Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 September	2 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos (album)

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

Not enough has been written and published about this album to write an article of substance. Notability is questionable. Vmavanti (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, can't even see any source in the article for the band in Finnish. fails WP:ALBUMS. Hzh (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's some minimal coverage here, but there doesn't seem to be much online. It's possible given the date of release that there is more in print sources. Note to nominator: If you are going to state that not enough has been written about a subject it would be useful to at least state where you looked for coverage. --Michig (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The album spent three weeks on the official album chart in Finland. I also found a shortish review in Helsingin Sanomat (paywall), the biggest newspaper in Finland. -kyykaarme (talk) 21:53, 6 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Connection

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

Not enough has been written about this album to provide sources for an article of substance. Notability is questionable. Vmavanti (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The album is mentioned in the following sources:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. Given the album's release date in 1979, it makes sense that a majority of these sources are older newspaper and magazine articles. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there are multiple articles/reviews on the album. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reviews in Google Books from the likes of Billboard (two reviews), Cadence, and Jazz magazine, so I'm struggling to see how the nominator determined that "not enough has been written about this album". --Michig (talk) 08:47, 6 October 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand College of Education

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

Apparently fake of hoax educational institution. Not accredited, not in companies register, no independent sources. See also discussion at Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board#New_Zealand_College_of_Education and the article talk page Stuartyeates (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. Article was created by hijacking a legitimate article and then moving it to the current name. The solution would be to move it back and revert the edits since the hijack, except the previous article has since been recreated and now has more content than it originally did. A history merge might be an appropriate solution.-gadfium 01:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep per Doc James, now that the article is exposing the college as a scam. I presume someone here tipped off the reporter. Good work.-gadfium 21:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. (I don't believe it's a hoax. But very dishonourable of User:Richards1954 to hijack the original article.) Nurg (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-existent entity - no independent evidence that it exists can be found. MurielMary (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my "vote" to Keep as it's now been documented in a news story as a scam. MurielMary (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non notable.-- Deep fried okra 09:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can perform the histmerge of original article's content to original article. Please ping me.-- Deep fried okra 09:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a notable scam. Have added that with references. By the way we are the first link on google for this term. IMO we have an obligation to try to help protect people from this scam now that we have discovered it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could also merge to List of Wikipedia controversies Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Doc James. Now that we've discovered that it's a scam, and it's been reported as a scam by Newshub (which makes it notable), we should keep the article as a warning. Schwede 66 21:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gadfium, Doc James and Schwede66. Yes Gadfium, "someone here tipped off the reporter". For those who haven't seen it, the newsroom story is The Invisible College That Wants Your Cash. Moriori (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Yes, it appears to be a hoax/scam but no, it is not for Wikipedia to put up an article warning people about it. Following its recent editing, the article as it stands at the moment ("New Zealand College of Education (NZCOE) appears to be a scam which is falsely presenting itself as a college...") fails WP:OR and WP:NOTSCANDAL, rather than editing it in this way it would have been better, IMO, to speedily delete it as a hoax. Even if an article about the scam were warranted (best written retrospectively, when the facts are actually known and that assessment can be made), it would not be entitled "New Zealand College of Education". Dorsetonian (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not WP:OR; please see the Newsroom article. Schwede 66 19:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that clear-cut: the Newsroom article follows the discussion on Wikipedia at Talk:New Zealand College of Education. But I think that's now largely moot; having looked at how other hoaxes have been dealt with, I think we should deal with this similarly, and have replaced my recommendation with the one below. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move. It think the way to deal with this is to list the hoax on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia and move the hoax article to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/New Zealand College of Education without leaving a redirect. Anyone who then visits New Zealand College of Education will then see clearly that the article was a hoax and has been moved. See e.g. Rough Creek Ranch for a similar example. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for 2-3 months then redirect to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia mostly per the reasoning of @Doc James: (though this is a slightly different recommendation). We should keep the article up as it is now, simply to let recent scamees know what happened to their future education and money. Since the scammers website is now offline, there may be no other way to find out. After 2-3 months are gone though, the interest in these facts is much more academic. Redirecting to the more general article will preserve the edit history, which is important to me personally (I'll likely write a short article on this for The Signpost) but others may have similar interest in the scam. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doc James, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 6 October 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Cervenka

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

Unreferenced article since it inception. My WP:Before shows no hits for this particular John Cervenka. I can't find any proof that this person meets WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally unreferenced except for an unreliable source. Internet searches reveal a dentist and a mid-level manager with the same name, neither of whom are anywhere near notable. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 7 October 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) 01:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sings (Emilie-Claire Barlow album)

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

Not enough has been written about this album to write an article of substance. In other words, too few sources. Notability is also questionable. Vmavanti (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little coverage found online. It's possible that print coverage exists, but right now there's little more here than an infobox and a tracklisting, and I'm not a big fan of making redirects from convoluted titles. --Michig (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our practice for albums used to be that the only notability claim they actually had to make was the fact that they had been recorded by a notable artist — if a musician or band was notable enough for an article, then every album they had ever recorded was "inherently" notable regardless of whether it actually had any meaningful notability claim or substantive reliable sources beyond technical verification that it exists. That's not our practice anymore, however: an album article has to be able to say more than just that it exists, and it has to be supported by real sourcing. But this doesn't, and isn't. Emilie-Claire Barlow does have other albums with stronger notability claims and better sourcing, to be sure, but her debut didn't achieve what some of the later albums did. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 6 October 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 08:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exploratory product development

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

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

Doesn't seem notable, fails WP:GNG. All the sources here and elsewhere are by the two proponents of the approach, their business, and the group that gave them a grant. In general, when I come across the phrase "exploratory product development" in web pages turned up by Google, it's being used generically, not to refer to the methodology of these people. Google Scholar is the same. "Exploratory PD" also turns up nothing to support WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is, at very best, an example of WP:TOOSOON, and at worst the actually-funded-somehow academic analogue to a drinking game indigenous to a particular fraternity house. The prodigious use of vanity capitalization/a CamelCase initialism is indicative of the substance and notability deficiencies. Thank you for nominating this, Largoplazo. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded Boards

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

Skateboard manufacturer that does not appear to be sufficiently notable to sustain an article. Provided external sources are limited to one unabashed promo interview. Anything else I can find is in-house. Currently this article does not serve any function other than advertisement. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are all primary or non-independent and I cannot find anything else. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 12:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a yellow pages or a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per WP:NEXIST a WP:BEFORE is revealing. The nominator calls out the promotional or advertising feel, but WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing buzzwords without backup into the room is not helpful, nor does it make you sound smart. Show your sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to say acronyms because I did not use any buzzwords. You should look up the useful acronyms I have invoked: acronyms are often used in AfDs as shortcuts, and these particular ones are relevant to my ivote on this AfD discussion. WP:NOTCLEANUP Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. Articles which are promotional require editing, not deletion. Lightburst (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. Throwing out WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE is without any value if you don't demonstrate what sources you found; i.e., they are empty buzzwords. I checked for available sources and found none that were sufficient to demonstrate independent notability. If you claim that there are some - present them here for evaluation. In their absence, the article functions only as an advertisement, not as encyclopedic coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 14 October 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 R+. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R Plus

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

Disambiguation page does not link to any valid articles (anymore). +mt 20:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mwtoews, why not just redirect to R+? – Uanfala (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: that's a good speedy resolution. +mt 22:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to R+. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:17, 7 October 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 The Inbetweeners. By the way, it's not actually necessary to bring something to AfD to redirect it. See WP:BOLD. But, no harm done. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bwark Productions

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

UK TV production company, now apparently defunct and only really known for one series (The Inbetweeners). Can find no coverage online to suggest that the company itself is notable beyond this connection or that with its founders (Damon Beesley and Iain Morris). Article's only cited source is the company's own website, also defunct. Would suggest making this page a redirect to The Inbetweeners (as it was initially). Hamptonian92 (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per suggestion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G3 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Joel Gotzman

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

Looks like a hoax Bamyers99 (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely a hoax, definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. W 42 01:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax per G3, have already tagged for speedy for this reason. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:19, 2 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German Baun

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

Article about footballer who made about a dozen appearances in the regionalized Russian third-tier. As a product of SKA Rostov-on-Don's reserve team, I was expecting to find significant coverage somewhere, but an online search of English- and Russian-language sources yields database entries, match reports and squad lists - nothing that remotely suggests WP:GNG would be met. Accordingly, the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't hold - not to mention that the sourcing for the inclusion of the Russian Second Division at WP:FPL is totally insufficient. Jogurney (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, scraping by on NFOOTBALL (and I question that the Russian third-tier is "fully professional" especially given that is is regionalised) is not enough when GNG is failed so clearly. Giant Snowman 08:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 22:08, 7 October 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. No prejudice against re-creation if there are more sources when the film is released. RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dhamaka

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The three links provided do not cover the film well. Also, I am not sure if the film has been released yet, so it may satisfy WP:CRYSTAL. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:RS. It's unclear if this has been released; the only sources are blogs/comments. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM, as, outside of the sources provided, there are virtually no relevant sources available. Luke ^Talk 03:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM, all the criteria. The film is slated to be released in Nov-Dec 2019. The sources so far only cover the announcement event of the film. Being an unreleased film it fails WP:CRYSTAL. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:07, 10 October 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 Mandali (Meher Baba). (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehera Irani

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

The 3 volume work by David Fenster is not a reliable source; neither the author nor the publication house has any credibility/repute and t÷he publication house is non-independent.

As determined in a RSN thread; Bhau Kalchuri's biography is not reliable (for largely the same reasons) except as to verification of non-extraordinary claims. Certainly, it does not add any to notability.

We are left with Purdom, who (despite being one of Meher baba's closest associates) has covered her in the context of his narrative about Meher baba via a a reliable press. But, a single source doesn't confer a passage of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.

