Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarioGom (talk | contribs) at 22:04, 8 October 2019 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Guarini Institute for Public Affairs. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< 7 October 9 October >

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 redirect to John Cabot University#Programs. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Guarini Institute for Public Affairs

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

Article from 2008 without sources. Apparent lack of notability. There're some hits in Google, but they seem to be mostly passing mentions. MarioGom (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:04, 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 redirect to Vancity. If anybody wants to merge material, they can. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vancity Community Investment Bank

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

Per WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. Its edits have been few and far between over the years, often limited to trivial cleanup or adding tags. It could easily be consolidated into Vancity, which wholly owns this small Canadian bank, as a separate section, if it isn't already, as was done with CTBC Bank (Canada) into CTBC Bank. At the same time, it's worth noting this article is a textbook example of WP:Puffery. Thus, if strip out the sections of this article that are highly indicative of wikipuffery, you're left with only a few sentences and a WP:Permastub. As well, what's left is highly outdated or inaccurate. It's sold or substantially wound down its entire credit card portfolio, and is a essentially an micro-cap Canadian bank subsidiary offering only non-profit organization deposit and lending services. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:41, 8 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\ 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Vancity in lieu of deletion. Here is a source I found about the subject:
    1. Jones, Ellis; Haenfler, Ross; Johnson, Brett (2017). The Better World Handbook: Small Changes That Make A Big Difference. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. p. 62. ISBN 978-086571-575-2. Retrieved 2019-10-20.

      The book notes:

      Citizens Bank of Canada & Van City

      Created by Vancouver City Savings Credit Union (VanCity), the largest credit union in Canada, Citizens Bank provides socially responsible telephone and Internet banking. Before they invest your money in a business, they consider the company's record on human rights, military weapon and tobacco production, the environment and treatment of animals.

    Vancity Community Investment Bank (VCIB) was formerly known as Citizens Bank of Canada.

    Cunard (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping of Piotrus so he may consider this source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am always fine with soft delete through merge and redirect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline which is why I do not support a standalone article. But I support a retaining the article's history under the redirect to give editors the option of merging material to the parent company and to allow editors to easily reuse some of the material (such as the introduction, the history, and the infobox) as the basis for a new article if new sources surface in the future.

Cunard (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: With respect, I do not think preservation of the editing history and prior contributions is a valid reason for keeping in place an unlikely or unhelpful redirect when Vancity is already the parent article. As for the infobox, those are sooo easy to add and can be done in all of 10 minutes (less depending on how fulsomely one fills it out). Wikipedia was never intended to provide attribution to its contributions and editors need to realize this. We're editors; we do not have bylines. Attribution and ownership of our edits is to Wikipedia. Moreover, administrators can undelete articles, with editing history, and send them to the Draft namespace should this non-notable bank become notable at some point in the future. Thus, the editing history is not lost; it's just hidden and only available to admins, until such time as there is merit to restore the article, as I understand it. --Doug Mehus (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. I so no evidence of significant coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources and thus does not pass WP:NCORP. The source presented here strikes me of questionable reliability and even if it is reliable it's definitely not significant coverage. However, Vancity is a legitimate redirect target but this current piece of non-notable oncorporate promotionalism should be deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, Thanks, I agree completely. It fails WP:SIGCOV and I don't see how Vancity Community Investment Bank is a helpful redirect to Vancity since it's sooo much longer and Vancity is already the article URL of the larger entity.Doug Mehus (talk) 23:18, 24 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 merge to ICICI Bank. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICICI Bank Canada

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

Noticed outstanding, unactioned, and apparently, unopposed, merge tag and discussion on this page, so thought that as per WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. It could easily be consolidated into ICICI Bank, which wholly owns this relatively small Canadian bank, as a separate section, if it isn't already, as was done with CTBC Bank (Canada) into CTBC Bank. As you can see, this is an orphaned, stub-class article with multiple issues. Seems not to need its own article. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 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. 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

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

Fails WP: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. Willbb234Talk (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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Dover

