of independent, substantive, reliable sources have not been convincingly refuted, despite the best efforts of Usedtobecool. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagawan Bhandari

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

I searched for sources under "Bhagawan Bhandari", "भगवान भण्डारी", and "Lord Bhandari" (apparently either a nickname or another translation of his Nepalese name?) and found nothing in-depth. Aside from the one Kane County Chronicle feature, there's just not a lot out there about this guy. I didn't find anything that substantiated the claimed awards. Overall this fails WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I was frankly surprised that this article was in such poor shape, and then I was really surprised by how little there was online about him. I have done the best I could with the sources I could find, and I strongly urge the community to keep this one based on WP:NPOSSIBLE. I would remind the community that LDC's don't put everything online as of yet. What little there is, is mostly contributions from teenagers and young adults. If we can't keep articles on a Nepali artist with content and sourcing, comparable to what I've achieved in this one, we'll soon run out of articles for Nepali artists any older than Justin Bieber.

I am sure someone is going to bring up the youtube cites. So, let me preempt with this: Those are official channels of those record producers. So, they're contextually RS. If it's kept, I'll reformat the cites properly, and better organise the content. But, for now, that's all I'm willing to do.

Courtesy: Lord Bhandari is a completely bogus translation. That's akin to Jesus Alvarez being translated to "Son of God Alvarez". Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Record producers might be an RS for the purpose of confirming "yeah this guy made this album," but they're not independent for the purpose of supporting a claim to notability. We need independent media coverage for that, which I didn't find. (Regarding "Lord Bhandari" - it's what GTranslate kept giving me and I'd rather be accused of searching for too much than for not searching enough, just in case.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I perfectly understand your viewpoint, and about the translation, it was just a courtesy as I indicated; it was certainly very clear from the nom that you were going on with standard research techniques on an unfamiliar subject, well aware of the limitations. I think everyone can appreciate your diligence. I was never very sure that this article would pass WP:GNG even with the work that I put in, even before I put in the work. As I've indicated already, I am just going for NPOSSIBLE here, as, to repeat, the failure to establish notability clearly here is certainly down to the digital divide. I think there are precedents (I certainly hope so anyway) for a lenient interpretation of relevant guidelines when it comes to third world topics. I am merely suggesting that, were those applied here, I think I have provided sufficient evidence to convince editors that there is enough evidence of notability, well within the good-faith mile of the editor (me) that's proposing such a leap be taken. There is perfectly good reason to take such a leap and there is an equally good reason not to. So, I can certainly appreciate the community's decisions to !vote either way. I have exhausted my arguments 1.5 times over and as such, I will not be commenting (on the merit of the article) any further. Regards! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Heavy dependence on YouTube links and no proper references...citing a tabloid article doesn't qualify the subject to get a Wikipedia page. There are/were hundreds of folk singers in Nepal..fails both WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. Ozar77 13:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozar77 (talk • contribs)

Notability doesn't depend on how many others there are, in the same profession. There are millions of politicians but only dozens of astronauts. Would you say one is inherently notable but not the other?

About NMUSIC-

Kane county chronicle, eKantipur and a book.
tours of multiple countries.
Dhaulagiri cassette center and Bindabasini music are major record producers in Nepali folk music.
Collaboration with Bima Kumari Dura, Raju Pariyar, Laxmi Neupane, Bishnu Majhi and so on.
Nominated for Hits FM Music Awards.

Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 13:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Fails WP:GNG...where are the sources for multiple tours and on? no sources at all... Ozar77 16:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I have made all my arguments to the best of my abilities. I even put in a decent amount of time looking up sources and reworking the article, in an effort to save this one. No matter the result, I can say to posterity I tried my best. So, no regrets here. I have left you a message regarding double !votes and signatures in the other AfD. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajeesh Dasan

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria. No national awards or significant coverage. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does he not meet WP:BASIC for having three reliable independent sources that cover his work? Mccapra (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will get the source have more references, initially i did had more content, but it was removed either by a bot or removed by an user. Will get something in a day or two. Please share me what are the notability criteria - i can get those.

Below are the articles featured about his works in Media. (1) The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/leela-l-girikuttan-and-ajeesh-dasan-on-their-song-for-poomaram-that-has-gone-viral/article18515260.ece Hindu is considered the best english news paper in India, particularly S.India. The photo in this article, he is on the right side. (2) Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/kayale-kayale-song-from-thottappan-is-out/articleshow/69737112.cms Talks about his recent work - Kayale Kayale (3) the Hindua https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/music/composer-ranjin-raj-on-his-journey/article26407776.ece This article shows why the poet is ignored by the musicians are more celebrated too, while both the said lyrics were penned by Ajeesh. (4) IB Times https://www.ibtimes.co.in/kalidas-jayarams-poomaram-song-kadavathoru-thoni-out-will-it-repeat-success-njanum-726610 This talks about a much celebrated song Poomaram, in which Ajeesh has debuted.

I've provided 4 urls, I will update the wiki page with his published books with their ISBN and amazon references - and other media coverage if any. Please share me the WIKI page which describes what all needs to be there for a biography article for a living person.

almithra (almithra) 10:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability criteria for composers and lyricists can be found at WP:COMPOSER. – Archer1234 (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill songwriter and poet. Getting a song into a film does not automatically make you notable. Bearian (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 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 redirect to Syrian Democratic Forces#Alleged internal conflict between SDF factions. Although the merge option has received a fair amount of support, there is an unresolved issue regarding the reliability of the sourcing and original research. Issues of that nature cannot be resolved by merging. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inner-SDF conflict during the Syrian Civil War

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

Not at all notable or significant, can simply be covered in the SDF and specially the Liwa Thuwar al-Raqqa and Raqqa Hawks Brigade (literally the only groups involved); it already is. There is no need for an entire article dedicated to this "conflict", consisting of sporadic incidents—the last of which was over a year ago, just like there's no need for inner-TFSA, inner-Ahrar al-Sham, or inner-Tahrir al-Sham conflict articles; all of these conflicts are innumerably more frequent and intense than the few cases of inner-SDF fighting. 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼 (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, this article simply should not be deleted, and it seems what is "notable" and what isn't "notable" is a rather subjective topic. This is an essential article as a conflict in the Syrian civil war, there are no articles on the "inner-TFSA" conflict but there are 2 articles on the conflict between rebel factions including the conflict between HTS and Ahrar al-Sham along with additional groups involved, as well as the conflict between the rebels and ISIS. It is a similar conflict as to those between ISIL and the other rebels, and until recently it was a single article but since has been separated into two separate pages for one covering conflict relating to HTS against the other rebel groups, and ISIL against the rebel groups. Your comparison is not comparable at all, and when rebel groups do fight each other articles are created on the subject, for example when Ahrar al-Sharqiya came into conflict with other rebels groups in the Syrian National Army, it was noted on the page covering the inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian civil war. It is not fair, or arguably even objective to not have an article covering internal tensions in SDF, and what is covered on SDF's article is not as detailed nor is it anything more than a summary that even casts doubt on the existence of the internal conflict by calling it an 'alleged conflict, despite how it is actually discouraged to use terms like alleged on wikipedia. The article covers 3 three years worth of infighting that happened on multiple instances and is written in an in depth nature that took hours of research and writing to compile. This article has every reason to exist and has no reasons not to exist, it is an important part of the Syrian Civil War that receives very little attention or gets overlooked, and wikipedia being the world's largest free encyclopedia very well should have the article, for future historical and academic research allowing for the best quality information that can be provided on the subject.

Takinginterest01 (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-rebel conflict is notable since it is widely covered by international press. Many instances were also battle-like clashes with hundreds of casualties each. In contrast tensions between SDF factions is covered, but they rarely escalated into actual conflict. The "three years worth of infighting" refers to what? Three minor incidents every year? It's not about fairness. It's a fact supported by sources; rebel infighting is simply much more frequent than infighting between government or SDF forces, which is why there is no need for articles on the latter. You mentioned that fighting between Ahrar al-Sharqiya and other groups were noted in their respective articles, but there is no article on inner-TFSA fighting despite its frequency.