I don't locate any other reliable source that covers her signifcantly (in a non-trivial fashion) and hence, seek a redirect to Mandali_(Meher_Baba) ∯WBG^converse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least this one's a save. The publishing house of George Allen & Unwin(now Allen & Unwin) is, in fact, one of the most credible publishing houses in the world. It published, for instance, J. R. Tolkian's The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbitt, among many other well known publications. A reputable source. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to compare publication of fiction with non-fiction? That seems odd, and one non-neutral author/source does not notability make. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The publishing house is notable and reputable. It published a nonfiction book which lends reputability to this article. Maybe the book can be used to bulk up some of the cites on the deleted articles, but I'm surprised that the Baba editors here were strangely silent on the burial site page. I got caught up in these pages when the first wave of deletions were ongoing out of a sense of fairness. Is Baba so disliked in India? Peter Townshend seems to really like him, which should say something in his behalf. And, of course, Don't Worry, Be Happy gave him a nice image. I guess I'm missing something in terms of understanding the dislike, but that's neither Here or there. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are again casting aspersions, despite being warned about it by Jo-Jo Eumerus when they closed the recent AfD on a related matter - this has nothing to do with dislike and I, for one, am not even from India or of Indian heritage. And, for what it is worth, the opinion of Pete Townshend counts for nothing more than mine here, and the status of the publisher means nothing in terms of the notability of the subject. As I've just said on your talk page, I think you need to read WP:CIR. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't answer my question as to why a published book by a reputable publisher doesn't "count". Because, as you say below, it's labeled as being written by a hagiographer? Where is that line drawn? Anyway, this woman seems to have been the central female in the Baba group, and that seems important enough to the topic to be worthy of an article as long as a good source by a reputable publisher has been included, which it seems to have been. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, WP:GNG says:- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Purdom counts somewhat (though not very strongly, courtesy the independence concerns) but even then, it's a single source contra the emphasis on plural, in the above quote. ∯WBG^converse 06:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming that David Fenster's volumes were/are published by George Allen & Unwin; what?! Why not take some time, before !voting? ∯WBG^converse 17:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, and thanks for pointing it out in case I hadn't caught it already. But the book that I meant above that they did publish, Charles Purdom's work, is reputable and should satisfy even you. Why doesn't it? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was your mistake. You're also making the mistake of (again) misunderstanding WP:GNG and again misunderstanding that a hagiographer etc is not independent. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I quickly reverted the mistake, even before comments about it were posted. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage and inability to verify. The debate so far has been whether a single book that references the subject is itself notable. Disciples of barely notable religious figures are not themselves notable. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article and Mandali (Meher Baba). Fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandali (Meher Baba) as nominator has explained. Disciples of notable religious figures can be notable in their own right, such as Swami Vivekananda who was a disciple of Ramakrishna and Sister Nivedita who in turn was a disciple of Swami Vivekananda. What should be looked at is their individual contributions. Mehera Irani's individual contributions are not widely covered in literature/newspapers which makes me feel that it is best redirected.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandali (Meher Baba) per DreamLinker's comment. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:27, 15 October 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. There is consensus to keep this article in some form (either as an article about the album, or about the rapper, or both). WP:A9 does not apply because the fact that the album received WP:SIGCOV is itself a credible claim of significance. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girls (Yung Baby Tate album)

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

This album got one review from Pitchfork (already cited) but I can find nothing else in reliable sources and the article is otherwise dependent on social media announcements and basic retail listings. Also, This album could be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:A9 because there is no article on the rapper, but maybe the album's importance is boosted by the reviews it has received. There is very little to find about the rapper besides tidbits in the reviews and this: [1]. There might be enough for a stub article about her, but that should come before an article for this album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have altered my nomination to reflect the existence of various reviews as noted by Aoba47 below. I missed most of those in my WP:BEFORE search, perhaps due to the album's generic title. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This XXL source, 1, briefly mentions the album. HotNewHipHop published an article, 2, about the album. The Fader, Paper, and BroadwayWorld also put out articles about specific songs from the album, 3 4 5. Genius published an article about the album's lyrics, 6, Pitchfork also put out a second article about one of the album's songs, 7, and NPR has done a review for the album, 8. A majority of the articles that I have found focus on songs from the album, but I have also located a few sources that discuss the album. I agree that an article about the rapper would be the ideal starting point, but there does appear to be coverage on this album. I am leaning keep, but I am not completely certain so I am not casting a vote either way. Here are some additional sources. I broke down some of them above to avoid just putting put a list of links without any context: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. The album's title is very generic so it is understandable how a before search may have missed these sources. That is one of the most frustrating parts about working on an article about a generically named subject matter lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources found by Aoba47 seem sufficient to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the sources that I have located and listed above, I feel that WP:GNG has been fulfilled here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dispute with this, but we may need a Yung Baby Tate article to go with the album, because someone may still call for deletion under WP:A9, rightly or wrongly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:06, 8 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Asadi

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:AUTHOR. I can't read or write Farsi to determine whether she has the correct kind of sources to salvage this with or not, so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with the appropriate language skills can repair it -- but I had to strip all three of the "references" that were here because one was a WP:CIRCULAR self-citation to the Farsi Wikipedia and the other two both went to spoof sites that tried to make me download computer viruses instead of real media, and even the Farsi article is flagged for major maintenance issues and doesn't have any sources in it either (so we can't just copy over sources from there and be done with it.) As always, writers are not automatically notable just because they exist, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to demonstrate her notability through the use reliable source media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't find an atom of references from reliable sources independent of the subject. Danidamiobi (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. does not coverWP:BLP and live person notability. My native language is Farsi. I have just nominated the fa article for speedy deletion due to wp:notability.Gharouni^Talk 01:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable poet. Search in Persian shows just non reliable websites and trivial mentions.Farhikht (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clearly undersourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obould Many-Arrows

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

This article does not establish notability. The reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in secondary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Errtu

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in secondary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There just are not any reliable secondary sources covering the character in any depth. Alternatively, a Redirect to Icewind Dale Trilogy, where he is briefly covered, might be a viable alternative. Rorshacma (talk) 04:13, 8 October 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. In the sense of "not delete". There is no consensus about whether to keep this as a separate article or to merge it into Obergefell v. Hodges, but that can continue to be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 11:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Obergefell

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

WP:BLP1E of a person who is notable for a specific event, but is already well-covered by that event's article without needing to delve deeper into his private personal life outside of the event. This is referenced entirely to factoids cherrypicked from coverage of the court case itself (along with a few stray primary sources that aren't notability boosters), not to any evidence that his personal life has actually been a subject of coverage in its own right -- and since the existing Obergefell v. Hodges already covers him in the appropriate context, there's no compelling reason why he would need a standalone biographical article to delve more deeply into his childhood or his educational background or his career or his family relationships than the court case's article already does. To be clear, I do believe his name should be retained as a redirect to Obergefell v. Hodges -- but I'm not seeing a convincing reason why it needs to be a separate standalone biographical article that deep-dives into his private life outside of his role in the court case itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Obergefell v. Hodges; I think the "Recognition" section has some worthwhile material that can go there, but otherwise I agree with the nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge or redirect into the court case. Clear WP:BLP1E. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since the SCOTUS case, he's become notable as an activist. Plenty of sources are available about that; see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles just because somebody generically asserts, without showing any actual evidence, that there are more sources available. WP:NEXIST is not a magic word that instantly sends an AFD discussion to hell just because you say it — it only comes into play if you actually show the evidence. Also,

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian placed a neutral notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies on 15:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC). --MarioGom (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian. There is plenty of precedent for people who became famous for 1E who use that fame to go on to become notable advocates and campaigners. De Guerre (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, De Guerre. See also Edith Windsor for another example. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edith Windsor features evidence that she already had some degree of preexisting notability before her court case. It may not necessarily have gotten her all the way over a notability standard in the absence of the court case, but it's still contributory — and Edie Windsor also cites a lot more sources than this does, covering her in the context of a lot more than just the court case alone. That's the difference between her and this: her article is actually showing and sourcing hard evidence that she's more than just a WP:BLP1E, while Obergefell's isn't — all we've got is soft, unproven assertions that he's notable for more than just the court case itself, not hard evidence equivalent to what Windsor's article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking of Walter Mikac, but yes. De Guerre (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe selective merge to Obergefell v. Hodges, the case looks notable. --MarioGom (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obergefell is an important figure in the history of the Supreme Court as well as an important LGBTQ+ activist. Obergefell's story is widely covered in high school history classrooms and students will frequently use his page for their research Serenewilliams (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadwind

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to suggest notability. Fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 16:24, 1 October 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 Bea Miller. Tone 20:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Song Like You

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no charting information and no standalone coverage in reliable secondary sources.

Likewise, I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the notability guidelines as well:

Some obscure EPs and an album, for which I could not find any coverage in reliable secondary sources either. She did give a few interviews promoting them, but those don't count towards notability as they are a primary promotional push rather than actual album review/coverage:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? They all have secondary sources (except "Feels Like Home", which I created before the song's release expecting it to receive coverage however it failed to do so.) Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Bea Miller, no individual notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of USB-C Power Delivery chargable laptops

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

This article has a list of products that support a particular protocol of another product. There are many items in this list, suggesting that feature is not particularly notable or an novel difference-maker among products. I don't think there's encyclopedic value in such a list, so this seems to only serve for promotion of the individual products. Many non-links, so the products themselves often aren't notable. Very few references. This broad list will never be current and will be quite difficult to support. Seems to me it fails WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTCATALOG, and WP:RAWDATA. Mikeblas (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found evidence that this passes our notability guidelines on stand-alone lists; in addition, I think it's too indiscriminate to merge into USB-C. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is promotional content, more or less. It looks like a product catalog. --Wario-Man (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another 'thing will be standard in five years and this article will be a laughable artifact' LISTN failure. Compare to 1947 if we would have had a "List of devices which come with a BS 1363 plug"; it would have been absurd to keep this list once the standard was fully established. Nate • (chatter) 23:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and also this list topic would easily qualify for WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More references needed Quarterto500 (talk) 17:59, 6 October 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 08:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mercer (actor)

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

First off, it is very difficult to find reliable sources for this subject, since looking up "Matt Mercer" on Google generates results on the far more notable Critical Role star Matthew Mercer, who is also known for his notable roles in anime and video games.

And when sources *were* found, they are just brief mentions of the subject, and barely any of them have significant depth. There is barely any coverage from credible news sources. So I'm convinced that the subject fails WP:SIGCOV.

Furthermore, the subject is largely involved with indie films or really, really low budget productions, many of which have barely any notability nor coverage to speak of, so I am not convinced that the subject meets WP:ENT, either.