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

There are no honest grounds for having an article of this subject: A police officer of marginal notability (few Ghits). The article is a stub destined as an attack page, or a form of doxing. Since this person is commanding officer of anti-riot police who anti-ELAB protesters hold directly responsible for the decision to launch teargas, rubber bullets, and other ballistic anti-rioting weaponry against protesters, he has become a hate figure and has been subject to vilification and personal attacks in Hong Kong. Some examples of the attacks can be seen clearly in this article. I therefore nominate this article for deletion.  Ohc ¡digame! 20:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgewater Bank

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

Per WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. Its edits have been few and far between over the years, often limited to trivial cleanup or adding tags. It could easily be consolidated into Alberta Motor Association, which wholly owns this small Canadian bank, as a separate section, if it isn't already, as was done with CTBC Bank (Canada) into CTBC Bank. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 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 merge to Bank of China. I see the merge-then-delete argument, but if stuff is merged WP:CWW requires that the old history be kept for attribution issues as there is a large amount of editors. Thus merge-then-redirect as with normal merges, although WP:RFD can discuss the redirect if people are so inclined. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of China (Canada)

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

Per WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. It could easily be consolidated into Bank of China as a separate section, if it isn't already, as was done with CTBC Bank (Canada) into CTBC Bank. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 8 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\ 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, By "delete this permastub," does that mean you'd like to see the redirect suppressed? If so, I'd favour that as well. I don't think we need to keep adding redirects for the sake of adding redirects.Doug Mehus (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, while redirects are cheap and easy, I only see the point if the name of this topic is likely to be a common or likely search term. In my opinion it isn't. People will search for "Bank of China" so there's no point in a redirect. HighKing++ 16:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, exactly! I'm of the same opinion. The only difference in the latter is the parenthetical qualifier, which people are unlikely to direct type into the address bar or search for. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:35, 23 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 Rogers Communications#Rogers Bank. Since content was merged, page history must be kept to preserve attribution. czar 00:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Bank

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

Per WP:NORG and WP:Notability, and following similar nominations from Piotrus, this small bank subsidiary may not be notable given the relatively small single product, credit card, portfolio this banking subsidiary offers. Even if it's notable, with few substantive edits and only 2-3 sentences, this could easily be merged with Rogers Communications as a separate section (if it isn't already). Not every Canadian bank needs its own article until such time as one or more users want to fully develop an article. As such, this article seems to be either a permastub or an emerging permastub. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Halkett99, But there's absolutely no added value in that delete...this article never should've been created in the first place since it lacks notability. It's also already mentioned in Rogers Communications, as far as I recall. Can I please convince you to change your vote? Thanks. Just looking to get this deleted and would appreciate a clean deletion. Thanks. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halkett99 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Halkett99, Thanks. I've updated the Rogers Communications article with the two- or three-sentences from Rogers Bank.Doug Mehus (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, Yeah, "merge" isn't exactly needed considering I'd already migrated the sentence or two into that section of Rogers Communications. I was hoping to do away without keeping the Rogers Bank redirect, but, on the other hand, someone could just well re-create it as a redirect. So, I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect, either. Besides, that shortened tag, properly redirecting to Rogers Communications#Rogers Bank would actually be helpful for those wishing to tag the non-notable banking subsidiary in related articles.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in General Physics

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

No evidence of notability presented in the article. A WP:BEFORE search gives a few articles with passing mentions that it is used for the IIT entrance exams in India (e.g. [4], [5], [6]), but no evidence of WP:GNG-level notability. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:24, 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 Mandali (Meher Baba). (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehera Irani

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

The 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) ∯WBGconverse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:40, 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. ∯WBGconverse 06:34, 24 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]
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 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)

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

This 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: [7]. 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, 345. 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: 910111213141516. 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]
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]
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

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

WP: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]

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]
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

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

WP: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]
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 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 redirect to Bea Miller. Tone 20:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Song Like You

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

Fails WP: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:

S.L.U.T. (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Feel Something (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Feels Like Home (Bea Miller and Jessie Reyez song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(Redirected by Onel5969)
Yes Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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:

Chapter One: Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chapter Two: Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chapter Three: Yellow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aurora (Bea Miller album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--NØ 16:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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)

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

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]
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

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

Article 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]
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

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

Non-notable 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)

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

Notability. 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]

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]
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]

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]