The article is also highly biased and misinterprets poorly-cited sources. For example, Jaysh al-Salam and the Raqqa Hawks Brigade as a whole are listed as active belligerents in an active military conflict (last related incident took place more than a year ago so it can't be considered ongoing) despite the fact that only certain subgroups of fighters from both groups were involved in sporadic incidents. Pinging @Sakiv, Goodposts, Applodion, EkoGraf, and Bobfrombrockley: for more opinions. 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼 (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually find that it covers a subject, which is quite interesting and noteworthy in it's own right. Prior to the creation of the SDF, Northern Syria was split between opposition groups, Kurdish groups and government forces. Ever since the SDF was created, it was positioned as a "neutral" party, which did not actively oppose the Syrian government, but didn't support it, either. However, it's definitely worth noting that far from being a singular, unified force, It is more of a union between the various groups that existed pre-merger. Some of these groups have very different ideas relating to Syria's future and are very split on the issue of negotiations with the Syrian government. Having the clashes between the various factions listed is definitely very helpful to better understanding the internal dynamics of the SDF, as well as it's relations to the other factions in the Syrian Civil War. However, the first half of the article is badly sourced, and I'm not sure if having a military conflict infobox is the best way to display the information at hand. Furthermore, Lightspecs pointed out, the clashes were sporadic at best, relatively minor in scope and limited in frequency. At the same time, I can't deny that it is noteworthy. I believe it has the right to exist, although I'm not sure in what form. As other editors have mentioned, the TFSA is also experiencing similar issues, but has no article of their own. I'd add to that, that Syrian Government and pro-Iranian, as well as some NDF militias have also had sporadic and limited clashes, mostly around petty issues. However, I don't belive that's as much an argument for the deletion of this article, as it is an argument that we need to better cover those subjects as well. One solution, in this case, would be to modify the article - add some better sources, more clarifications, and perhaps change up the way the information is presented to the reader. Another, should the community decide that it's better to delete it, would be to instead merge it with either the SDF article, or the Inner-Rebel Conflict in the Syrian Civil War. I think the information should be preserved in some way, although it also needs some work. I'm generally not a fan of outright deletion, unless the information is either irrelevant, false or otherwise disruptive. In thise case I belive it to be neither. I'm interested in hearing what other editors in the Syrian Civil War community have to say. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As said above, the article in its current is mostly cobbled together from info of other articles, poorly sourced, and does misrepresent the clashes that have occurred among SDF groups. What little fighting took place was more akin to police actions than warfare, not to mention that the infobox does not reflect the complexity of the issues at hand: Some groups mentioned fought among themselves during said conflict, split apart, with different factions backing different sides. In some cases, it is not even clear who was exactly with who during the "clashes" - With some of the most notorious examples being that the Raqqa Hawks have seemingly disappeared since 2017, although most of the militia stayed loyal to the SDF, and the chaos involving Liwa Thuwar al-Raqqa, whose commander has claimed to have not been arrested, and then claimed to have been arrested by the SDF. Furthermore, as far as I remember from reading about inter-SDF "clashes" during the last three years, no source ever mentioned that anyone actually died during SDF vs. SDF events. People were arrested, but they did not die. Considering this, it casts doubt on whether these events should even be called "clashes". Applodion (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Applodion has a long list of criticisms of the article, which seem broadly fair, but they all imply the article needs work, and maybe re-naming, but not that it should be deleted. There is material here that can produce an encyclopaedia article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 14:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has there been some sort of internal conflict or at least dispute between factions within the SDF? Yes. Is there reliable sourcing on these events? Yes. Then the article should be kept. If there's too much WP:SYNTHesis in the article, then that needs cleaning up, but AfD is not clean-up. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The SDF/NES recently announced readiness to join the 2019 Northwestern Syria Offensive on the side of the Syrian government. However, just a couple of months prior, the 'Army of Revolutionaries' and 'Northern Democratic Brigade', both of which also members of the SDF, had expressed readiness to join the offensive, but on the side of the Syrian opposition. It is clear that there is some kind of a division within the SDF, pertaining especially to the relations of the group vis-a-vis the Syrian govt. I think the article should be modified, maybe have the more badly cited parts rewritten entirely, perhaps even merged with the main SDF article, but as I'm seeing more and more of these issues, I'm tending more toward a keep stance. Goodposts (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a potentially legitimate subject, however the sourcing is so poor that the whole page amounts to WP:OR. Also, remember that one needs good RS on the subject of the page as a whole, not just a bunch of arbitrary selected incidents. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Syrian Democratic Forces - topic belongs there as part of that organization's history - not significant enough for a stand-alone WP:CONTENTFORK article - also, article title is confusing as "SDF" can stand for many organizations - Epinoia (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Syrian Democratic Forces per Epinoia. Not enough independent notability to justify a stand alone article. As such it is an improper CONTENTFORK. This also has the advantage of preserving the record of the article in case the situation vis a vis notability changes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoli

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

Non-notable product. Fails GNG. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ Weak Keep, I heavily disagree about the claim to "not notable". It has been covered by trusted news source, and searches for "yoli soda" provide 859,000 (roughly) results on Google. It is a Mexican product, true, but the location in which it is produced doesn't discredit the need for an article on the topic. (The article COULD use an image though.) Utopes (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: 900,000 results and yet I could only find this and this by going through a few pages of Google and all five pages of Google News. Were your search efforts more successful? WP:GHITS. Anarchyte (talk | work) 01:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sadly my whole premise relied on a fallacy; I didn't know WP:GHITS was a topic to avoid. I had more fruitful results myself, and I will be adding them to the actual article. My new vote is more reflective now. Utopes (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Weak delete or merge, I don't see report from reliable source, but if it is a market leader in the Mexico market, it should be kept, locals there might be able to point us to better sources. Viztor (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor: If we have no independent reliable sources we can hardly keep the article. A redirect might be possible but I'm not sure where it would lead, except maybe FEMSA. I'm happy to keep the article if there are some Mexican articles somewhere. Anarchyte (talk | work) 01:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte: Yes, we're on the same page. I can find some results, though few is usable, I'm waiting for editors from local market who might be more familiar with the subject. Viztor (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further search showed it is just a local drink, hence the change of opinion. Viztor (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional time to find more supporting sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added formatting and the Toronto Life reference. It used to be a regional drink but has since broken out across borders and seems to have developed a cult following. StonyBrook (talk) 19:32, 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 Merge and redirect. (non-admin closure) Wug·a·po·des 02:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Performing Arts, Banaras Hindu University

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

Notability not demonstrated, fails WP:ORG WP:GNG. Alternatives are merging to Banaras Hindu University or redirecting to Banaras Hindu University#Faculties. Muhandes (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect or merge. Not notable to be a stand alone article for a faculty. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 25 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) 🐱 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect or Merge and merge any residual content.Not notable for a standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Comments vary mostly between "promotional" and "passes GNG"; the case for passing the GNG seems to be made. The rest is editing. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The School of Artisan Food

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

This is a promotional paid piece by a now blocked editor which lacks in significant in depth coverage. There are many mentions but ultimately nothing that satisfies WP:NCORP as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't really apply here as it's not an actual school in the way that Wikipedia defines it. It's nothing more than an organization that offers cooking classes and is not accredited by any qualifying academic boards as a "school", only FDQ Praxidicae (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG per a news search, which shows notable people such as JB Gill have visited there.^[1] I'm just not sure where to start with expanding / improving the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Former JLS star has a passion for farming". Newark Advertiser. 19 February 2018. Retrieved 18 July 2019.

Last I checked notability is not inherited. John Waters, Buck Showalter, Joan Jett and hundreds of other notable people have visited my favorite restaurant and I can assure you it too is not notable despite it's many local mentions and awards. And I'd hardly call that link significant in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is your favourite restaurant a campus of a national university? This one is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and this is relevant how? What part of notability is not inherited is unclear to you? Praxidicae (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's something but still it's a NCORP fail, by quite much. Also, there's zero point in providing a generic Gnews-link as an argument (specific sources, please) and also, NOTINHERITED. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 19:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, you can merge / redirect to Nottingham Trent University per WP:ATD-R. For specific sources, I see The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Yorkshire Post and NTU's website. I have copyedited the article a bit and dropped a few more sources in. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Teaches Foundation degree courses, lot of coverage in major press, seems to be notable. Have added a couple of external links. PamD

Delete (with nothing to prevent future re-creation by independent editors) if it's proven that it was undisclosed paid editing - and what about the same editor's creation of an article on the school's founder Alison Swan Parente? Presumably COI, perhaps paid? PamD 19:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through the article - I have already replaced some of the self-hosted sources with independent third-party ones and trimmed some of the fluff. Hopefully this will sufficiently count for the purposes of "future re-creation". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it's paid editing, created in violation of our terms of use. Notability is borderline at best. – bradv🍁 19:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shouldn't matter if the person who wrote it was paid if the article is sourced and reasonably neutral.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to post advertisements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What am I advertising by cleaning up the article and replacing sources? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a substantial article on a topic whose notbility is suggested by the plethora of secondary, independent reliable sources which have augmented the article since this nimination was filed, demnstrating persistent and broad coverage across national media and specialised literature. ——SerialNumber54129 14:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All that has happened during the course of this AFD is that this ad has become a better ad.—Mkativerata (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is always unfortunate if articles are created through undisclosed paid editing, we should recognize this is no longer an issue since the work by Ritchie333. This school found recognition in the international press:
- Jordi, Nathalie (13 October 2009). "British Artisanal Food Gains New Champions". New York Times.
- Mah, Ann (30 September 2011). "In Europe, Cooking Classes for Every Palate". New York Times. (lists 10 cooking schools throughout Europe, The School of Artisan Food is one of them)
- Arnold, Hugo (20 March 2010). "School for artisans". The Irish Times.