On top of that, I also think this subject also does not meet WP:WHYN. Quoting the guideline: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. From the same guideline: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. I'm not convinced that you could write very much for this subject due to the lack of sources.

PS: If you look into the subject's article history, you could see that the draft was declined several times, and that it is has never been approved by anyone. This means the reviewers never thought the subject meets our notability criteria to begin with. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he does have some leading roles in films that might be independent but do have multiple critics reviews at Rotten Tomatoes which means they are notable. His roles can be confirmed in those reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But do those reviews talk about the subject, or the films themselves? From what I could see, it seems to be the latter with trivial to no mention of the subject; hence failing WP:SIGCOV. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is only one keep vote which is weak keep, so an extra week should be given to allow extra time for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 17:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an easy subject to judge, but looking at the provided sources, two of them are 404 and the rest consist of mere mentions that fail WP:SIGCOV or interviews that also fail WP:RS and WP:IS. Movies where the subject stars in are low-budget productions and for the most part, barely pass WP:GNG on their own. Perhaps if more reliable sources were added to the article my opinion would change. — Centron X 11:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of notability; i.e. he's not famous and has not done anything particularly notable.Strandvue (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the article's sources, no WP:SIGCOV (sources are passing mentions, interviews) so doesn't pass WP:GNG. However WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films". The subject has had a role in various films we have articles on. Of those, Beyond the Gates (film) and The Toybox look notable, in comparison with the others that do not. Any film we have an article on must by definition be notable, no? Are these two films notable enough, and did he play a leading role? -Lopifalko (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think The Toybox is a particularly notable film; plus, there is no in depth coverage of the subject for that production. Failing WP:SIGCOV means that the subject is not notable enough to have their own article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on lack of WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BASIC, including in The New York Times as highlighted by others, and the lack of notability of the B movie horror films required to satisfy WP:NACTOR. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His performances in films have been reviewed two times in The New York Times (see here and here). If he's in leading roles in films being reviewed by major film critics he meets that criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Jason and the Golden Fleece isn't a film; it's a play. [1] Quoting the NY Times article: JASON AND THE GOLDEN FLEECE, a play by Arthur Perlman, based on Greek myth, presented by Theaterworks/USA at the Auditorium at the Equitable Tower, 787 Seventh Avenue, at 51st Street, Manhattan. Also, that NY Times article you linked only has a mere passing mention of the subject; that's not significant, in depth coverage. It talks more about the play itself than the subject. We also don't have an article of the play in question, so it's definitely not a notable theatre production.

So no, I would disagree on the claim that the subject meets WP:NACTOR. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:47, 25 October 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D. S. Bradford

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

Article has a strong whiff of promotion to it, likely WP:COI creation/edits. Nearly all of the sources listed are either primary, or simply listings (local events, etc). The only reference I see from a publication that might meet WP:RS is this one from PopMatters. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not here for promotion. Coverage is lacking. Maybe good, popmatters and a very short allmusic. That's it and that's not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fever (poem)

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

Non-notable individual poem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Agreed. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:05, 8 October 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. All possible redirect targets seem to have been deleted. Sandstein 19:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children (poem)

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

Non-notable individual poem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Jeevanko Chheubaata. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the book is notable either. The author could be notable, but otherwise everything in Template:Suman Pokhrel might need to be deleted/redirected. Notifying for anyone else interested, will investigate further and be back, before closing time. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fever (poem) and Tree (poem) were also listed concurrently by the same editor. Don't see enough reason for any opinion on this AfD to not translate directly into those as well. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, either to the author or the book in which it appears (if that survives its AfD). (notability)TheLongTone (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I think it's both too generic and too unlikely a search term to be useful as a redirect. There should be other non-notable poems by this title. Very weak oppose to redirection. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tree (poem)

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

Non-notable individual poem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seacons

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 00:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Parkinson (entrepreneur)

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

Notability. Lavishly referenced, but references seem to be about his companies rather than himself. TheLongTone (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peapod. He is not notable but the company he founded is. Sonstephen0 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did my research properly before writing this page. I discovered, the topic passes the notability guidelines as stated in WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I found significant featuring of the topic in most of the references used. A few of them that caught my attention include
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161201/NEWS07/161139970/itemmaster-a-peapod-spinoff-expanding
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140118/ISSUE01/301189980/peapod-launches-business-deliveries-opens-chicago-tech-lab-pickup-sites
https://privatelabelretailer.com/founders-stories-featuring-andrew-thomas-parkinson-peapod/
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/node/781896
https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2015/03/17/whats-your-customers-refrigerator/

The above and others are mostly organic. They are not sponsored. Yes, most of the references feature Thomas and Peapod which is a company he founded alongside his brother Andrew. He's featured in most of the references because he is at the center of it all. I believe, with the above, the topic meets the notability guidelines as I read from WP:BIO and WP:GNG Wat heeft Egbuel (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage is found in the sources used. This scales through WP:GNG et al Catorce2016 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most Sources show the topic is notable to great extent. WP:BIO is established hereMariah200 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References on page feature the guy in accordance with WP:GNG as already opined above Quarterto500 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's a bit odd that all "keep" opinions are by editors with very few edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For same reason as sandstein above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OK, let's get this over with: the first two Chicago Business refs are basically only about the company Peapod with no apparent WP:SIGCOV of the the subject of the article. The last one is a profile of Andrew and Thomas Parkinson, that just barely gets over the line for WP:SIGCOV. The Private Label Retailer piece is a summary of a video of an interview and thus not sufficiently independent/not a secondary source. The Digital Commerce 360 piece is largely verbatim quotes from a speech given by Thomas Parkinson, and thus does not sustain notability for the same reason as the Private Label Retailer piece. Conclusion: only one piece of potential WP:SIGCOV cited, and that's not enough to sustain notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 11:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank u for the analysis. But a critical look at the references you mentioned reveals that significant coverage is fully established especially that of Chicago Business which is a well known reference source. Take a look at the following secondary sources again.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161201/NEWS07/161139970/itemmaster-a-peapod-spinoff-expanding
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140118/ISSUE01/301189980/peapod-launches-business-deliveries-opens-chicago-tech-lab-pickup-sites
https://privatelabelretailer.com/founders-stories-featuring-andrew-thomas-parkinson-peapod/
https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2015/03/17/whats-your-customers-refrigerator/

There are other references as found in the article. The above are organic references earned. They were never sponsored. Wat heeft Egbuel (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FOARP's analysis of sources. A redirect to Peapod might be appropriate. Rockphed (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment*** same response as above. Significant coverage is established.Wat heeft Egbuel (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per FOARP. If there was just one more source where Thomas Parkinson was the main subject and not his company I would be inclined to vote keep. As it stands, it just barely does not meeting the threshold of the sourcing requirements at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per FOARP's analysis of the sources and my scanning of all bar one of those FOARP listed. (I haven't checked but I read a comment recently that more than one source from the same publication does not count additionally toward notability.) -Lopifalko (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect to Peapod. All sources are focusing on the company itself, there doesn't seem to be anything about him on his own. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image optimizer

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

Not a useful disambig, as there is no relevant info at the targets. Dicklyon (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Image optimization. An image optimzer (DOI) is software that provides Image optimization. The Image optimization article could do well with a great deal of expansion. --Bejnar (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: image compression is not image optimization, and the image optimization article is about an abstract topic for which there can be no "image optimizers". ISO optimizer leads nowhere; I've nominated it for deletion. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct image compression is not image optimization, image optimization occurs prior to compression to ensure that compression does not loose essential data. But that is not the only use of image optimization. A number of "image optimizers", that is software designed to optimize digital images, do exist. Just run a google search and you will see some of them. --Bejnar (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quite confusing and unclear Catorce2016 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a technical field. Do some library research and you may be able to state it more clearly. --Bejnar (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no technical info there. What's confusing is the network of content-free redirects and disambigs and such. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither of the disambiguation page entries is valid, and enwiki does not have information on the subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:21, 7 October 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 Germanic peoples. From reading the discussion, it seems like there is clear consensus to remove this article but a little disagreement about whether the content can actually be merged; thus redirecting so that the article is removed and people can copy content from the history if consensus arises that it is appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic peoples (modern)

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

Clear content fork by a user who is not getting his way at Germanic peoples. This is not how content disputes are settled. I have not been involved in that debate, but it is pretty clear that nobody is arguing for a distinct "modern" Germanic peoples. The dispute is over whether the Germanic peoples of antiquity can be said to still exist, in some sense, today. Srnec (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Germanic peoples per WP:DEL-REASON (5) and WP:MERGEREASON (2, 3, 4).

Per WP:DEL-REASON (5) a content fork should not be deleted if a merger is appropriate. WP:MERGEREASON (2, 3, 4) states that an article should be merged if there is a large overlap between them, if one of the articles is short, or if the short article is better understood within the context of the larger article. Germanic peoples (modern) is a short article better understood within the context of the article Germanic peoples, with whom it has a substantial overlap (see the sources used in this article). A merger is therefore appropriate in this case.