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)

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

No 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]

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 [8] (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. [9] 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]
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

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

Does not 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: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. 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]
  • 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Sanghani

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Presented references are name drops. Nothing of depth. scope_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 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 keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troutman Sanders

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

The 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. [15]). 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]
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)

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

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. ∯WBGconverse 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 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]
    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. ∯WBGconverse 07:04, 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.∯WBGconverse 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]
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]
  • 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]
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

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

Fails 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]
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)

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

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

The result was merge to List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s. Sandstein 17:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of BL dramas

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

Poorly-defined list that uses the possibly made-up term "BL" to refer to male-male love scenes, loosely alluding to the proper Japanese term Yaoi though Japanese media is not included in the list. The article is confined to Thailand and one show from South Korea, and from a limited time period. The author claims that "BL" is different than matters covered at the existing List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1970s–2000s but without verification. The limited entries in this list could probably be merged into List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 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 List of Decepticons. Merge from history remains possible. Sandstein 18:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barricade (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TTN, can you please make a recommendation on redirect if the character is a notable or recurring Transformers character? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely arguing for outright deletion for these. If someone wants to redirect them after, that's fine, but I don't really feel we even need that much. Especially when there are three to five versions of each character, it's even more pointless to try to redirect them when there technically should either be a DAB page for each one or multiple separate redirects for each incarnation to each series. TTN (talk) 17:06, 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 keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists for Future

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

May not meets WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Noting nominator does not seem certain of their rationale. I previously tagged this page for notability and discussed on the talk page, as there are limited English language sources available. However, Korrigi provided more evidence of coverage in German language media sources. This satisfied my concerns and I removed the notability tag. I agree with Schazjmd that a lot of the sources relate to the climate change facts and not actually the group, a content issue that requires resolution on the talk page, but I think the German media sources provided do satisfy GNG.Polyamorph (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are more than enough sources to fulfill WP:GNG, and many more could be brought by if necessary. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:26, 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 no consensus. North America1000 11:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Voices (2005 film)

Silent Voices (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable film article from the promoters of Paul Atherton HouseOfChange (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few capsule reviews do not constitute "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG. Wikipedia policy on notability for films has clear and specific criteria, as for example (from Wikipedia:NFO) "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" or "at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." Wikipedia notability is a high bar, this film doesn't reach it. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable with enough coverage. WP:NFO is being misused because it doesn't state that is what a film article must have. That section of the film notability guideline is titled "Other evidence of notability", meaning that the section is only for if a film article doesn't meet the general notability guideline. SL93 (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The empire review is the only decent bit of coverage about the film. One slightly good piece is not enough. Passing mentions and a capsule review fall well short. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still sufficient disagreement to show a clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:08, 22 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 20:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colour Blind (film)

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

Non-notable film, article from same COI editor repeatedly trying to promote British filmmaker Paul Atherton HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 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\ 18:21, 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 Selective Merge/Redirect to Paul Atherton. There is a clear consensus that the article should not exist as is, and the next most supported option is the proposed merge and redirect. bd2412 T 00:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our London Lives