The school has been influential in spreading artisan food techniques. One example is the trendy cheese Young Buck by the cheese-maker Mike Thompson who enrolled on a one-year cheese-making course:

Meredith, Fionola (27 July 2019). "Young Buck: Keeping it mouldy". The Irish Times.
McGuinness, Katy (23 July 2017). "Quel fromage! Ireland leads the whey abroad". The Times.

The definition What is artisan food at [7] was cited in multiple research papers, example: Dunne, Michelle; Wright, Angela (2017). "Irish local and artisan foods: Multiples make space!". Cogent Business & Management. 4 (1). doi:10.1080/23311975.2017.1324242.

--AFBorchert (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many "delete" !votes refer to the issue of paid editing; however, the article has since been cleaned up; and it's this version that needs to be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:15, 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. Tone 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson (psychiatrist)

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

I believe that the article is heavily biased and beyond saving. Several controversial statements in the article relies solely upon sources that come from biased and otherwise unreliable publishers [8] [9]. Sometimes, the controversial statements are even blatantly incorrect, such as "When Jackson acted as a whistle blower in 2008 and 2009 he was branded as a nazi by Aftonbladet [...]" where it is implied that Jackson has been wrongfully labelled a nazi by Swedish media when they simply state the fact that Jackson has joined a party which was formed out of the remnants of the Nazi organisation Nationalsocialistisk front.

"Simultaneously, Jackson was branded as a right wing extremist and thereby denied him the opportunity to deny any allegations resulting in Jackson becoming known as the nazi doctor" - None of the sources provided can properly back such a statement up and none of them refer to him as "the nazi doctor".

"Jackson was interviewed in 2006 by Swedish media where he said that he was a Christian doctor and that he was against multiculturalism" - There are two citations that accompany this statement, one is from the conservative "Ingrid & Conrad" podcast and other is from a local newspaper based in Sundsvall. The term "Swedish media" in this context, at least to me, implies major Swedish news organizations. Not a podcast and some small-town newspaper.

In its current form, I believe that the article would require a complete rewrite in order for it to become fully neutral and encyclopedic. See the talk page for additional concerns. lovkal (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. lovkal (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

I have made several improvements, such as added sources where Jackson is explicitly being labeled as a "nazi" and "nationalsocialist" by Gellert Tamas. I propose rewriting the parts which are mentioned here. There are several references to a numerous big news papers which mentions that Jackson has jonined a nationalsocialist party, but also where he is described as having "nazi" sympathies. Deletion of an article with 83 articles is not appropriate since it is not dubious or biased considering that I am merely quoting the articles content and the over all general debate about Jackson, based on my research. I will further improve the article based on these suggestions.

"When Jackson acted as a whistle blower in 2008 and 2009 he was branded as a nazi by Aftonbladet [...]" where it is implied that Jackson has been wrongfully labelled a nazi by Swedish media when they simply state the fact that Jackson has joined a party which was formed out of the remnants of the Nazi organisation Nationalsocialistisk front.

- This actually did happened. It is a summary of the series of events which led to him suing Aftonbladet. This is not a "lie".

"Simultaneously, Jackson was branded as a right wing extremist and thereby denied him the opportunity to deny any allegations resulting in Jackson becoming known as the nazi doctor" - None of the sources provided can properly back such a statement up and none of them refer to him as "the nazi doctor".

- He was shut out of the debate, according to sources from himself, and he protested by joining a nationalsocialist party. He is mentioned as being part of a "nazi movement". Sources provided are sufficient.

"Jackson was interviewed in 2006 by Swedish media where he said that he was a Christian doctor and that he was against multiculturalism" - There are two citations that accompany this statement, one is from the conservative "Ingrid & Conrad" podcast and other is from a local newspaper based in Sundsvall. The term "Swedish media" in this context, at least to me, implies major Swedish news organizations. Not a podcast and some small-town newspaper.

- Two sources together can be considered as part of "Swedish media"...

Improvements: Changed text from "Jackson was labeled as a nazi" to "Jacksons interpretation of Aftonbladets article of him joining a nationalsocialist party was that he was branded as a nazi". Improvement 2: Jackson became known as the "nazi doctor" because a google search of "Thomas Jackson nazistläkare" (translating to nazi doctor) shows several hits. Change text to "he believes he was branded as a nazi".

"I believe that the article is heavily biased and beyond saving. Several controversial statements in the article relies solely upon sources that come from biased and otherwise unreliable publishers [10] [11]"

NewsVoice is not an "unreliable source", its a Swedish independent news paper... The source is here: https://newsvoice.se/2017/10/thomas-jackson-resignerade-flyktingbarn-miljardindustri/ The second source is this one: https://mxp.blogg.se/2017/november/psykiater-thomas-jackson-apatiska-barnen-en-svensk-psykos.html

--Albert Falk (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. He might be notable, but the wall of biased, soap-box text and citations makes improvements through the normal editing process difficult. His theory of "malingering by proxy" sounds an awful lot like Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. Bearian (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with lovkal and Bearian. This is a rare case, I think, of an article about a plausibly notable subject that needs a complete rewrite to be acceptable. In the meantime it's worsening the encyclopedia and deletion is the clearest path to the article's eventual contribution. Its bias is so ingrained in its construction and wording throughout, apparently dedicated to railing against a perceived liberal media persecution (WP:GREATWRONGS) without much (any?) other content explaining anything about either him or the distinctiveness of his primary idea (malingering by proxy), that changes short of a rewrite won't help.

I appreciate that writing it must have taken Albert Falk a great deal of effort and that seeing it deleted will be painful, but I would respectively suggest stepping away from this subject and editing something else. It can be difficult to be objective about subjects you care about a lot and I think this is one of those cases. I criticise the current article so harshly not to be cruel but to be clear that I don't see a way that this is going to work for Wikipedia. › Mortee _talk 20:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that NewsVoice is not simply an "independent news paper". It's a known conspiracy website which has been exposed by Metro's Viralgranskaren and other organizations when NewsVoice published, among other conspiracies, articles that supposedly proved chemtrails.[12][13] lovkal (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
agreement
I agree. Remove the article.
Signed Albert Falk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Falk (talk • contribs) 2019-08-03 09:41:00 (UTC)
Delete, I had this page on my (long) to-do list because it blatantly misrepresented sources in a decidedly non-neutral way, but nothing short of a complete rewriting will fix it. It's better to have no article than one this thoroughly biased. Huon (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Memory

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

WP:CORPDEPTH not met. Plenty of links to competitors but no coverage of the software itself. Nothing found on search apart from flight discussion board posts. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t think this piece of software is notable, but I wonder if there might be any value in renaming the article to Flight tracking software or something, since it already makes reference to the main ones and could be expanded on that basis. I’m not sure though whether there would be sufficient RIS for that either as they mostly seem to be discussed on forum sites. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable subject and lack of sources to support the content claimed. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, sketchy references, "no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:16, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Martinez-Diaz

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability standards with coverage in secondary sources. The only third-party source here appears to be a local human interest story about his house! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FYI for passing admins; ineligible for SOFTDELETE, as previously dePRODed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only mention of him in Google Books is a passing thanks to him in an acknowledgements section. As such, I don't believe he passes WP:ACADEMIC or is otherwise notable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he seems to have done what any ordinary academic would have done. Ping me if you find anything more substantial. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Mullet: Legend of the Silver Fox

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

Non-notable film. Sources all treat it as a very parochial local human interest story. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Masum Reza^📞 21:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – bradv🍁 05:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Core Education & Technologies

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

The Company has dissolved over a year back. The listing of article is causing confusion between people. There is no update on this article, in January the moderator has requested for updates but yet after 6 months there has been no updates. The company is not even listed on the NSE or BSE since 2015.

Request to delete the page as there is no update on this article since many years.

Thank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasha316 (talk • contribs) 05:45, June 13, 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement that articles be up to date or that organisations are still going. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Nasha316: If you wish to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO when you do so. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 23:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article being out of date is a fixable issue and not a reason for deletion. However, the references are not compelling – many are spammy. I would say this should be closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination if a valid rationale is provided. – Teratix ₵ 03:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep notability is not temporary, it is permanent; and AfD is not clean-up. If something from the article is confusing the readers, then try to resolve the issue. Post about it in relevant wikiprojects. By nominator's logic, we should delete Elvis Presley, Commodore International, and BlackBerry 10; because these legends ceased to exist. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the company just passes WP:CORP. I've updated the article a little bit, mostly using past tense throughout but also referencing a Forbes article about the company's troubles. I was unable to find the right reference that would allow us to say "the company went down at date XXXX" so I'm leaving the "update needed" template for now. Pichpich (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2024 Russian presidential election. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 06:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The transit of power in Russia after Vladimir Putin

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

Crystal balling. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CBALL: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.·Carn !? 13:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this is a collection of suppositions about what might happen, its not a clear cut analysis of future events.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: There can be no analysis of "future events". This is not "future history" it is a retelling of the analysis of present situation (trends and tendencies, forces of political actors, etc) carried out by experts - political scientists, sociologists and journalists.