As long as information on modern Germanic peoples is considered beyond the scope of the article Germanic peoples, this article can however not be considered a content fork, and should be kept. Modern Germanic peoples are just as notable as modern Slavic peoples of Turkic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your last point is wrong if this information is considered beyond the scope of the article Germanic peoples because it is not agreed that there are modern Germanic peoples. I think you are failing to consider that there are Slavs because they call themselves Slavs, from Russia to Croatia. I'm not sure if most Germanic speakers are even aware they speak a Germanic language. Srnec (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging, JeBonSer, Iazyges, Ermenrich, CsikosLo, Haukurth, Obenritter, JanderVK, Jabberwoch and Bloodofox, who are active members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies. Krakkos (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the deletion nomination and the article talk page and general history of this silly discussion. It is a content fork to try to publish material not suitable for WP. It is not the first attempt.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Germanic peoples, I took part of the discussion of other page, however I understood the arguments of both sides, I uphold the core of my argumentation.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Merge to Germanic peoples. The content was mostly covered there until a relatively recent alteration of the article's scope. A couple RfCs on Talk:Germanic peoples were started by a block-evading troll (who has pretended to be a Kurdish editor complaining that Wikipedia is similar to Metapedia as well as an editor named Aryanman902 complaining that "wikipedia is part of a Judeo-Masonic khazar mafia conspiracy theory"), and these were seemingly used as the basis to change the article's scope. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, I think a fresh RfC at the talk page that is not tainted by association with a barely literate sockpuppet would be useful to settle the dispute. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This article is irrelevant. Modern Germanic peoples are related to the descendants who uses the Germanic language and there is no need this article to be existed. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 11:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do RS refer to these peoples as Germanic? I think we should be basing our decision on that. I tend to agree that it makes inherent sense that they would be considered Germanic, however, given the way we discuss Turkic peoples, Slavic peoples, etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JeBonSer. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Germanic peoples, although there's not a lot of content to merge in the first place. The analogy to Celts (modern) is apt, although that article has incomparably more content. There is no point at which the Germanic peoples can be shown to have disappeared (in the case of the Celts, there is at least a period in Late Antiquity or so which provides a potential "breaking point"), nor is there a reason or mechanism for how this should have been accomplished (there is clearly continuity until the modern period), so there is no reason to treat the group any differently from Turkic peoples, Iranian peoples, Slavic peoples, Balts, etc., which are not necessarily associated with a well-developed common identity, either – despite attempts to establish one, much like in the case of the modern Celtic nations. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The comments added by Florian Blaschke are splendid and do not need repeating by me. Content should be merged. KingofGangsters (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Germanic peoples, per nom and Florian Blaschke. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Matsdotter

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

No real indication of notability. No reliable independent sources found. Mccapra (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON - does not meet any of the 6 criteria of WP:COMPOSER - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - article can be re-created if a career is established - Epinoia (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She may be notable. I don't know Swedish, but she was recently the main subject of this article for the main newspaper in Norrtälje which is behind a pay wall. It appears that she is a jazz singer and not just a composer. I believe a wikipedian who can read Swedish and is familiar with searching for Swedish langauge references is going to be needed in order to find and verify content for the purposes of notability. Anybody know one to ping?4meter4 (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is true that she is a vocalist as well as a composer. The Swedish jazz journal Orkesterjournalen (OJ) lists several performances with Matsdotter as singer, notably several concerts by Uppland Big Band. She also sings on a CD by Cabazz (a group that includes several prominent Swedish jazz musicians including Morgan Ågren) which is reviewed by OJ here. As a composer she has made a full album of her own, issued by Phono Suecia, a highly established record label for more serious and artistic music, owned by STIM (the Swedish Performing Rights Society). /FredrikT (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone sign up for Swedish source searching?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Established career. The article needs a clean up and improvements. But that is no reason for deletion. BabbaQ (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. There are no interviews with her, no feature articles about her or her band. All media mentions so far mentioned seem rather trivial and non-significant. I found one new article ([2]) which is a blurb about a concert, but not trivial coverage. 110.165.185.203 (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and expand article as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expand with what? Have you found any sources? Mccapra (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue with this isn't the lack of sources in English - even in Swedish I only see blogs, lists, music aggregators etc. online. If there are decent sources in print in Swedish that's great, or if an online search is showing other editors something I'm not seeing, please add them. Otherwise it's still not evident to me that she is notable. Mccapra (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, in the hope that someone able to do so will search for Swedish sources; otherwise, this looks like a "delete"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: It is worth noting a brief inconclusive discussion on notability criteria after the equivalent Swedish Wikipedia page was created; [3]. As to the current article, I added a reference to a biography page at an Encyclopaedia of European living women composers, songwriters and creators of music site; as with occasional previous cases where an article subject has a biography on another site (Allmusic, for example, in other cases), I am reluctant about deletion where such biographical coverage exists. However I am not seeing the substantial coverage which would demonstrate WP:MUSICBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 16:29, 1 October 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 18:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Stanfill

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

Plenty of references, but none of them amount to significant independent coverage. Can find no proper reviews for any of her books. Likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the material on her work for Venice and her family overshadow whatever notable she has done. This page is on the margin of a disaster itself. Was it written by her agent, or a fan? Can it be saved? Bearian (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:44, 1 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Mitchell

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

This article does not cite any sources and it's over 10 years old. I'm not finding any significant coverage, either. WanderingWanda (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WanderingWanda (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WanderingWanda (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WanderingWanda (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time to purge Wikipedia of articles sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG at least. Catorce2016 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and fails WP:NACTOR specifically due to very small roles. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Warp

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

Only sources are the youtube video itself and iMDB. The series itself only has youtube and a self-titled otaku website as source. No evidence that this meets criteria or notability for a standalone article. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because it fails WP:GNG. Sole sources are weak: IMDb and YouTube both rely on user-generated content that is potentially not independent of the subject, nor fact checked. And although it's not a policy or guideline, WP:RSP labels both sites generally unreliable. Meticulo (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Catorce2016 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:55, 5 October 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 18:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Names of God Prayer

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

Some more cruft from the walled garden around Meher Baba. Fails WP:GNG by a few many miles.

Nuke this and start a page afresh, if this is a notable concept for other religions. ∯WBG^converse 10:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable esoteric concept. Absolutely no reason for it to have its own page, could easily make up a paragraph on the Meher Baba page if it is deemed important enough even for that. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzwing

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons. ミラ P 19:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons per WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested for now. In future this can be recreated when notability guidelines are met. Quarterto500 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 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 18:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bugly

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor character with no real world notability. A redirect would be okay if there's an appropriate list article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LIM (rapper)

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

No sources. (not counting an improperly formatted link to what appears to be a biography on a non English website). A google search doesn't show him to be notable. Even if he was, current article is a totally unusable promo/resume, should be deleted and recreated when and if someone digs up sources to pass GNG or NARTIST Hydromania (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've gone ahead and reverted to original page subject as noted below. I don't think original subject passes GNG or NARTIST either, although article is at least readable.Hydromania (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Incredibly poorly written article, which runs afoul of WP:PROMOTION and is generally a mess. No references. The external link to the "official website" leads to an Instagram page. Non-notable subject. The page is extra confusing as it was initially written about a different, French, rapper with the same name [4] (who wouldn't have passed WP:GNG either) and some sections from that version of the article survive to the current version. The 9 September edit which changes the rapper this article is about with a different one might also constitute vandalism. [5] In any case, strong delete or, at the very least, reversion to the version about the French rapper if anybody thinks that has some merit, but I doubt it. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The longer and better French Wikipedia article looks as if it has reliable sources coverage such as Paris Match and if that coverage backs up hit records with gold status then he would pass WP:NMUSIC criteria 2, will look into it tomorrow, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sorry for the delay, have looked at the French Wikipedia article and he definitely passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC with nationally charting releases, as shown in this reference of the official French charts which shows 14 charting releases including a number 1 hit with his solo album Delinquent shown here. The french article has additional sources here, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NMUSIC #2 Wm335td (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He had chart success in France. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 13 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chuul

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

A non-notable fictional creature. The information here is sourced only to primary material, and there is absolutely no indication of notability stated. Looking for any additional, non-primary references turns up nothing but brief mentions, as well as information on a North Korean village with the same name. Rorshacma (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Chul, though i'm not sure if this really is a plausible typo. 85.76.2.240 (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems a tad implausible as a redirect, and the page is non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 01:21, 8 October 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Burgis

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

Does not meet notability guidelines per WP:NACADEMIC. KidAd (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or redirect to an article about the book. His book, Give Them An Argument: Logic for the Left, is published through John Hunt Publishing, which uses a mix of traditional-model royalty-based publishing and author-pays vanity-press publishing (and deliberately keeps secret which books are which). So we can't really judge its significance merely from its publication, but maybe this is not different from most other books. What we should look for is published reviews. And it has some, together with author interviews, in webzine-like sources rather than the scholarly press: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. If he had another book with the same reception, I'd think he had a strong case for WP:AUTHOR, but as it is there's an issue with WP:BIO1E and WP:TOOSOON. His academic work as listed on Google Scholar is certainly very far from WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think he's a very recognizable name in the right circles at this point. Regardless of his importance in a narrower, more antiquated view of academia, he's a relatively prominent satellite in a lot of online political commentary related to left-leaning economics and progressive politics. The article's current state is pathetic, but it should be simple, if tedious, to collect well-viewed and well-received pieces he's done with various outlets. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think he has reviewed books, plural? Can you at least name them? Because I couldn't find more than just the one. Recognizability is of no value if we can't back it up with sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like this is one of those cases where, going by the letter of our guidelines, it would be easier to justify an article on the book than on the author. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I spent some time looking for notability for him and/or his book. The results from Google Scholar and his CV don't come close to showing he meets WP:NPROF. I also don't see that WP:GNG is met because there's a lack of coverage about him. So, to me, the question is whether he meets WP:NAUTHOR. He appears to have one book out, but it's unclear whether or not it's self-published. He has a number of posts at academia.edu, but that's all self-published material with no editorial review. The reviews of the book are by blogs and left-leaning sources that are, to me, of questionable reliability and independence. Academic publications and main stream media generally have not reviewed this book. It's not apparent to me that this one book is enough to show notability or meet any notability criteria--at least not yet. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 13 October 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 18:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gros

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

Fails WP:BIO as I am unable to find any coverage of the subject in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the references cited appears to meet WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all sources are paid PR or minor industry magazines. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 7 October 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 18:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yksisarvinen

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

Apparently, this is a very common word in Finnish, as searches turned up hundreds of items. However I looked through the first 150, and couldn't find a single one which refers to this book. It's been uncited for 9 years, and has only consisted of a plot summary. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because "yksisarvinen" is a common Finnish word, you should try to search "writer's name + book's name" (= "Kaari Utrio + Yksisarvinen"). I found these reliable sources:

"Kaari Utrio uppoutui ristiretkien aikaan" (in Finnish). MTV. 13 September 2000.
Ahola, Suvi (2 December 2000). "Rikkaudensarvi ja tarina-arkku". Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish).