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

Non-notable film. Promotional article created and inflated by COI editor whose many edits focus on promoting London filmmaker Paul Atherton. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The film was taken into the Museum of London's collection through an exhibition entitled "Recording A Life" where it was screened, and did receive coverage in the media including on London Live News. Though press coverage in this instance would seem irrelevant to notability as it would simply be a measure of popularity as the notability would have been established by the institution. Itsallnewtome (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely if the show "Recording A Life" wasn't of news interest, Atherton wouldn't have been invited onto the News. Any Independent Third Party coverage of the event is going to focus on him, it's his Video Diary, It's his and his son's life. Video diary incorrectly in my opinion, redirects to Vlog on Wikipedia and should in fact redirect to Diary the absence of such a redirect would suggest that such an invention is, as yet, not widely recognised, which further complicates the issue of Notability as this would appear to be a first.Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge/Redirect to Paul Atherton. On its own, the work fails WP:SIGCOV as a search yielded nothing of significance. The fact that an individual work of art is in the collection of museum does not in itself indicate notability because there is no guideline on wikipedia that indicates this. However, having the information about this piece being in the museum collection in the article on the artist would help that article by showing he meets WP:NARTIST, so the content would be valuable on the article on Paul Atherton.4meter4 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible that these sources would help. It really depends on how significant the coverage in those articles is, and if the art work is the main subject of a review or not. If it's only tangentially mentioned as a part of a larger show or if it is mentioned in the context of a press release and not a review than it would not count towards WP:SIGCOV. One of the main issues with the article as it stands is it's use of primary source material (which is not good) and its use of highly inappropriate references like twitter. If you have questions about sourcing, please read WP:VERIFIABILITY.4meter4 (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4meter4 The nature of the event, means it wouldn't be reviewed it would be reported upon, The Showcase show (as mentioned above) was to acknowledge the collection of Atherotn's Video Diary into the Museum of London. It was covered with an interview with Atherton on the news, which is cited above. Duffbeer seems to thik that isn't Third Party coverage of the event which seems extremely odd to me. As you've rightly pointed out, notability of an individual can be established by having work collected into a Museum, but it doesn't then follow that that work is notable? As for the Twitter reference, why is communications from the institution of the Museum of London, either on Social Media or elsewhere not recognised as a valid reference within the context of the article? Especially when that reference links Atherton to the @LondonersLondon twitter account, which establishes the connection between him, the twitter account and the museum and places his diary in the exhibition and contextualises its import by using the image of Samuel Pepys diary? It would seem to be applicable according to WP:Twitter-ELItsallnewtome (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Itsallnewtome: WP:NARTIST had broad consensus to use the inclusion of a work in a museum as confering notability on the artist, but it is not transferable to the artwork itself. I agree that wikipedia has a policy gap in this content area, and I personally would support an official guideline for the inclusion of artwork in museums. However, that is not the policy currently in use and, in the absence of a consensus based guideline, we must use WP:GNG as the standard which requires a certain level of sourcing. Unfortunately, announcements about a work are considered standard PR for the museum and do not contribute to WP:SIGCOV. The artwork being reviewed would count.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @4meter4: I think the problem with this, is the object can be interpreted as three things, a diary, a film or an artwork. As a film the Museum of London could then be seen as a Secondary Source in it's own right under the inclusionary rule "Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits" WP:MOVIE. As this is the only Video-Diary in the Museum of London Collection which houses over a million objects, it thus makes it a unique proposition and therefore made notable by the academic acceptance of selection. Itsallnewtome (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Itsallnewtome:That's a stretch. Let's continue by putting that guideline in context with the next sentence "The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant." In other words, there has to be some sort of significant tangible pieces (emphasis on plural/multiple) of evidence of the work's importance as dictated by other core policies like Wikipedia:Reliable source, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:GNG. If you really feel strongly about the Museum of London inclusion being seen as a Secondary Source, I suggest you start a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see if others would support that interpretation. Who knows, you may find consensus to support you there.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments; I feel that I am "well versed" in policies and guidelines but that is sometimes subjected to bold changes and interpretations sometimes not actually vetted. I am among those that feel guidelines like NARTIST work with those such as GNG and not in opposition or exception to them. When it seems or is deemed there is a lack of policy or specific guideline coverage to me there does not become a "gap", or hole to be possibly exploited, but we fall back on the general notability guidelines or others that are relevant. I do agree that bringing up issues in this area at WikiProject Film a good idea. "The fact that an individual work of art is in the collection of museum does not in itself indicate notability" is true. A museum reporting or covering a piece of artwork or article on display, even if Tweeter was accepted, would be a primary source (Museum of London) that does not necessarily advance notability. A source on an object or item can be perfectly acceptable to support content without advancing notability on itself yet give credibility of the subject to which it belongs or is attributed to. Not to mention that creating articles is a worthy goal but we should not do so when it would be better served in a parent article that would expand and enhance it. There are literally millions of artifacts and items in museums around the world. Those that receive multiple reliable and independent sourcing is deserving a stand alone article. Also, Twitter is among those considered as an unreliable source as a social network and generally removed. Another factor is I seem to have run into more than one dead link (action for M.E.) which doesn't help advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Otr500: I've found myself embroiled in a lot of debates, when my focus was originally just on Atherton's article, but in tidying that up, it's triggered all the AFD's by HouseOfChange on his associated films which had been left alone for in some instances for over a decade. It appears to me that the articles are being penalised by having been unattended by wikipedia editors for years. As you make note here, all the links are dead and it was poorly put together to begin with. That said, I've already found offline sources on Atheron's article to back-up dead-links and exxpect to do the same on all these too. Did the news article I posted above warrant coverage for notability's sake by the way? I realise I don't think it's referenced in the article? Itsallnewtome (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Itsallnewtome (talk) 14:50, 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. Tone 20:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Throttlebots