There is no editor opinion in article, there are "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field" as WP:CBALL allow us to do. Russian and international experts have long spoken out on this subject, so quite comprehensive generalizing works have appeared.

If I misunderstood the rules and there will be consensus that the article should be deleted - i ask instead of this please transfer it by subsection to 2024 Russian presidential election.·Carn !? 14:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. Nomination is not valid without detailing why that policy applies here. It's akin to nominating 2020 United States presidential election for the same reason.----Pontificalibus 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 election is an event likely to happen, this is not about an event likely to happen but speculation about a number of events that might happen (well to be more precise speculation about what might stop an event (the 2024 presidential elections) from happening), one (according to the article, and the only one required in law) unlikely to happen. Hell even the page name is wrong, as at least two of the scenarios involve Putin remaining in power.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among Russian experts there is common name on a topic "Problem 2024", maybe it is better name for an article.

Article is about existing problem of succession in personalist regime - only one scenario (Constitution change) isn't about transit of power. Other scenarios about loosing formal power by Putin.·Carn !? 17:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the problem, this is not about one probable event but three possible (and one unlikely) event (according to the article). This is an example of various "experts" making conjectural predictions of what might be. The only difference between this and those "what if" books written by historians is here they are postulating different futures, rather then alternative pasts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 19:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be more specific? All statements are given by sources, what exactly bothers you? ·Carn !? 11:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL. At this stage only unfounded speculations are available Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If speculations are made by political scientists or sociologists, not by editors, as I wrote above - WP:CBALL specifies that they are ok. ·Carn !? 17:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Putinism. WP:CBALL tells: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.. It is properly referenced. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a lot of work (including a new name), but it's a topic that gets coverage, e.g. [14], [15], [16]. Encyclopaedic things can be said about it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a consensus that new name should be "Problem 2024"? I didn’t name the article that way because I didn’t understand whether clarification is needed, like "Problem 2024 (Russia)" ·Carn !? 10:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 2024 would be better than the current title. Bondegezou (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2024 Russian presidential election. It's speculation that Putin will be succeeded by anyone in 2024. That said, the topic of the 2024 Russian presidential election is notable no matter what Putin does, and most (if not all) of the content can be merged to that topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per WP:CBALL. Article is filled with speculations. Best is probably to merge with any other article regarding Putin and Russia as a whole. Maybe the 2024 Russian presidential election? Lefcentreright (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Russian presidential election for now. The article is full of speculation and cannot be explained with accurate sourcing until 2024 arrives. Also, who knows, Russia could pull a China and change the term limit, especially with a unpredictable leader such as Putin. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced speculations into 2024 Russian presidential election. As the end of Putin's presidency is but one possible outcome, WP:CRYSTAL would suggest that an entire article of speculations should not exist at this stage. Even though it is too soon to create a neutral, well-sourced article on this subtopic, its verifiable contents that have already received significant coverage should be explained in the topic's broader article (which easily complies with the main policies). Additionally, I would suggest renaming this article (if kept) or resulting redirect (if merged/redirected) to Problem 2024 or another shorter, widely-used name; the current title is not WP:CONCISE and would probably not be a very helpful redirect for this reason. ComplexRational (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge acceptable sourced content to 2024 Russian presidential election possibly under a "Problem 2024" subsection. As a political science buff there is intrigue and I would offer interesting information but it is too soon for a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 02:47, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pentacle (The Virtual Business School)

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

Have done a quick check and couldn't turn up any new sources. Article was first flagged for neutrality in 2010 - and seems to be one of those articles that just slipped through. Doesn't pass general and corporate notability imo, but not entirely sure about current procedures with criteria for schools (especially this). Hope AfD instead of RfD is appropriate. Ruhri Jörg 12:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:43, 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 as the nominator and others have taken an ordinary editorial decision (somewhat out of process, I note) to make this into a redirect, which is of course reversible as an ordinary editorial action, to be discussed on article talk pages. No administrator deleted any page. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birkenhead Social Justice Party

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

Fails WP:Notability and WP:NPOL. No reference in the article, looks like promotion. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. References have now been provided and it is notable as the party of Frank Field MP. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator

This is case of WP:TOOEARLY and I am withdrawing nomination because it is decided to redirect the article to the founder's wikipedia page on the my talk page with conversation of User:Super Nintendo Chalmers. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A hasty and unsourced article, but the party is the creation of a sitting British MP; it has probably already received enough coverage for general notability (see here) and presumably when Parliament resumes in September, then he will be an MP in the British parliament under its banner. If it's only him that ever stands for them then the party is probably best as a redirect to him; if it later stands other candidates then it can spin off into it's own page - but for now a redirect would be most appropriate. But now we're here, close this debate, keep the article and then it can either be grown as more info comes out, or remain as a redirect to Frank Field. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I see that there is an option for the nominator to withdraw deletion; I'll suggest on his/her talk page as a simple redirect for now is the best solution. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per above, a party represented by a sitting MP in the House of Commons. --RaviC (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regardless of the bold !votes, I'd close this as "redirect" rather than "speedy keep" - if that is the outcome that prevails - since the article has not been kept; it has now been redirected. Also, nominating this for deletion two minutes after it was created rather than allowing for development or even trying to discuss notability concerns with the editor involved strikes me as rude and uncooperative. Perfectly true, this was an unreferenced stub (again, two minutes after it was begun), but it was entirely plain and objective: an apparent good-faith creation, not clear promotion. Nevertheless, while I don't like the way this has happened, I do agree with the current outcome. A redirect is the best solution for now. › Mortee _talk 21:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirection is keeping. Deletion is an administrator pressing the delete button to remove the edit history and content. Redirection does not involve that; and, as can be seen above where an ordinary editor makes it as an editorial decision, is enactable by any editor. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The comments lean to Keep but given the limited participation and few sources surfaced, I don't see a clear consensus here, and it has already been relisted twice. RL0919 (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angela's Christmas

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

Short film which does not pass WP:NFILM. Press is simply on sites which are like TV Guide, or Leonard Maltin's guides. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is valid because it has references from Decider and Hot Press. Thornstrom (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ugh. I don't know. There is the coverage of the movie on Decider [17], but that is the only reliable WP:SIGCOV I was able to find (there is also The Daily Free Press review at [18], but it is a student paper]. Besides that, I am finding WP:ROUTINE announcements of it launching or the multiple same posts on different websites linking twitter users' reception. Some passing mentions at The New Zealand Herald [19], Time (magazine) [20], Zimbio (a branch of Livingly Media) [21], and Los Angeles Times [22]. Unless someone find more in-depth sources about the movie, I am voting delete. There is a WP:ATD redirect possibility at List of original films distributed by Netflix, but this isn't a Netflix Original, they just have distribution rights. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I am seeing a reasonable amount of coverage in otherwise reliable/mainstream print sources (for example the pieces in The Times [23] and the Irish Independent [24]) to suggest that GNG is met. I would note that much of the coverage was almost certainly precipitated by the studio's PR effort around the several Daytime Emmy and Emile Awards nominations. But there would seem to be enough of it to warrant a keep. It's not overwhelming. Hence "weak".... Guliolopez (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 16 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Burton (athlete)

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

Fails WP:Notability. The person is not notable itself and most likely fails WP:NATH and he was not even in top 8 in Commonwealth as this is the minimum criteria for inclusion. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

England international and National champion
Was the article actually read before a nomination for deletion was made, he is an international (i.e selected by England to represent his country) and a three times NATIONAL CHAMPION. How is that not notable? Racingmanager (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not written in the article. Most of the sources are official sources which doesn't meets WP:GNG and refer to WP:NATH before creating article. - Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention National champion in the article. Quote AAA National champion on three occasions. This is the UK's foremost championship. Racingmanager (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Keep. Participant of 1966 British Empire and Commonwealth Games so clearly meets relevance criteria. Florentyna (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three time medallist at the AAAs and national record holder is surely more than enough for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NSPORTS for reasons given above, and this citation that was in the article before nomination shows that he came 6th in commonwealth games competition, so in top 8. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all above. Clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. There is no narrative beyond a couple of brief notes and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinesiological stretching

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

Paid advertising.

"Kinesiological Stretching a Trademarked and Copywrited concept, developed through ElasticSteel research by Paul Zaichik."

This page is promotion for one individal companies concept. Most of this article is original synthesis taking a bunch of facts about Kinesiology or about stretching and combined them together. Which sources use "Kinesiological stretching". The ones by ElasticSteel or Zaichik, ie the primary ones.