The latter is behind a paywall but it's about 20 paragraphs long review by the largest subscription newspaper in Finland. 85.156.64.153 (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theosophy and politics

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

Original research, namely a synthesis of many cases when theosophists took part in politics or politicians were interested in theosophy. Most of the sources are either theosophic (and thus not independent, as WP:RS requires) or not consider the topic in any depth, like mentioning a membership of a person in Theological society. The only exception is "Neo-Hinduism and Theosophy" section, which is, although non-neutral and not-quite-on-topic, refers to the works by Bevir. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Лемуриец (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the lead itself says it's not connected in any way - and the connections then follow. That's original research. Bearian (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Dragon Ball characters. Sandstein 18:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyan (Dragon Ball)

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

Article was previously redirected and restored without discussion. It still fails notability criteria as a sub-aspect of the Dragon Ball series and is solely referenced to the Dragon Ball manga. If the article is redirected again it should also be Protected to prevent recreation. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragon Ball and provide indefinite protection for the redirect. In all due respect, this could have been handled through a revert and a request at WP:RFP. No need to drag this out for a week.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Ball or List of Dragon Ball characters and salt as above. This is a term specific to the franchise and has not had any extensive use outside of it. Compare with Namekian which redirects to the List of Dragon Ball characters AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a little bit of content into one of these targets and make the redirect go to specified section... No arguments against previous AfD regarding the notability, but the reason for restoration provided here [11] is not entirely unreasonable. At least a few steps should be taken in order to not WP:R#ASTONISH people when they arrive. I believe the Namekian example provided by AngusWOOF is actually a much more elegant solution than the previous target here going to a franchise page. Perhaps merging to that list of characters page is even a better solution if the franchise page is to be reserved for pointing at other, clearer products of the franchise. I support redirect protection as well. -2pou (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Ball or List of Dragon Ball characters per AngusWOOF. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 3 October 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 18:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trasa Północna in Zielona Góra

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

it is unclear why this road would be notable at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Polish Wikipedia article is a red flag (it is more inclusive about roads than English). Wikipedia:Notabilty (roads) is not satisfied, as is GNG in general. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The street is important for the city as part of the National road 32 (Poland). The Polish Wikipedia describes only one street in Zielona Góra, which means that local editors aren't interested in streets. The content cannot be moved, so it will be deleted and it will be reinstated some day. Zielona Góra is a city (140,297 inhabitants) and one of two sites of the regional government. Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any content related to it being a part of National road 32 (Poland) can be mentioned at that article, which appears to already be the case. Not a useful redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:36, 5 October 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 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Sanghani

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Presented references are name drops. Nothing of depth. scope_creep^Talk 21:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill sales person and film producer. We tend to delete articles about producers. His listing in Variety is in passing and is of the up-and-coming variety, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see where many of the concerns are coming from. I have amended the reference for the Variety line to one which more directly and substantially addresses the subject; the honor itself also suggests a level of recognition by industry peers, as the recipients are chosen via industry submissions which are then curated by Variety's reporters and critics. Additionally, articles exist for other recent recipients, such as Xavier Gens and Nancy Grant; while it would be fallacy to suggest this warrants an article for every recipient, it may suggest that those named are not always of an "up and coming" variety. It's also arguable that the "Prince of Alexandria" profile in Scene magazine and the first Deadline article cited tend toward being substantial, as opposed to passing or trivial mentions. Taken together, these sources might establish notability. I am also not seeing guidance to suggest that we tend to delete articles about film producers in the common outcomes article. Given the fairly extensive credits of the subject, it's likely that further sources could be added in order to bring the article to its full potential, as well. Stm2193 (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most films that are created now have multiple producers so the producer may not be particularly notable, even though they are attached to a famous film with famous actors. As always secondary sources that are of a sufficient depth of coverage are the standard to prove notability. Here there is a lot of name drops, some minor coverage, a single primary source (an interview) but no real secondary sources of depth. Not a thing.scope_creep^Talk 23:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that, while an executive producer credit can indicate varying degrees of involvement, a producer/produced by credit (such as many of those here) is traditionally understood in the industry to indicate one of the main, actually hands-on producers of a project, which is why they are so coveted and one sees so few of them on a given film.Stm2193 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The coverage of him is sparse, but he was a writer/director for many items, and a good half of them are blue links. That suggests he may pass WP:NCREATIVE#3 or such. PS. If it was one or two items, I'd agree with the nom, but if he is linked as producer or such to something like ten blue links, that's probably on the keep side of borderline, at least for me. Ping me if you want to convince me otherwise, I am always open to discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Do you fancy looking for some additional evidence. I really don't mind withdrawing it, if you give me an inkling of summat. I don't want him deleted if there is inkling that he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 00:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything beyond what is there, as I said, it is just my personal view of what to do in borderline cases - in this one, I think there's enough stuff he had his name in as credits etc. that he probably should have an entry. A weak argument, hence my weak keep vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not found much either. It is really all in the article and its not sufficient to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 18:33, 16 October 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 18:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Corp.

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

Unreferenced company article. No indication of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources I see are its own website and stories about Ashley Madison where it’s mentioned in passing as the owner. Mccapra (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:46, 1 October 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. "Has x zillion Google hits" is one of the most notoriously bad AfD arguments, because it tells us nothing about the nature or value of these sources. Any fish go to Toddst1. Sandstein 18:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CTVN AKD Plus

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

No indication of notability. Google does not show anything either, except for Android apps, channel lists, videos, addresses etc.—J. M. (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. J. M. (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A quick click on the {{Find sources AFD}} template above shows 86,900 results. Suggest this be withdrawn by nominator per WP:BEFORE and WP:TROUT applied. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before commenting in deletion discussions. In particular, please read WP:GOOGLEHITS. Number of Google hits is completely irrelevant. Have you actually looked at the "sources" or read my reason? None of the sources are usable for establishing notability. BTW, my Google search says "91,200 sources", but the actual result is only 6 pages long, that is, 60 actual search results, and all results are useless. I suggest you withdraw your "keep" comment, as it's obviously based on complete misunderstanding of both the Wikipedia deletion process and the search results.—J. M. (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Significant coverage in the news is not fully established. WP:GNG is not metCatorce2016 (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a WP:TNT case if we can't find out what the network carries and more sources aren't found. It's an existing channel, but more than WP:ITEXISTS is needed here; we need concrete information about who carries it, what it airs and if people have written about it besides 'show premiere, here's the PR for it'. Nate • (chatter) 00:02, 2 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troutman Sanders

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

The company doesn't appear to be notable. In the various more or less promotional versions of the page there ever was only one source that meets WP:SIGCOV, and that's of dubious reliability and independece and even spam blacklisted (www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/0/Troutman-Sanders-L-L-P.html). My efforts to find something better found a piece of local law news. Beyond that there's some recent news buzz about a sexual harassment case at the firm, but that doesn't cover the company in any detail and is mostly reporting on the allegations which haven't had their day in court yet and adding which would cause BLP issues (e.g. [12]). That's not enough to write an encyclopedia article about the company. Huon (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is highly unlikely that a firm of 650 lawyers would fail notability. bd2412 T 13:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am finding sources. bd2412 T 14:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the third of those sources is a rehashed press release and doesn't meet the standard of WP:SIGCOV. There's more of that quality, but it doesn't help. The other two I'm skeptical about; they seem to be a summary of interviews with employees about the firm as a workplace. I'm not sure that counts as either a secondary or a reliable source. I'm not sure how we would make use of such sources even if they were generally considered to be reliable. "Troutman Sanders pays below-average salaries but offers free car rides home when lawyers work late"? That's not what I'd expect from an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that a search for news articles at the Atlanta Constitution - just one potential source - yields over 250 hits, I wouldn't stress about it. As for the other sources, the Vault Guide series is clearly independent and reputable enough to be cited in dozens of Wikipedia articles. bd2412 T 21:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This very old firm (originally founded in 1897) has around 650 attorneys and at least 11 offices around the United States including in Atlanta, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. with annual revenue of over half a billion US Dollars. If we deleted every article w/o sufficient or questionable citations thousands and thousands and thousands of articles and stubs that are useful to readers would be subject to deletion. As pointed out by @Bd2412:, just one example of a long existing and credible newspaper & web news outlet produced 250 hits for this firm. As with multitudinous other articles, why not use a tag or tags such as {{More citations needed|, {{Better source|, {{unreliable source?|, {{third-party|, {{importance inline|, {{cleanup-PR|1=article, {{Cleanup|reason=, {{update-section| or whichever is applicable to correct a perceived problem or problems. The firm is a Global 200 (#83), Am Law 200 (#68), NLJ 500 (#74) ranked, as well as Tier 1 ranked in many areas of the law, in 2019 rankings (see, Ranks#1 and Ranks#2). Deleting instead of correcting this article would be unfair to our readers, specially when less extreme measures are warranted. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantially for the reasons listed above by Q-V, would also be good to improve the article as suggested, and company pages always benefit from vigorous pruning of self-promotional material. But Troutman is comparable to a number of other firms with well-established articles such as, say, Quinn Emanuel, Locke Lord and many more. Shorn again (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per bd2412 above, there are at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW the article passes our GNG Lightburst (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

England–Croatia football rivalry

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

Sure, England and Croatia have played some big games against each other, but that doesn't mean it's a rivalry. WP:NOR. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another article which confuses "head-to-head record" with "rivalry". There is no rivalry between England and Croatia -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an established rivalry. Giant Snowman 10:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search in Croatian, found lots of discussion about rivalries in English club football. The discussion can be had on the Croatian national team website, and perhaps the English national team website, but they're more "Croatian results against top tier competition" moreso than rivalries (apart from Serbia.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, a few big games doesn't make a rivalry. Even England-Portugal would have more historical relevance than England-Croatia. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a rivalry. Just two really dumb losses for England. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:01, 6 October 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 until/unless the project progresses to a point that produces sufficient sources. RL0919 (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Language Tower

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nomination --Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination . --SalmanZ (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first source says that the building is still in the proposal stage. The third does not ever label the proposed tower the "Language Tower". The second is on the website of one of the involved parties. The first does not look very reliable. I am not going to preclude that there are more sources extant, but a building that is still in the proposal stage is unlikely to ever have enough impact to be notable if it is not built. Maybe if the "builders" defraud people of millions or billions of dollars in the process. Furthermore, I can't find any sources other than the 3 listed in the article. Most of what I find are links to a company in Boston and to a software they produce. Rockphed (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination & fail WP:RS and this article lower important.--Nahal^(T) 09:42, 8 October 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arellano High School