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

Non-notable toy line TTN (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chevvin 17:55, 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 keep.  JGHowes  talk 00:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Rubin (attorney)

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

article has been tagged with "may not meet notability guideline" since 2012. So let's have the discussion - what makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Quakewoody (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Quakewoody (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. lullabying (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments are saying keep, but the only reliable source mentioned is a single obit (reprinted twice). Resisting to see if any more sources can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Obituaries do count as RS when they are journalist written and unpaid for, which is the case here. The substantial obit in the Los Angeles Times is compelling, and the fact that other newspapers chose to print the obit or write their own on a national scale is further evidence that this is a notable person. This is enough coverage to just barely meet WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 31 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) 17:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Railroad Heritage Museum

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

This is a non-notable small local museum, open just a few hours per week. There is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Currently the references are local news coverage (the museum will put up Christmas lights this year), the organization's own website, and a Facebook page. Beyond that, WP:BEFORE turns up little more than directory listings and other non-significant coverage. Peacock (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 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 redirect to Transformers: Generation 1. RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Targetmaster

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

Non-notable toyline TTN (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 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, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:21, 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 merge to Paul Atherton. Lacks a strong rationale to outright keep given scarcity of GNG, however, there is also a clear desire to preserve important material here, and merge into the main Paul Atherton article has the strongest consensus. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus

AfDs for this article:
The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only asserted claim to notability is being in collection of BFI archive. Their collection of 100,000 non-fiction films is expansive, not selective. The NFO criterion for notability requires a highly selective national archive (the US example given accepts very few films and has only 750 in its entire collection.) HouseOfChange (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator. The existence of this obscure and trivial film is supported by only two RS: a press release touting it as "an historic event" and a brief collection record in the British Film Institute archive. It has not been "selected for preservation in a national archive" as per WP:NFO, it has been warehoused among 100,000 other non-notable films by the BFI which exists to "encourage" British filmmaking, not to curate the many films made in Britain and select the best. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange: could you please strike out your ‘Delete’ vote and replace it with ‘Comment’. Nominators are not supposed to vote on their own nominations. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not know that. Thanks for letting me know. HouseOfChange (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The British Film Institute is a National Film Archive as cited by the list Wikipedia (National Film Archives) provides, however the "example" of a National Archive given by Wikipedia of a small collection of populist films in the Library of congress, selected by public vote ("The Librarian of Congress makes the annual selections to the Registry after reviewing thousands of titles nominated by the public"), is not. The British archive is curated by film experts and the only films that make the colletction are those that have an "Historical or Cultural import to the British People", not ones that are deemed popular by the general public. The size of the archive should have no bearing whatsoever on notability decision making, especially considering variants that effect that size, including the duration a collection has been going and the number of miscellaneous objects collected alongside films, such as programms & communications surrounding the film, as in the BFI's case. The Stanley Kubrick Archive at University of the Arts London for instance is made up of 1.000's of items although Kurbirck only made 13 films in his life.
Equally the film's notability is not established by popularity, though the press coverage at the time of screening seems to have been signiificant (though not accessible online ten years later), as each film in the series of The Ballet of Change were broadcast onto London Landmarks, St Martin-in-the-Fields at Trafalgar Square, Odeon Leicester Square in Leicester Square and the Coca-Cola Billboard in Piccadilly Circus and screened in entirety with the London Bridge film at the National Portrait Gallery, London over a single evenings event in the West End of London, the press coverage, a measure of popularity, is no measure of its notability.
There could indeed be an argument for changing this article to the Ballet Of Change Series incorporating details of all four films[1] [2] [3] [4]
  • An extract from the British Film Archive Collecting Policy to be found as a Download
4.2 Cultural significance
25. The overriding criterion for acceptance into the national collection of moving image material for the United Kingdom is that the work should be of cultural and/or historical importance to the British people, recognising the diversity of British communities.
26. Because this is the national collection of moving image material in the UK, acquisition of British-produced and British-related material will be prioritised over non-British material, especially for the preservation collection. However, much non-British material is also of cultural importance and some non-British material may be highly relevant to particular cross-cultural audiences for the reference collection.
27. The bfi does not aim to hold a comprehensive collection, even for British- produced material. It aims to collect works that have or had real cultural impact, or historical significance, or that are highly representative of production, society or cultural values, or which are valuable for educational purposes or as information resources for study. Examples include: - High quality productions, where the production values and treatment are of a high artistic merit or information content. Itsallnewtome (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus in British Film Institute Archive". British Film Institue Collection. BFI. Retrieved 2 October 2019.
  2. ^ "The Ballet of Change: Trafalgar Square in British Film Institute Archive". British Film Institue Collection. BFI. Retrieved 9 October 2019.
  3. ^ "The Ballet of Change: Leicester Square in British Film Institute Archive". British Film Institue Collection. BFI. Retrieved 9 October 2019.
  4. ^ "The Ballet of Change: London Bridge in British Film Institute Archive". British Film Institue Collection. BFI. Retrieved 9 October 2019.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This film lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Above from someone who claims to be new from this but is clearly not is not convincing. BFI database holds over 800,000 titles. That's not the selective that makes for notability. Less than half listed in that database are actually in their collection. Sources presented do not even verify that this is actually preserved. Without any independent coverage this should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I would suggest commenting on an editor personally is in breach of Wikipedia's guidelines WP:PA (Comment on content, not on the contributor). That said each entry cited clearly shows that for each film, two formats are held in the collection one as "DVD" the other as "HD Cam SR Video" the nature of the youth and formats of the films means the listing of "preservation pending" is not to wether the film will be preserved as it's collection into the archive establishes that, but the film has not been checked to see if it has decayed. The wikipedia criteria is "preservation in a National Film Archive" (NFA), to ignore the collections criteria is to ignore the purpose of a Film Archive altogether and the British Film Archive is considered one of the most respected and oldest in the World (e.g. the small collection of 2,000 Victorian Films). So if this isn't deemed by Wikipedia as an NFA on the basis of it's size and heritage then it follows no NFA's should be used. As the film was created for a one off West End event broadcast onto the London landmarks represented in the films Piccadilly Circus, Trafalgar Square & Leicester Square, it did garner BBC News coverage as already stated, though the citation being over twelve years ago is no longer accessible. There seems to be some bias here to big budget movies with huge PR & marketed driven distribution and commercial films, rather than films that are truly notable Itsallnewtome (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.@HouseOfChange: can you please be more explicit about why the BFI should not be considered under Criteria 4 of WP:NFILM? I would like a more thorough explanation before making a decision, because ignoring a policy guideline to my mind needs a more convincing argument than the one you provided.