None of the independent sources cover "Kinesiological stretching" specifically so this falls short of WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. Was created by a user banned for spam. Sources are about kinesiology or stretching, or are by the people promoting this (Zaichik and ElasticSteel). -Crossroads- (talk) 21:33, 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. Tone 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adewale Adetona

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

After a google search, i still struggle to find the notability of this individual to warranty a Wikipedia article. Given sources are primary and do not mention him in detail. I leave it here for consensus 10MB (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. MurielMary (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails WP:GNG. Mahveotm (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject hasn't had significant coverage. He appears to be a run of the mill entrepreneur. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fail WP:GNG--Nahal^(T) 06:55, 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 keep. More sources have been found, it seems that the article is being worked on at the moment. Tone 14:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northward (album)

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

Does not meet the criteria for notability of an album. All references are from the album's YouTube channel, no evidence of independent reliable sources discussing this album as per the guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums MurielMary (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Online sources include a review in the German edition of Metal Hammer ([25]), an article in Classic Rick magazine ([26]), a review in Dutch mag Aardschok, and a Blabbermouth.net news article. As usual with metal acts, there is likely to be more coverage in print sources. At the very least it should be merged to the band article. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable per Michig. SL93 (talk) 01:10, 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 delete. Tone 14:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kloc

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

Does not meet the criteria of notability for a creative professional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals MurielMary (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject of this article does not meet criteria for WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. No significant coverage in RS - the references contain a handful of articles that simply mention his name, and two interviews (primary sources). No important collections, exhibitions or awards/honors. Netherzone (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. There is some minor coverage, mostly in LA Mag, but it's not enough for GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "local legend" says it all. No solo exhibits in major art scenes/galleries/museums. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodies Squad

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

The sources do not show notability. One is a press release and the other is run of the mill presentation and user comments. Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:TVSHOW Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- airs on national TV network in Poland. Some sources from Polish article indicate reliability sources. [27], [28]. Additional links are not already on the Polish page, but indicate regular media coverage of the show: [29], [30], [31], [32].

Comedy Central is a pay-for channel that has a 0.36% market share and as such I dont think mcan be defined as having a "broad audience" to meet the TVSHOW criteria. I haven't been able to nalyse the other sources you have found yet to see if they get it past the GNG mark. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 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 06:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a great article as it stands, but it has two refs already, and the corresponding Polish article has more refs and content that can be used to expand it. --Slashme (talk) 08:38, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Machado

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

This person is not notable either as a journalist, a writer or a musician. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article's creator Obocci (talk · contribs) has only ever edited the one article, apart from this talk page comment claiming ownership of the image in the article. He also created the Portuguese wikipedia page pt:Felipe Machado and has made only one unrelated edit in that wiki. – Fayenatic London 20:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability per WP:AUTHOR as founder and guitar player for Band Viper which seem to be a big band in Portugal. However, article should probably get toned down a little and seems self promotional, probably created by person or someone associated with him. Peter303x (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not entirely sure how the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR, but if none of his writing or business career is considered notable, at the very least the article could be redirected or merged to Viper (band) – the group have an AllMusic biography [33] and many of their albums have been reviewed by a variety of rock and metal music magazines, so the band pass notability. Richard3120 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 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 06:32, 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. Tone 14:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Bagley

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

Non-notable snooker player. As the article itself explains, he had little success as a pro (see this link) with a claimed career winnings of £475. More recently, he's had some success (no wins though) as part of the World Seniors Tour, a much lesser level of competition that, in turn, generates very little coverage in reliable sources. Thus, Bagley does not currently meet the requirements of WP:NSPORT, of the specific guideline for cue sports or of WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He totally meets WP:NSPORT, "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport," which he has, as he qualified for the snooker tour as it says in the article for two seasons. The career winnings is only from professional tournaments. Longstanding notability is that snooker players that have qualified for the tour are notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every fully professional sportsperson is notable. We need sourcing, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Participating in the world championships makes one notable generally, no reason to make an exception here. Smartyllama (talk) 23:39, 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 06:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although he might just meet the subject-specific guideline, that just exists to establish a presumption that good sources either already exist or might be found. This article just gives two database-type entries that don't even remotely meet the "significant coverage" hurdle. Wikipedia doesn't need to have an article about everyone who has ever participated in any world championship of any sport. --Slashme (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero secondary sources exist, there is only directory information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary source - http://www.thecueview.com/bagley-qualifies-for-world-seniors.html 146.198.35.85 (talk) 22:12, 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 keep. Consensus seems pretty clear now. Thank you Uncle G. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Landing, California (neé Robert, California)

I have found no evidence that this settlement has ever existed, besides GNIS. We already deleted Brookshire, a similar former settlement within Alameda County. Even if this place did exist, it should not have an article if there is nothing to say about it. -Naddruf (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, assuming nobody else can find a source stating it existed. Highway 89 (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Striking since sources have been found. Highway 89 (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There doesn't appear to be anything novel about this telephone-book-like listing of a non-existent place, except maybe as a placeholder name for when a real Robert, California will be built. StonyBrook (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It did exist, and this was one of its names, per ISBN 9780520266193 page 319. It was a place more usually called Robert's Landing, outside of San Leandro in the 19th century. It is why West San Lorenzo Station was originally named Roberts Station, and you can find this place under the name Robert's Landing in plenty of history books. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All this begs the question why we have an article about Robert, when the historical place was named other things (Robert's Landing or Roberts). The only one of those that google maps recognizes is Robert's Landing, and it goes to San Leandro. Someone would need to dig up those history books and prove from them that Robert (x3) was an important place. Barring that, this article should be deleted and Robert's Landing, California be created as a redirect to San Leandro, along with some mention of it there, which it currently does not have. StonyBrook (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the article creator here took it from the U.S. GNIS, and the GNIS data were submitted in 1996 by someone who could not read a map. The old GNIS entry (U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Robert) cites its source as a 1934 California DOT highways map. I looked at the 1935 Alameda county highways map, which one can find on the WWW, myself. The dot labelled ″Robert″ is in fact the railway station, the railway line going directly through it, with the old settlement of Robert's Landing labelled separately just next to it. Its GNIS entry is U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Robert's Landing. Your way of doing things is quite byzantine and unnecessarily complex. We can just rename and edit the article. No administrator involvement required. Well, apart from the administrator who is showing how to fix this without involving administrator tools in any way, that is. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my vote. The nom of this article has led its renaming and improvement with sources to the point that it is unrecognizable from its former state. StonyBrook (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brookshire is in fact on the same 1935 California DOT Alameda county highways map. It really did exist after all, it turns out. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. If there is enough information to write an article about it, it could have an article. However I don't think there should be a page if it only lists the coordinates and elevation, without any local history. That brings up the question of whether we should have articles for all the former townships of Alameda County. Naddruf (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The general presumption that populated places are notable is a shortcut for the true argument that each individual place is notable because it is covered in depth in multiple independent quality sources; on the grounds that populated places generally are. User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not a blanket. My personal approach to such a question would be to look to see whether there is a history book or other good source that documents in depth all of the former townships of Alameda County, which could be used as a source for such articles. To pick an example: Looking at just the first paragraph of its 15-page entry on Murray Township, Alameda County, California, I would say that The centennial year book of Alameda County, California at the Internet Archive supports at least a good stub on such a place. Uncle G (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw (comment by nominator): now that the name has been changed, it is clear that this settlement really did exist and it house a useful article. Naddruf (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naddruf The nomination can be withdrawn only if users with delete also change their mind! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Looking at the users who commented delete, they both said that it should only be deleted if no info can be found about the article. This isn't true anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Mhhossein: Actually, a nominator can withdraw at any time, but when outstanding delete !votes are present, the discussion cannot be closed with a speedy keep result. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 1910 explosion blew out the windows in the San Leandro School, 2 miles away. That alone made the location notable: it was written about. But I think the title is over-apostrophized. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aymatth2: If you would like to add that into the article, go ahead. It's not there yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I moved it to Roberts Landing, California, sans apostrophe. It is not the landing of Robert, or the landing of Roberts, but the landing named after Roberts. I will add some stuff on the Trojan years. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Hey look! All the delete comments are gone! Naddruf (talk) 19:23, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarashi

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

TL;DR version: Nothing in the current article appears to be correct.

Details: Sarashi (晒 or 晒し) in Japanese refers to either "bleaching cloth (by exposing it to the sun)" or "exposure (as in doxing)". I cannot find any Japanese-language resources that define sarashi as any kind of figure-altering cloth. Of the two references listed in the article, the first one (the Sarashi page on The International Shakuhachi Society's website, https://www.komuso.com/pieces/pieces.pl?piece=2121) also defines sarashi as "bleaching cloth", and makes no mention of any garment. The second one (a doula-related website, http://www.crowningmomentsdoula.com/History-of-Belly-Binding.php) appears to be a dead link. For those who can read Japanese, see the JA Wikipedia articles at w:ja:晒 about cloth bleaching, and at w:ja:晒し about sensitive data exposure. The former JA Wikipedia article mentions various garments as possible uses of the resulting bleached cloth, but never defines sarashi as meaning those garments themselves. An earlier version of the EN Wikipedia sarashi page referenced https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Sarashi, but I have no idea where that site sourced its information. The picture on that page suggests that the TV Tropes authors were confusing the word sarashi with haramaki, which actually does refer to cloth wrapped around the belly, and might be made from sarashi-bleached material.