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG: All reliable sources I could find are either not independent or do not have significant coverage. Lurking shadow (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lurking shadow (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable school - there are no references in the article and I couldn't find any mentions in reliable sources, not even the usual local school coverage of sports and games, awards, etc. - there is a book, "Arellano (Manila North) High School Across Time", but it is self-published - Epinoia (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Among the many reliable sources found by the searches spoon-fed by the nomination process are this book, this academic paper and these news articles. I suppose Epinoia's statement that the "usual local school coverage of sports..." is not found is technically correct, because this seems to be mostly national rather than local coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with Phil Bridger that the book and paper he found are independent, reliable, and significant. I'm not sure that they are significantly enough about the school to devote an article to, and the book, at least, is more primary than I would like. That said, I think they are just the tip of the iceberg and some dedicated searching could find enough material to make an article out of without requiring synthesis. On the other hand, I agree with the current tagging of the article that its current incarnation is completely unworkable. Rockphed (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The press articles are routine coverage, not significant coverage. The rest is also not significant coverage - simply because you can't use that material for an article. The Organizing Schools research paper focuses on something else - an aspect - and the information there is almost exclusively obviously outdated, and would give a false impression about that school. The book found on SITE focuses on a single aspect (the use of X) and looks - like you said - a bit too much like a primary source, and also not really independent. Significant coverage basically means "enough info for a good article" and neither routine sports coverage nor info from one(outdated) point of time out of a long timespan are enough on their own to write an acceptable article. The book is not only primary, and not independent, but also suffers from focusing on something specific. We basically have several not connected middle tiles of a puzzle; if put that together we have an article that's very likely misrepresenting the subject. The current state of the article is abysmal and WP:TNT applies, too.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The book that I cited is by no means primary, completely independent, and has a general overview of the school's status and history on pages 59-60, which includes the statement that it is one of the longest-established high schools in the capital of the Philippines. This is better sourcing than we have for the vast majority of US high schools whose articles are kept without question. Indeed, just the news coverage of this school's basketball team is better than we have for the vast majority of US high schools whose articles are kept without question. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of the info is dated(e.g. "currently") and can not serve as basis of the article alone. The info that's actually there is not enough for a standalone article(although it should normally be enough for a brief mention on a list,List of schools in the Philippines has been deleted in a deletion discussion). The rest of your reply is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the sourcing is as you describe these articles should be redirected, merged or deleted.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The sources linked above aren't great, but frankly they're not much worse than the average high school article has (sadly), and I'm often willing to give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt when the sources might not be accessible (technically or practically). That would leave me at neutral/abstain, most likely. What pushes me over to weak delete is that we have an article with a whole lot of claims that demand citations, but which has precisely zero references. There's not really any material to preserve in that context, save a statement that the school exists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for the work Phil Bridger. Regarding this HS WP:NOTPAPER it seems clear that WP:NEXIST. Wm335td (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello. Just a casual Wikipedian passing by. I tried to add the references by finding some articles and books as sources and cleaned up the essay like history. I am in no way affiliated to the school so I won't argue if the majority decides to delete it. Maybe you may want to take a look now or even improve what I just did. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My case for deletion is weaker now, that the article is at least in an acceptable state, although unsourced entries remain that will need to be cleaned up later. However, if it is indeed a case for "keep", then only narrowly so, because there is not much coverage, and no reliable independent sources can be found for long periods of time, which means the article won't give readers that much good information about the school.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:57, 5 October 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 Meher Baba#Teachings. Whether to merge anything remains open for discussion. Sandstein 17:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

God-realization (Meher Baba)

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

Sourcing looks impressive at first glances but barring Cohen it's either sourced to Meher Baba himself or publications by follower-trustees or random non-independent websites.

Not seeing any significant coverage of the concept apart from trivial mentions; delete, please. ∯WBG^converse 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thought you were striking. As to nom, redirect to Meher Baba. Merge what is best-sourced if anything not redundant. Must be some lines on this in a section to be made the landing spot. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources used: the Cohen book published by Harper & Row (a reputable publisher), the vetted and published Emory University Ph.D. doctoral dissertation, and the Purdom book published by George Allen & Unwin (a reputable publisher). Meher Baba's own book God Speaks published by Dodd, Mead & Co. (a reputable publisher) is then used to describe the concept, which I would think is acceptable given the number of good sources already used on the page. I may now be told that people who write about someone they like can't be used as sources, even if published and vetted by reputable publishers. I've been threatened to be taken to ANI over my actions on these Baba deletion pages, and called incompetent on my talk page by an established editor. But I still must ask, what is exactly wrong with the PhD. paper and the books mentioned above, I thought reputable publishers who vet their material are used as sources on Wikipedia. It's lucky I've got one of those fake trophy fishes that sing "Don't Worry, Be Happy" (which is the closest I've come to being a follower of Meher Baba). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate sources but being Meher Baba’s philosophy, why not incorporate into his page? Hyperbolick (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PhD dissertations are not reliable sources usually, and the publication came of a non-independent house-press.

Meher Baba's own book is reliable for documenting what Meher Baba said and certainly does not allude to the notability of any concepts, contained therein.

Purdom is quite non-independent and his contribution to the case of notability, is borderline. ∯WBG^converse 07:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same problem of WP:WALLEDGARDEN exists with this article and Mandali (Meher Baba), New Life (Meher Baba) and Perfect Master (Meher Baba). all maybe merged into Meher Baba or separate article on his teachings/concepts can be made in case the merging isnt feasible due to article size constraints. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has nothing to do with WP:WALLEDGARDEN, an essay which is summarized: "Articles should have outgoing and incoming links to the wider encyclopedia. Don't create a group of articles that exclusively link to each other." This article has many unwalled-garden outgoing and incoming links. These can be easily seen by reading the article and noticing the outgoing links, and then clicking on the 'What links here' topic which appears (at least in Monobook) on the left-hand sidebar. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the essence of the essay is that there shouldn't be standalone article which are just related to each other and which can be merged into. It does not mean that one should check the "What links here" and be happy that something turns out. Just for the sake of linking, one can always disregard MOS, give wrong piped links and so on. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the essence of the essay is as summarized in the "Summary" box at the top of the page: "Articles should have outgoing and incoming links to the wider encyclopedia. Don't create a group of articles that exclusively link to each other." The page has links to many articles outside of Baba related pages, and has many incoming links outside of links to Baba related articles. "Walled garden" does not apply in this case. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, pray provide some of those many incoming links from this list. I am seeing 4 links from articles within this Meher-baba-garden, 3 from out of the garden and 1 from a dis-amb page.∯WBG^converse 07:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Pray" seems the right word here, as the concept of God-realization is present in many practices and instructional spiritual teachings. A state of mind or an actual personal experience with whatever people define as the "Divine" (yoga, for instance, means "yoke" or "union with God" or "union with the divine").

It seems Meher Baba calls this state of mind or being "God-realization". Appropriate links to this page include the term Spiritual evolution, which begins "Spiritual evolution is the philosophical, theological, esoteric or spiritual idea that nature and human beings and/or human culture evolve: either extending from an established cosmological pattern (ascent), or in accordance with certain pre-established potentials." The page Plane (esotericism)'s short description is "A subtle state, level, or region of reality", and Involution (esoterism) says "In some instances it refers to a process that occurs prior to evolution and gives rise to the cosmos, in others an aspect of evolution, and still others a process that follows the completion of evolution in the human form."

These pages provide links to this page, with a key page Spiritual evolution pointing to Baba's contributing thoughts to the concept. The walled garden essay calls for incoming links (its summary again: "Articles should have outgoing and incoming links to the wider encyclopedia") - and three good links fulfill this requirement. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove this page from the Meher Baba template, as the nominator did in this edit, I assume in good faith, on 8 October with the edit summary "take out of template for a cause". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to clarify, per the information asked above about outside links, that the Spiritual evolution page and the Involution (esoterism) page both have entire sections which describe this topic, and not just a link. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now the nominator removed the entire section on this topic on Spiritual evolution with this edit with an insulting edit summary to whatever editor added it (the appropriately placed per-topic and on-topic section was added on 15 May, 2011, by user Hoverfish). They also once again removed this page from the Meher Baba template. On the basis of "tampering with the evidence" this AfD should be immediately ended. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Merge (if there is anything to merge) to Meher_Baba#Teachings. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty much made your 'delete' ivote above, which is how I and possibly Sandstein read it (if it wasn't an ivote then maybe this AfD would have been closed as no consensus instead of relisted twice). Do you have another reason to delete besides the walled-garden, or is this an "I don't like it comment?". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reason is same that this has no notability outside Meher Baba's connection. Read the article; it has nothing from outside world. It only talks about the theory that baba proposed. He draws connections with other theories; but that's again what he says. This is the walled garden in the sense I explained above; which might not be what others interpret from the essay. But in short, the topic has no standalone notability outside Baba's connection. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wall-gardened reason seems incorrect per the standalone nobility this article achieves through an entire subsection and link in the Spiritual evolution article, where this topic fits into and adds to the article's subject. The links in the article itself further define what is being discussed, so the outside links act as descriptors, which I would think would be the reason and purpose that outside-garden links are asked for. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have said enough of what I want to say. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Meher Baba (preferably to the Teachings section). A standalone article would need enough independent references to pass GNG. This is one article which I think is unlikely to be expanded with information from third party sources. It reads more like an "in-universe" fandom article and is a good candidate to redirect to the main article. At most, a sentence or two could be merged if required.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well sourced with independent references (see the first 'Keep' comment above). This isn't an in-universe fandom page but the sourced description of god consciousness -- a topic discussed and described by many notable philosophers, religious figures, human potential teachers, yogis, and others -- by a notable individual who took the time to study and report on the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are references, I disagree that these are enough to write out a full fledged article and establish notability for the same. Vanamonde93 has mentioned a great solution below where we could merge these smaller article into one article dedicated to the philosophy of Meher Baba, which is notable as a whole. I am willing to support that.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My first preference would be for someone to write an article titled "Philosophy of Meher Baba" or equivalent, and merge all these spinoffs into that. There isn't enough material for a standalone article, but obviously his teachings as a whole were notable, and that would prevent his biography from being overwhelmed with this material. Failing that, I would recomment a redirect to Meher Baba, because of the absence of substantive information in reliable sources independent of the subject. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great solution.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:19, 15 October 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 07:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Able