I'm reasonably fluent in Japanese and an admin at the EN Wiktionary, focusing on creating and editing entries for Japanese terms. Please ping me with any questions about this AFD. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see any reason to keep this: it is not an encyclopedic topic. As Eirikr hints, it might be the basis for a dictionary entry, once all the misunderstandings are cleared up. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The dead link is archived - [34]. There are a number of sources that mention sarashi binding - [35][36], and as a bleached cloth [37] or sarashi momen - [38]. I'm wondering if rewriting the article to clearly explain what it is, and what it might be used for might be the better option? Hzh (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat suspicious that I cannot find any Japanese references that mention any such "sarashi". I can find mention of bleaching, doxing, and various forms of public punishment that involve putting the guilty party on public display with a notice of their crimes (vaguely similar to how stocks were used in European cultures), as well as more gruesome punishments such as beheading and public exposure of the head. I can find mention of cloth that has been processed using the sarashi method of bleaching. I cannot (yet?) find any Japanese-language source that describes sarashi as specifically a cloth used for belly-binding (or indeed for any other specific garment).

Looking at the links posted by Hzh, I note that:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160302003147/http://www.crowningmomentsdoula.com/History-of-Belly-Binding.php - the doula-related site is all in English, with no sources given;
https://sarashi-binding.net/2016/03/26/how-to-wrap-a-sarashi/ - poor English and a bit confusing, but looking at the parent site http://sarashi.net/ mentioned at the bottom of that page, the content authors are sellers of sarashi cloth, and the "how to wrap" page is about one specific way of using sarashi cloth, rather than about sarashi itself.
https://books.google.com/books?id=MSc4Afi9XWsC&pg=PA90&dq=sarashi+binding - English-only text, and while there is a bibliography with this one, there's no clear source for where the author got the notion that sarashi means "binding".
https://books.google.com/books?id=4h0TAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA375&dq=sarashi - a mention of sarashi cloth, consistent with Japanese sources I've found, and without anything specifically about belly-binding.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WHfTCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA166#v=onepage&q&f=false - sarashi momen is momen ("cotton") bleached using the sarashi process. Again, nothing about belly-binding.

I do note that the Japanese Wikipedia article on haramaki ("belly wrapping") at w:ja:腹巻き specifically mentions 晒木綿 (sarashi momen) as one kind of material used for these, but it does not say that sarashi or sarashi momen means "belly-binding" or "belly wrapping".

If someone wants to completely rewrite our [[Sarashi]] article, I'm fine with its continued existence. But in its present state, it's effectively lying to our readers. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just poorly written, there is no need to throw accusation of lying. It's also just two sentences long, should be easy to rewrite if anyone wants to do it, and it seems that a few minutes adjusting the text by someone who knows the subject should fix any error. I don't have strong feeling about keeping or deleting it, but perhaps a better rationale for deletion should be given rather than any error in it - perhaps WP:NOTDICT, but it seems that it could be expanded, for example its use in rituals [39], or to wrap around parts of the body - [40][41], etc. Hzh (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no basis whatsoever for the implied claim that sarashi is a Japanese term for a binding cloth, rather than for the type of cloth. There is no accusation of lying (saying something you know is false); the suggestion is that the handful of entirely English sources are muddled about what sarashi means. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There you are, I've just done just a little work to fix the wordings, instead of spending time arguing about it. I'm sure you can do better than me fixing the content. Hzh (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither reference attached to the first sentence supports the (surely false) claim that "a sarashi" is a "bleached cloth". Hepburn's dictionary says that sarashi refers to bleaching (as we knew), and the shakuhachi article refers to a piece titled sarashi, meaning "(the act of) bleaching cloth", and not to a particular type of cloth which has been bleached. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiresome. The dictionary gives two definitions, one of them "white, or bleached muslin". Can you do something more useful than pointless carping? Hzh (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the above conversation between editors appears to be about the definition of this term, is WP a dictionary? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator thought that the definition is wrong, hence concentrated on the definition. This is probably the wrong thing to do, since an error in definition can easily be fixed, and is not that relevant to whether the topic warrants an article or not. Hzh (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I have fixed the issue the nominator was complaining about. There are also other sources on its production and uses, and other related things, for example there is a sarashi dance based on the cloth - [42][43]. It is therefore possible to expand it into a decent article on the subject. Hzh (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that after the nomination for deletion, the article was significantly copy edited by User:Hzh, which included the addition of several sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three additional links provided further above by Hzh, the first (https://books.google.com/books?id=iDqKsWFEf-4C&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q&f=false) appears to be correct, using the term sarashi to mean "bleached white cloth". This conforms to all the Japanese materials I have seen. However, Hzh seems to think that this implies some ritual usage specific to this material; I don't think this is enough to warrant notability; perhaps a note on the page for any such ritual, but not a page of its own. The second (https://books.google.com/books?id=RMEMAAAAYAAJ&q=sarashi+belly&dq=sarashi+belly&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8mKzSzcvjAhUNYcAKHUeYCaIQ6AEIQTAE) is mistaken: "a strip of cotton, called iwata-obi or sarashi, is tied around the expectant mother's waist, just below her extended belly." Here, an iwata obi is definitely a thing, and it even has a JA WP article at [[ja:帯祝い]]. However, it is not sarashi, nor is sarashi an iwata obi, although an iwata obi could well be made of sarashi material. Notably, the JA WP article lists several synonyms, but it doesn't include the word sarashi anywhere. The third link (https://books.google.com/books?id=zH1oDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT173&dq=sarashi#v=onepage&q=sarashi&f=false) also appears to be confused: "He carried an unsheathed dagger wrapped in a towel, thrust in his sarashi (a light muslin cloth, wrapped in many layers around the belly for warmth)." From all that I've read so far in Japanese, the described use is a haramaki made of sarashi material, not a valid definition of sarashi itself.
...in its present state, [the article] is effectively lying to our readers. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi |^{Tala við mig} 16:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just poorly written, there is no need to throw accusation of lying... Hzh (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the term "lying" is from the sense of "knowingly telling a falsehood". The [[Sarashi]] article is known to be false. In its current state, we are effectively lying to our readers, by knowingly (at this point, at least) telling a falsehood. We could rewrite the page at [[Sarashi]] to properly conform to known Japanese usage, describing the material, what it's made of, and how it's produced. However, none of the English-language links so far posted to this thread provide the information needed to do that. I'm also uncertain if it's notable enough, although I do see a page for [[Muslin]].

The page after editing by Hzh seems ... unuseful. I recognize that that's a subjective judgement; however, the page barely provides more information than a dictionary entry would. And if WP:NOTDICT holds, then [[Sarashi]] appears to fall below that threshold, and we should delete. Some of the sources also don't say what the article seems to imply that they say; I'll clear those out in a moment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you misread a lot of what is written there. The thing you complained about is actually about its use, not what it is defined as (e.g. the cloth used for binding either a woman's or man's belly is sarashi). You also seem to misunderstand what sources may be used - while English sources are preferred, there is nothing wrong with using Japanese language sources if you want to do per WP:NOENG, therefore arguing about English sources is pointless. You can just replace them with Japanese ones if you want to. If there are valid sources in Japanese in Japanese Wiki, then they can also be used here. It's really odd to keep referring to the Japanese Wiki, for one you should not use another Wiki article as a reference (Wiki article are not valid sources whichever language they may be), for another, if the sources used in the Japanese Wiki are valid for that article, then they can be used here. Otherwise you can also argue for the deletion of the Japanese Wiki article. I have no idea why you waste so much time writing here in the AfD when you can just spend a few minutes in the article to fix any issues given that it is just a few sentences long. Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are you bolding delete, it makes you look like you are voting delete again after nominating it for AfD. Hzh (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with Eiríkr here. I have just edited the article slightly, but don't know how to get the bolded title to be italic, as it should be, since it is not an English word. Fairly clearly some ancient (unreliable) sources in English have confused the Japanese term for the type of cloth with its purpose. So once again: what is the topic of this (supposedly encyclopedic) article? Your comments about Japanese sources seem odd: the WP:ja article totally supports what Eiríkr is saying, and we should generally assume that writing by speakers of Japanese is a more reliable guide to usage in the Japanese language than isolated (mis-)quotes from non-speakers of Japanese. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is the policy of Wikipedia per WP:CIRCULAR, you cannot use Wikipedia as source. You can however use content that is sourced. Since that article is referenced with Japanese language sources, you can therefore simply translate the article and use it here with the sources. All these arguments are pointless since the issues are so easily fixable, and we are only having this discussion because the nominator isn't aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including on deletion). If the nominator thinks that an article on sarashi shouldn't exist in English Wikipedia because of the sources, then it would also apply to the Japanese one and he can nominate that one for deletion as well. Hzh (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Hzh.

"You also seem to misunderstand what sources may be used - while English sources are preferred, there is nothing wrong with using Japanese language sources if you want to do per WP:NOENG, therefore arguing about English sources is pointless." -- Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At no point have I added sources to the [[Sarashi]] article. At no point have I advocated adding sources to the [[Sarashi]] article. Instead, I have pointed out where existing references in the [[Sarashi]] article have been incorrect. If an English source is wrong, I will argue against its inclusion and/or remove it from the article.

"It's really odd to keep referring to the Japanese Wiki, for one you should not use another Wiki article as a reference..." -- Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use the Japanese WP as a point of reference, but nowhere do I advocate for using the Japanese WP as a reference proper, that is, as a source for the [[Sarashi]] article here.

Sarashi is an artifact of the Japanese language and culture. Understanding what sarashi is and its significance requires that one evaluate what Japanese writers have to say about it. When the Japanese WP article at [[ja:晒]] disagrees with the English WP article at [[Sarashi]], simple logic suggests that we should give more credence to the article written (presumably) by authors who belong to the culture and language from which sarashi originated, and then do further research.

"...if the sources used in the Japanese Wiki are valid for that article, then they can be used here. Otherwise you can also argue for the deletion of the Japanese Wiki article. I have no idea why you waste so much time writing here in the AfD when you can just spend a few minutes in the article to fix any issues given that it is just a few sentences long." -- Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that hasn't been addressed fully is whether the topic of [[Sarashi]] is noteworthy enough for an English-language audience to even merit the existence of the [[Sarashi]] article. I explicitly called that into question above: "I'm also uncertain if it's notable enough, although I do see a page for [[Muslin]]." ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi |^{Tala við mig} 16:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding so far has been that the existence of an article on one language's Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that the topic is similarly notable enough for readers of other languages. Each Wikipedia is a separate community, with separate ideas about what merits notability. By my reading of the English Wikipedia guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Notability]], the topic of sarashi is not sufficiently notable to merit a separate page. I am uninterested in expending the effort to build out an article on a topic that I judge to be non-notable. At least one other editor here, Imaginatorium, seems to share my view; in your posts here to date, you haven't stated anything explicit about your views on the notability of sarashi for English-language readers.

"...we are only having this discussion because the nominator isn't aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including on deletion)." -- Hzh (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. My initial nomination was prompted by the patent and complete incorrectness of the entire article at that time, and by my view that it is better to have no article at all than to have a completely incorrect article. At present, I continue to advocate for the article's deletion, as I do not think that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable for English-language readers to merit an independent article.

"If the nominator thinks that an article on sarashi shouldn't exist in English Wikipedia because of the sources, then it would also apply to the Japanese one and he can nominate that one for deletion as well." -- Hzh (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also incorrect. For one, bad English-language sources in the English-language article have no bearing on the quality of Japanese-language sources used for the Japanese-language article. For two, I do not think that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable to merit an independent article. For three, as I stated above, the different Wikipedias have different criteria for what constitutes a notable topic for an article.

In summation, 1) is the topic of sarashi sufficiently notable to merit its own article? I do not currently think so. I am open to being convinced otherwise.

Also, 2) if we are to keep and maintain the [[Sarashi]] article, it should at least be correct. This is where I am concerned about the sources. Given time, I can find you sources published with Japanese government ministry approval that state quite clearly that Americans all have big family gatherings and turkey dinners on Halloween. Anyone with much experience of American culture can ascertain that this is incorrect. Simply finding a source isn't good enough: sources must also be vetted. Several of those listed above have not been correct.

Iff a convincing argument can be made that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable for English-language readers to merit an independent article, then I will happily withdraw my nomination of the [[Sarashi]] article for deletion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens, if I had known this is going to get so tedious, I would never have participated here. You claim to know what the deletion policy is, but only mentioned actual guidelines after almost two weeks. Half of the problems lie with you misreading what's written, then rely on your misreading to claim that what's written is wrong. The only person who supported you could not even read the dictionary source provided properly. If there are sources in Japanese that discuss the subject in any depth, then it is notable in English Wikipedia. Notability of any English language article is not limited by the sources available in English. You apparently have found sources in Japanese, unless those are trivial sources, if you are questioning its notability knowing that there are significant Japanese sources, it would suggest that you don't know what the policies and guidelines are. Hint: read WP:SIGCOV, if sources in Japanese don't cover the topic more than trivial mentions, then argue for deletion based on that. Hzh (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh, please maintain civility. Your responses have grown increasingly belittling and accusatory.

I have read WP:SIGCOV: as I stated above, I have read Wikipedia:Notability, of which Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline is a part. Apparently my understanding differs from yours. Particularly (emphasis mine):

"A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article... If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."

For instance, I believe that sarashi might merit a mention and brief description in the [[Muslin]] article.

By way of relevant example, the Japanese-language editing community decided that the topic of lower bigrade conjugation verbs deserved a whole page, at [[ja:下二段活用]]. The English-language editing community decided differently, and instead we only have a mention of this conjugation pattern in the [[Classical_Japanese_language#Verbs_(動詞_Dōshi)]] section. Clearly, different-language Wikipedias make different decisions about notability.

Along similar lines, I am not convinced that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable to English-language readers to warrant its own article. This is wholly independent of sourcing and the language of any such sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to click on the Japanese version of WP:N to see that the same criteria on significant coverage and others also apply. If you want to argue about the notability of the English article, then you are also arguing for the deletion of the Japanese version. However, I have no idea what your argument for deletion is based on (you need to specify what exactly which bit of WP:N the article supposedly failed), which is really strange after you have written so much. Even odder that you are in effect disputing what WP:SIGCOV says on the link between sourcing and notability. You really need to show that you understand which policy and guideline that this article fails. And no, the fact that a topic only appears as a subtopic in an article does not mean that that subtopic does not warrant its own page. Splitting of a subtopic occurs too often to be even worth discussing (someone may very well create an article on that subtopic tomorrow), and entirely irrelevant here. What you are saying about putting it into the muslin article is also an argument for merging (see WP:MERGE), not deletion. I recommend reading WP:Deletion policy on reasons for deletion and the various alternatives available for an article. Hzh (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Hzh: Among your posting about you said "The only person who supported you could not even read the dictionary source provided properly." I think this means me, so kindly remind me what you refer to as "the [sic] dictionary source", and explain what I am not able to read. You have never explained: what is supposed to be the topic of this supposed encyclopedia article. A topic cannot just be "This Japanese word", it has to be a noun phrase describing the subject. Currently the closest seems to be "Various misconceptions in old books in English of the meaning of the Japanese word 晒し"; at least it could be moved to sarashi momen (晒し木綿), so that the topic could be described by the English noun phrase "Bleached cotton in the context of Japanese tradition". Imaginatorium (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the sources again after you complained about sarashi meaning only bleaching and not bleached cloth in the dictionary? The dictionary gave 2 definitions, you apparently stopped reading after the first one. If you don't want to check, perhaps you can just ask Eiríkr Útlendi, who said that sarashi meaning "bleached white cloth" conforms to all the Japanese materials he had seen. I have spent a ridiculous amount of time replying when those I replied to can just do a simple check themselves, and to a nominator who so far has not produced a valid reason for deletion (citing WP:N while apparently disputing what it says on sourcing and notability is absurd, he should really understand that notability is not independent of sourcing). As far as I can see, there are enough sources to extend the article beyond a simple definition, therefore WP:NOTDICT would not apply, and so justifiable in keeping. I think I should really bow out of this discussion before I get really rude over an article I don't care that much about. Hzh (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in 大辞林, which is a pretty good dictionary. 晒し can be used as short for 晒し木綿, which is "bleached cotton". But you did not answer my question: what is the topic of this article? If it is "Bleached cotton", then that would be a better title. Or is it "Semi-misunderstandings and confusion around the Japanese word sarashi in old books in English"? Is that really a notable topic? Imaginatorium (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. seems to me the sensible outcome when no one seems to be able to agree whether the sources provided in the article represent significant coverage Fenix down (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sohan Mohammad Sima Qom FSC

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Page draftified once as lacking the sources needed to show notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sufficient credible sources. Pournia 02:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pournia: May I ask where are those sources as I don't see any. HawkAussie (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many resources available in Farsi. Maybe you're blind! 19:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to comment but you need to refrain from insulting and personally attacking people as well as disruptively removing AFD tags and IP hopping. Praxidicae (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacking of notable source. Barca (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search on Google produced no sources for this team and easily fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Sohan Mohammad Sima Qom FSC is a professional futsal club.The reasons are enough.https://betsapi.com/t/259201/Sohan-Mohammad-Sima-Qom 12:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Weak Keep There are a number of sources in the article, but Farsi's a language that's really difficult for me to search in/identify reliable sources for. It should not be deleted until the Farsi language sources have been disqualified. SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those Farsi sources claim (on this version) that "coach changed" (6:broken link apparently), "the club promotion to Iran futsal pro league" (7 and 10), again "new coach for the club" (8 and 9), "club loss in three matches" (11, 12, 13: all local sources).Farhikht (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lootcase