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable artist. No reliable independent coverage to be found. Was deleted previously at AfD in 2015. SD0001 (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous PROD nomination.Does not meet WP:GNG or any relevant subject-specific guideline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pancho Guapo

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT. All Refs provided (and in Google news) are routine press coverages. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any input could help move this along.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article for non notable DJ. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article depending on the future events. Tessaracter (talk) 12:47, 10 October 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 07:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths from accidental tree failures in Australia

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

Fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. Types of fatal accidents are a dime a dozen. It doesn't mean we should have lists of victims for each one and each country (Draft:List of deaths from accidental tree failures in New Zealand is lurking in the wings). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tree failures?! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All non notable people (many not even named) and just a collection of local news reports. Fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This brings back fond memories of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kangaroo attacks in Australia (not to mention the equally-deleted Magpie attacks in Australia and Emu attacks in Australia articles), but it's only slightly less silly. This isn't encyclopedic content. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article as it currently stands is a list of news articles, but is there any notable sources on tree accidents in Australia that would make the list notable? Bookscale (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 14:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All that is missing are source(s) that discuss the topic as a topic. I'd really like to make sure this topic isn't covered for lack of WP:BEFORE. I'm guessing User:Mark Hartley is someone with background or professional expertise in tree deaths .. which for the tree industry including governments which maintain trees is a real area of concern and not just some made-up category on Wikipedia. Also worth noting these are small countries with high quality reportage so making a complete list like this is possible compared to many other countries, no one is proposing lists like this for every country, the nomination rationale "for each one and each country" is a slippery slope logical fallacy. -- GreenC 14:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. First you say that lists for small countries are manageable, then that no one is suggesting lists for each country. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the nom said "each country"? They are making an argument for deletion based on a global view that "each country" could have an article like this one and we must stop that from happening. Which I agree it would be silly if "each country" had this type of article. But "no one" (other than the nom) is making a case that "each country" could have an article like this, the nom is making a slippery slope logical fallacy. -- GreenC 20:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I was looking at this earlier and, since there's interest, here's a start:

What the Aussies need to keep those deadly trees under control is some Yankee ingenuity like the helicopter chainsaw! Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does suggest that the issue is covered in external notable sources (separate to what is currently in the article, which is just a list of news articles. Perhaps it shouldn't be a list but an article? Bookscale (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The new article would include this list in it. Perhaps then just rename and repurpose this one. Dream Focus 12:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a list of tree deaths at least hundreds of entries long. Yep, that'll be practical. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Listcruft. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 23:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, and another thing ("here we go coola":)), i take issue with the title of this article - "accidental tree failures", the dropping of branches and the falling over of trees are not necessarily a "failure" by the tree, rather it is part of their natural life cycle.... says coola who sees numerous examples of fallen branches that commence growing and fallen trees that are happily growing from their "ground horizontal" position. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to <something non-list> per sources listed by Andrew D. .. The Relevant policy is WP:PRESERVE and relevant guideline WP:GNG as deaths by tree are a notable topic, evidently monitored by governments and other institutions concerned with public safety, in some countries. -- GreenC 13:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the one hand Andrew D.'s list of sources shows that people dying by falling tree part in Australia is probably notable. On the other hand, I don't think the list as currently written is encyclopedic. For one thing, it is so poorly formatted that I haven't figured out what the default sort even is. Part of me wants to scream Verba Delenda Est and consign this list to the scrapheap of history. Another part of me thinks that a more thorough examination of the sources is required and this list can be saved, expanded, and shepherded into greatness. The latter part of me is probably going to win, but I will have to put some thought into what I think should be done with this list. Rockphed (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I suggested above, just rewrite and name it something else so its not just a list article, but keep all the information. This is a valid topic, and listing all the cases of things happening is valid information to have. Dream Focus 17:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is impractical for this article to be anything but a list. Full prose uses more words. Second, not all information is valuable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, not true - it has an introduction and discussion at the top. Wikipedia is not paper and this is not indiscriminate. Trees in Australia specifically can be dangerous because of their propensity to drop branches. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no encyclopedic value in keeping the list. Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports, especially on people that fail to meet up to its WP:BLP policy, which is pretty much every single entry. Ajf773 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, many have been dead for many years. It is a notable topic with a list at the bottom. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a relevant topic and there is not a legitimate reason to delete. Nominator seems to apply WP:IDONTLIKEIT to an article with WP:RS. Keeping it serves our readers. Wm335td (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an indiscriminate list of non notable people. The WP:BLP and WP:NOT policies override WP:ILIKEIT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable topic that has been researched as per this, this, this and this. Should be renamed to "List of people killed by trees in Australia". Some species of eucalyptus tree are nicknamed "widow-makers" - this is a well-known issue in Australia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's a reference to deaths from trees in Australia, not an actual list of victims. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 20:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has dozens of sources for victims, it is no problem to verify that information. And there are sources in this AfD that indicate the topic death by trees is notable. The only question is do we keep it as a list or rename and rebuild as a non-list etc.. which then is not really about AfD any longer. -- GreenC 01:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't keep random lists of unnotable information. This goes in line with why an article named "List of place names that are offensive to disabled people" isn't a list. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right finding decent sources for an imaginary list about disabled people would be difficult, but we are here to talk about tree deaths. A topic clearly novel to you personally, but not novel to the wider world as evidenced by the many sources you are ignoring. -- GreenC 01:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is only really useful as statistical data, but as such, it is most literally original research. Mangoe (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be OR only of the topic itself was OR but we have shown many sources on this page that discuss the topic. -- GreenC 01:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is OR in that the sources are newspaper articles about individual accidents. There is no overall list of victims, so it is a WP:SYN to keep it. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's universal that lists of people that make up entire articles only contain notable people (aka people who have an article). Refer to List of serial killers by number of victims, for example, which only lists serial killers with an article. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion is decided on a per-list basis. Member notability is sometimes used and sometimes not. It is typical when there are too many non-notable members but enough notable ones to justify a list. This list doesn't have a problem with too many members, nor would it make sense to list only notable members since there are none. -- GreenC 18:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has encyclopedic relevance. The info is quite notable. Topic also meets the requirements listed in WP:GNG. My opinion anyway. Catorce2016 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remember the fallacy of division. That the topic of accidental tree failures is notable does not mean that every incident is notable. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 19:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is saying each incident is notable - each does not have its own article, just is on a list. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If all known information were gathered, this list would be too long. Every person on it fails WP:LSC. Therefore, it is impractical to have such a list. Also, there is no article on the topic this list covers (accidental tree failures in Australia). From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 21:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Edit: From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 21:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft of non-notable people dying in an unfortunate way. One could dig up obituaries of people dying from all sorts of causes around the world but that does not mean a compilation of them is appropriate for Wikipedia. Deaths from car crashes occur in Australia and are certainly written about both as a topic as a whole and in specific incidents but it is an indiscriminate collection of information to list all the incidents, names of the victims known or unknown. This being a relatively unusual method does not mean this is appropriate for Wikipedia. Reywas92^Talk 23:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I actually agree that a topic on the overall concept of accidental, tree related deaths in Australia would very likely be notable enough for an article, with sources that would certainly satisfy the WP:GNG. However, a completely indiscriminate list of every recorded incident related to this concept is not. I agree completely with Reywas92's argument about this. As the only source being used in this article that is not just about one of the individual incidents is not even on Australia, but the UK, there is really nothing here that needs to be preserved for the actual valid article to be created. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an indiscriminate list. A collection of every death caused by falling trees, sortable by age, gender, etc, may be useful for researchers but does not belong in an encyclopedia. I'm curious who came up with some of these headings: Do reliable sources categorize incidents as either "School, Scout, Department of Education" or "Accidental"?

I'm also hesitant to define "Accidental tree failures in Australia" as a viable non-list article topic. Fatal tree failures occur all over the world; is there anything special about Australia that would justify a country-specific article? –dlthewave ☎ 17:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be special if Australia is known for such failures or Australia has done something notable to deal with such failures. And I would like to add to the rest of the discussion that, of course, although "Citizen of the United States" would be a valid article topic (see Citizenship in the United States), that does not justify a list of hundreds of millions "Citizens of the United States," even if some are notable. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:27, 7 October 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 08:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taraneh Mokaram

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

Subject does not seem to be notable. References only support the existence of songs / books, and not why they are noteworthy. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I wish I could help out more with my initial reasoning, but the article contradicts itself numerous times with the information provided. The first sentence mentions that they were born in 2008, while it is subsequently mentioned that they were born in 2006, and it was mentioned later that they released their first song book in 2009. Whether they were 1 or 3 years old, this series of 4 sentences is pretty wonky. The article uses "he", "she", "his", and "her" to describe the subject, and is listed as a 1980s birthed male poet in the Categories. But even with all of this aside, notability STILL was not established in the article, and only talked about the names of the songs / books that were published, and not whether they were important. So while the first part of this comment has no bearing over whether the article should be kept or not, the lack of general notability does. Utopes (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve linked this article to its equivalent on fa.wiki to which it wasn’t connected. The en.wiki version is obviously a very garbled translation with messed up hijri dates. The refs are the same for both versions. I’ll see what others I can find. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching under ‘ ترانه مکرم’ clearly shows sustained coverage by multiple independent sources in Farsi. She is a current artist so a lot of this is in social media or blogs and there’s also a lot of interviews. AFAIK the press in Iran do not cover popular music of this sort because they avoid straying unto areas that might become problematic, so I don’t see mainstream news coverage. Allowing for major differences in how things get written about in Iran, I conclude that she’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is maybe famous between some fans of pop music but being famous doesn't mean worthy of an article in Wikipedia aka notable. Musicema.com which is the source for many music articles in Iran is not at all a reliable website (You can "buy" articles and interviews for yourself!)Farhikht (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.@Mccapra: Could you please provide links to the references in Farsi. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes: Lyrics of her songs on a popular news site, brief report on her wedding, Her commenting on the release of an album by another artist, 2012, Her lyrics on Iranian poetry site, Bio in Topnaz magazine. I ignored any that were blogs or listings. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:SIGCOV. Other than the Topnaz profile, the sources by Mccapra do not appear substantial enough to meet the basic reference criteria at WP:N. There just aren't enough quality sources to justify an article.4meter4 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If she were British or American I’d definitely agree. However I don’t think sources for an Iranian popular artist are going to be what we’d look for in the case of a UK or US artist. 1. All sorts of sources are available in English because it’s a world language with a gigantic volume of sources of every sort. Farsi isn’t. Because it operates at a much smaller scale and has much smaller readerships we’re not going to find the same range material to work from. 2. Mainstream media in the west covers popular culture fairly well, meaning that RIS are generated. In Iran I think that’s much less the case, so the ‘quality’ sources about pop culture we can find in the English speaking world may just not exist in Iran. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 06:20, 26 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Ducard