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

Fails WP:NFF. The coverage is short rehashes of press releases. Fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:39, 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 04:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 00:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Pendry (hang glider pilot)

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

An almost-entirely-unsourced BLP. No substantial coverage in independent sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Lacks independent, reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability, offered or to be found. Thought topic might be sexy enough to have generated more interest, but apparently not, or at least not in the digital world. If anyone can find good evidence, print or otherwise, happy to reconsider. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Twice a world champion and four times a European champion in his sports, which is reliably sourced, so clearly meets WP:SPORTSPERSON. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These championships do not appear to be in a "major amateur or professional competition", as specified by SPORTSPERSON; likewise, the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" that he "is likely to have received" is also absent. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can the world championships in a sport possibly not be major? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not major if not notable. Please provide substantial coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources to indicate that AfD subject is notable. There don't seem to be any. There doesn't seem to be a particular reason to think that there would be. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSPERSON shows a clear presumption of notability for participants at his level in any sport. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get this "clear presumption"? SPORTSPERSON says "...major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor". I deny that he has done so, for lack of evidence that any of his awards could be termed "major" or "significant" in terms of WP's concept of notability. You decline to evidence that any of these awards are notable. Fortunately, SPORTSPERSON includes a link to "Main Page" Wikipedia:Notability (sports), where the results of "rule of thumb" discussions about participation and success in competitions in various sports are collected. I observe that none of his competitions are mentioned, nor even is hang gliding mentioned at all. Again, I request that you please provide evidence that this subject is notable based on substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that "major amateur or professional competition" means such within each individual sport. The fact that hang gliding and paragliding are not listed as specific sports is utterly and completely irrelevant. It just means nobody has done so yet. So yes, he has a clear presumption of notability, as I said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Google Books search shows that he pops up in plenty of works as a pioneer of hang-gliding, and achieved some world records. --Slashme (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could do with some more work but the world championship makes him noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a world championship may be notable within the confines of a minority sport, I'm doubtful that it meets the requirements of GNG which are based on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There are other more serious issues with the article as given in the cleanup banners. It's obviously an autobiography and it contains original research. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After some excellent work by RebeccaGreen, I'm happy that this now qualifies and have struck put my previous entry immediately above. Well done, Rebecca. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found and added coverage from digitised newspapers (I haven't yet looked in Google Books, so Slashme's comment suggests that there are more references that can be added). (I also found some more information about competitions he won, but not being familiar with the sport, I have hesitated to add information that I might get muddled - eg some Australian sources talk about world championship competitions in Australia, while British sources say he won Australian championships - do they mean world championships in Australia? or did the Australian sources mean that it was an Australian championship with entrants from around the world??) There certainly is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. As other editors have pointed out, he has won numerous world and national championships. He has also won two Royal Aero Club Gold Medals. These should all mean that he at least meets WP:ANYBIO, even if there aren't specific WP:SNG for hang gliders. I have de-orphaned the page, but if there were better coverage of hang gliding and paragliding championships on Wikipedia, or a list of winners of the Royal Aero Club Gold Medal, there would be many more links to his name. Pinging Hobbes Goodyear as having mentioned that they would reconsider if SIGCOV was found. Perhaps No Great Shaker would also like to look at the coverage. I must say that I can't see much evidence of original research, but anything that is could be edited anyway. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now well-sourced. A world champion is obviously notable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable according to the source presented. Barca (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now sufficiently sourced and compliant with GNG. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to changes made since the nomination and for Pendry being notable for being a champion ie WP:ANYBIO. Josalm64rc (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved since nomination and documented world champions will the nod from me for notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:47, 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photonic laser thruster

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

This article, about the research of Young K. Bae, was created by Young K. Bae him/herself. The article does not cite any references that establish notability. With one exception the only cited references that discuss photonic laser thrusters are the ones by Bae. All of the other references are cited to support points about historical background (like other propulsion systems) or general principles. The one possible exception is the paper by F.Y Hsiao et al., which may be about photonic laser thrusters. Someone would have to get a copy and review it to find out. There are certainly not enough reliable secondary sources cited to establish notability. I strongly suspect that the lack of sources establishing notability is because such sources do not exist. Srleffler (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate independent sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep/merge It doesn't seem difficult to find independent coverage in sources such as Popular Mechanics. Perhaps, to damp down the hype, it might be merged with a more general page such as Laser_propulsion#Photonic_laser_thruster but deletion seems inappropriate per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew D. thinks deletion of literally anything is inappropriate and once it exists on Wikipedia it should be preserved for eternity. It's clear that this article is promotional, and development on this topic has not left the article's author's own lab. A single magazine blurb does not show this early-stage single-author research topic is notable, and the section at Laser propulsion, also written by the scientist to promote his own work, is itself excessive for something other researchers beyond Bae are not addressing. Reywas92^Talk 18:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article by Hsiao et al. is about photonic laser thrusters, but it is insufficient by itself to establish wiki-notability and it has itself essentially been ignored (1 citation on Google Scholar or on NASA ADS). The existing content is overtly promotional, trying to lead the scientific community instead of following it, exactly the kind of hype we should not preserve. XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear author COI and promotion of Y.K. Bae Corporation. We already have a laser propulsion article and solar sail discusses its use for interstellar travel. There is no strong evidence that Bae's version is notable enough for a standalone article. The Popular Mechanics article found by Andrew is pretty much churnalism from a press release and not enough by itself for notability. SpinningSpark 00:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete laser propulsion is sufficient. Keep the image though. It's stellar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the above concerns about lack of secondary sources and COI issues. I would furthermore suggest that, should this article be deleted, that the corresponding section in laser propulsion also be removed from that article, as it suffers from the exact same issues as being promotional material added by Young Bae, using only his own work as references. Rorshacma (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metastable inner-shell molecular state

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

This article, about the research of Young K. Bae, was created by Young K. Bae him/herself. The article does not cite any references that establish notability. Most of the references are to Bae's own papers. The other references all predate Bei's 2008 proposal of MIMS. I did some quick Google/Scholar/Books searches which turned up only one use of the term by someone other than Bae, and that was a conference presentation by some of Bae's coauthors from other papers. Bae's papers have very few citations, most of which are other papers by Bae. I didn't find anything that could establish that the topic is notable. Srleffler (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing completely inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The topic is important. Perhaps it should be renamed to quasimolecule as the concept and study was around before Bae came up with the term "metastable inner-shell molecular state". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the WP:TNT principle. Renaming to a better-established term would give a biased and COI-inflected presentation of that topic which would require effort comparable to writing a new article to correct. XOR'easter (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional material on the author's own work that does not appear to be covered by other researchers as a notable topic. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that quasimolecule is a notable subject and should be created, but I also agree that this page is a self-serving TNT case. Bae's work, by itself, does not appear to be notable. If the history section gave a clear development of the subject there might be something retrievable in the page, but even in the first section (which covers the 1930s) Bae cannot resist shoehorning in his own research out of historical context. XOR'easter is right, starting from a blank page is going to be easier. SpinningSpark 00:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:SPAM. We follow; we don't publish research news. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Shipwright

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

WP:BLP of a tax law advisor and writer, not properly referenced to any evidence of notability. Right across the board, this is referenced entirely to primary sources, like his "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or organizations and his books' directory entries in WorldCat or Google Books. As always, however, the notability test for a writer is not just that his employer and his books technically metaverify themselves: it is the reception of reliable source coverage about him and his work in sources that he is not directly affiliated with, such as journalism about him and his work, critical reviews or analysis about his books, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a typical promotional article. It reads like an advertisement. None of the independent sources are anything beyond a listing or a promotional blurb. --Slashme (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No credible claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am focusing on Authors of books as per WP:AUTHORS we have a wide range of authors in our library who published/wrote multiple books. As per WP:Authors, I think such type of authors are notable who's works are used in academics and official matters. See also: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Adrian+Shipwright%22+-wikipedia looking forward for further guidance, thank you. Rebecca Webb (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How many times have we deleted articles about authors without citations about the author, who is clearly run of the mill? Bearian (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles are supposed to be sourced to the work of others on the person, not to that person's own work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly promotional and is run of the mill

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

[1] ttps://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/university-of-richmond-3744

[2] ttps://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/university-of-richmond-3744/academics

[3] "Former JLS star has a passion for farming". Newark Advertiser. 19 February 2018. Retrieved 18 July 2019.

[1]

[2]

[1]