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

Seems to fail WP:NFICTION, not an ounce of indication that he has real world significance (reception, etc.). It's all fictional character biography and list of appearances in media - the usual in-universe fancruft. WP:BEFORE reveals the following sources in case someone wants to try to rescue this: 1) Michael Eury (22 May 2019). Back Issue #113. TwoMorrows Publishing. pp. 19–. GGKEY:DJ92XUFH4G1. few paragraphs of a WP:INTERVIEW with the creator Sam Hamm; note the interview is not about Henri, just one of many questions is about this character. 2) nothing more, everything else I see seems to be mentions in passing. Still, there are enough of those that I want to list this here - maybe someone can find something I missed? But please, remember, mentions in passing don't help, we need in-depth coverage that is not just a copy/rewrite of our article (i.e it goes beyond fictional character biography). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought there might be some significant coverage from early 2006 when everyone thought Liam Neeson was playing Ducard, but I couldn't find enough to salvage the article. There's no obvious redirect target, because the high-profile use of the name in Batman Begins was only an alias and had nothing to do with the comic character. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 3 October 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WebPreserver

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

PROD removed from page's creator. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Two of three references are press releases. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM that fails WP:NCOMPANY, shame it needed a relist, it pretty much a speedy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to PageFreezer, an associated page also created by the same account which also mentions this tool. The brief 2015 beta description in the Slaw article does not seem to me to be sufficient to demonstrate attained product notability and I am not seeing better. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 1 October 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 07:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carpenter, California

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

Although it's stated to be a former settlement neighborhood in Hayward, I haven't found any references in any Alameda County history books which I am aware of.

See this 1935 map, which does not show Carpenter: https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~247257~5515341:Alameda-County- The area described should be somewhere between Mt Eden and Decoto.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources discussing place beyond having been a name on a map. Location is within incorporated Hayward, California. Reywas92^Talk 16:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note According to this source it was a location on the railroad.----Pontificalibus 15:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, but maybe it was just a mill. The name suggests a connection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete GNIS appears to have the topo quad as its source, which indeed has the name next to what is now the BART yard and presumably was in earlier times SP's yard in the area. I could not find a timetable which listed it however. Calling it a "community" is unwarranted and without any real description I can't see keeping it. Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Din

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

No claims of notability made. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 1 October 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. Tone 07:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Michelle

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

WP:GNG Only 4 sources, all of which are gossip sites. No notability except one low-budget Netflix film and a small role on Dance Moms, probably written by someone close to the subject as promotion of the subject. Rcul4u998 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Saif. Similar to that page, the subject of the article has appeared in one "major" work (a Netflix production) and has not garnered the level of attention from reliable sources to merit a page at this time. KidAd (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result of that AfD was "Redirect", so citing it as a reason to delete is a bit inconsistent. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "Redirect" closer to "Delete" than "Keep" from the perspective of AfD? "Keep" means an article meets at least one WP:N standard and should be kept as a standalone article, while "Delete", "Redirect" and (to a lesser extent) "Merge" are generally proposed as actions when the topic does not meet any notability guideline. Unless expressly stated, an AfD being closed as "Delete" does not preclude a redirect from being created at that article title as long as it's appropriate. feminist (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is receiving 20,000 views a day regardless of whether the film was low budget. Ava has been on television for 4 years and there has been plenty of media coverage. Unfortunately living in the UK, some American newspapers are blocking my accessing them, no idea why.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one could argue that she is receiving so many views only because of the netflix film she has starred in. Having one movie credit and a small recurring role on one tv series does not make a subject notable, especially when the majority of the notable sources that do exists for her are within the context of the single film. While I don't doubt she may become more notable in the future, I do think this article is a few years premature... I mean, the article consists of just 12 sentences of content... I think it would need to be majorly majorly expanded to prove notability. Rcul4u998 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep James Kevin McMahon requested I look at this article. At first, I thought she would be TOOSOON. But I did some digging and she has been covered in Reliable Sources over the course of several years. Bustle, Teen Vogue, MetroWest Daily News (local source) and People.com are reliable sources. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether she has received significant coverage from her role in Tall Girl is never the question. The main question is whether this topic would be better covered in the Tall Girl article rather than in a standalone article. A number of sources currently in this article are quite questionable from a reliability perspective, but this Pop Culture article currently cited looks quite decent as a source and is from when she was still known as Ava Cota. Keep as there is more to her that we can write about than her role in the Netflix rom-com. feminist (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per a news search which brings back many hits. The question of whether the article should be merged / redirected to Tall Girl can be done outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main concern people have with this article is WP:BLP1E, and unfortunately most news coverage right now doesn't solve that problem. We have to focus more on older sources that don't relate to Tall Girl. feminist (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as does have enough reliable sources coverage to pass WP:GNG including the PopCulture piece which is before Tall Girl, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 4 October 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 07:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tomizawa Iyo

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

A historical person of dubious notability, and similarly dubious verifiability. The entire stub is sourced to a single link from a defunct website whose reliability I cannot ascertain. I did various searches, both under the various English spellings as well as with the provided kanji, and turned up nothing but mirrors of this article. As far as I can tell, the Japanese Wikipedia does not have a corresponding article on this individual. However, I am bringing this to AFD, rather than simply placing a PROD on it due to its notability issues, in the chance that people with more familiarity with reading Japanese might have something to say regarding the topic. Rorshacma (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without doing the research that I don't really have time for this morning, I will say that "富沢伊予守" doesn't parse as "Tomizawa Iyo" but as "Tomizawa Iyo-no-kami". If this person existed and was in fact the governor of Iyo Province, I would say it's a near-certainty that he is notable. That being said, a GBooks search appeared to indicate that he was in fact just a relatively minor retainer of the Sanada clan and was more associated with Kōzuke Province. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, for information of wikieditors, no article on Japanese WP of this person (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: A few points:

Japanese Wikipedia hardly ever cites sources, and so is not especially useful when establishing notability, even of Japanese topics.
Lots of notable (but obscure) Japanese topics don't have articles on ja.wiki -- Man'yō Shikō, Man'yōshū Jidai-kō, Fujiwara no Atsutaka, Fujiwara no Akinaka, and Fujiwara no Akitsuna jump to mind.
The interwiki links (or lack thereof) are clearly visible on the page itself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi Hijiri88, as the Japanese WP has over 1mill articles i thought it might be a good idea to check if it had anything on Tomizawa, anyway, thanks for the insights into that WP:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V as best I can determine. Happy to change !vote if RS sources are turned up. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination, Fails WP:VER. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:15, 6 October 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 Cardi B. Sandstein 18:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hennessy Carolina

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability is not inherited. Outside of having a famous sister, there's nothing notable about her. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. She has not accomplished notability outside of being Cardi’s sister, even on Love and Hip Hop she was just Cardi’s sister not a person with a storyline. Trillfendi (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think the page should be a redirect to Cardi since this subject has no notability of her own aside from the fame of her sister. A few notable publications as references, but mostly gossip and tabloids. Rcul4u998 (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Insofar as this is a valid search term point it at her actually notable sibling. While the sources in the article are all at least nominally about Hennessy, they all look like gossip rag pieces. Vogue is, as far as I can tell, the only exception, but a single good source does not notability impart. Rockphed (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTINHERITED only applies in cases where few or no reliable sources have taken notice of the subject. Going by the sources currently cited, Billboard and Vogue (RSP entry) are clearly not gossip rags; People magazine is considered reliable enough for BLPs as well (RSP entry). These three articles all focus on Hennessy and only mention Cardi in passing. WP:GNG is met. feminist (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The People and Vogue sources are not significant and only refer to gossip content and based on her primary statements. The Billboard source seems a completely primary source. Seems to fail GNG, ANYBIO... Lourdes 15:06, 8 October 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tharshan Thiyagarajah

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

Fails requirements of WP:NACTOR, simply appearing on a reality television show doesn't qualify as being notable. Neither does being a contestant on a male beauty pageant. Fails WP: ANYBIO lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just similar to this Afd on Mugen Rao. It is also quite evident that this bio too might have been created for the purpose of promoting the subject. Abishe (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have overhauled majority of the content in the article to match Wikipedia's standard and I think that the subject of the article satisfies WP:NACTOR, since the 'reality show' is not generic since there is a constant of mayhem in the social media due to the article and the people who follow the show rigorously support for their favourite contestant even going to the extremes. I think the subject is one of the above mentioned people and I have cited resources in the article. So I recommend to Keep the article.
Beastranger (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Abishe. -- Begoon 05:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The newsminute, pinkvilla, and times of India sources almost seem satisfy GNG/BASIC. But I see it as pretty trivial coverage of mostly one event. Hydromania (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur with Beastranger (talk) - Sunlitsky (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one reliable source in the article is anything but about the TV show called Big Boss. The subject has been referred to by-the-by in all these articles that primarily address the show. There is no other significant coverage of the subject. Fails ANYBIO, fails GNG, fails NACTOR. Should be simply deleted till the subject gains more notability. Lourdes 15:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or, at most, redirect to Bigg Boss Tamil 3. bd2412 T 18:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a number of sources which mention him, but I cannot see enough substantive coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:33, 8 October 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 Skillet discography per WP:BOLD. I have no idea why this AFD wasn't closed as such instead of being relisted twice, because it's clear that the consensus is to redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Older I Get (EP)

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

We may witness just 1 (one) review by Jesus Freak Hideout, a christian music blog the page about which was deleted four (4) times, at hand. The criteria presented in WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM are not met. -- Pr12402 (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skillet discography. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band's discog. No charting and only one review. I would have said just redirect it next time and take to a discussion if someone objects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Older I Get (the title song from the EP). feminist (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 8 October 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)} 20:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skillet discography per above, not enough content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 16 October 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.