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I got a reply to this query at User talk:HouseOfChange#Notability for films, BFI: I can't edit mainspace from this VPN, sorry. I am going to quote it here on behalf of User:HouseOfChange who is currently in China and unable to edit this discussion due to their unique restrictions. He states, "Most notable films meet WP:GNG. Some films that never got substantial coverage in independent media may still be notable, that is why WP:NFO exists. WP:NFO sets a high bar in each of its categories, because only films that fail GNG get tested by them. For example, criterion 3 a film that won "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Similarly in criterion 4 the benchmark for being "selected" is set high: the US National Film Registry selects only 25 each year. (It selects films based on quality or importance, not popularity.) BFI is a prestigious group that tries to collect all the best new films every year. I intend no disrespect to the BFI when I say that the hundreds of thousands of films they have selected and archived did not instantly become Wikipedia-notable on their selection."4meter4 (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge/Redirect to Paul Atherton. The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus does not have enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, and the argument that the BFI inclusion is significant is not convincing based on the analysis provided by HouseOfChange. That said, some of the content would be valuable as a subsection in the article on the artist himself. There is no reason why the film couldn't be covered on that page.4meter4 (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @4meter4: If the bar is set by the Public nominated films of the Natioanl Film Registry in the subsection of the Congress Library which I repeat again is NOT a National Film Archive by anybody elses standards, it means ONLY those films would meet notability and therefore the use of the term National Film Archive should not be used as a requirement for notability. You can't cite an example that is not replicable. It is the only Film Selection done by public nomiination in the world. All other National FIlm Archives are curated by film specialists and house a vast array of film types and miscellanea. The majority of films in the Library of congress are commercially released films this means that you exclude all other film types that are significant and notable and is the very antitheses of why a National Film Archive exists in the first place. And at no point in the above selection criteria for the BFI above does it say "the BFI collects the best films in that year" as User:HouseOfChange suggests, it says it collects what is ""Historical or Cultural import to the British People" if you deem that not to be notable, then Wikiepdia is no longer an encyclopedia but an advertising conduit for mass produced films, as with big budgets come big media and if the assertion of notbaility is based on popularity as the Library of Congress is by public nomination, then curatorial excellence in art or production is utterly eliminated.Itsallnewtome (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.@Itsallnewtome: I absolutely agree with you that it is an extremely exclusive choice to use as an example. Unfortunately, I have to use the policy example given as my guideline as a reviewer because that example was placed there through community consensus. We have to use the policies as written, and not the policies as we wish they would be.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Itsallnewtome: The disambiguation page National Film Archive is for actual names, and is not a category page but a search tool where articles that share common actual names can be listed. A former official name of the BFI National Archive was "National Film Archive" which is why it is on that disambiguation page. The National Film Registry has never been known/ referred to as the National Film Archive so it it does not belong on that disambiguation page. The National Film Registry is a part of Category:Film archives in the United States. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear @HouseOfChange: as you've agreed elsewhere on Wikipedia on this issue. that the National Film Registry is simply a list of films that the Library of Congress select and the actual preservation and archiving of the films is done by other institutions (that in themselves wouldn't be considered National Film Archives as their selection are not national but local e.g. Hollywood) can you plesae stop being so disinegnous as to refer to it as an "archive" when it clearly is not. It's simply a list. It states itself as such by using the term "registry" No preservation is undertaken and the Library of Congress doesn't even hold a copy of the film. The requirement of wikipedia is "preserved into a National Film Archive" as the NFR neither holds films nor preserves them, then the example clearly can't apply. The numbers are simply meaningless, if a National Film Archive by Wikipedia's standard deems a film notable, whether it holds 1 or 200,000 isn't the issue. The notability is established by the collections criteria, not by the numbers the archive holds. I believe your argument would hold water if the collections policy was to collect everything ever made, but no film archive makes that claim. Just using the numbers you've provided for the BFI that's less than 1,500 films collected every year, since film began, out of the tens of thousands of potentials every year, that's conceivably less than 1% and whilst you're clearly entitled to your opinion, I'm sure you wouldn't test it against a team of films experts whose decision it is to decide what should warrant the cost of tax-payers money to preserve in perpetuity for the nations interest, which is what it clearly states in the BFI's collection policy. Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:34, 1 November 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. Beyond the nominator, who argues for deletion, there is someone with a redirect !vote who also suggests the topic is notable. Two subsequent editors then seem to focus on process, accepting this redirect !vote's assessment of notability, rather than the specifics of this article and its notability (or lack there of). After two relisting with no further discussion there has thus been no further discussion and so there's not really a consensus to be had here. This close leaves open the opportunity for someone to improve the article and demonstrate its notability, redirect it to a valid target, or renominate it for deletion but for now the status quo remains. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 PowerShares QQQ 300

2018 PowerShares QQQ 300 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourcing is merely routine, directory-type sources that don't prove WP:SIGCOV. Also nominating 2018 NextEra Energy Resources 250, 2018 Active Pest Control 200 and 2018 Rinnai 250 for the same reason. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the NASCAR Camping World Truck Series and the 2018 NASCAR Xfinity Series respectively. These races are notable but in the state that its currently in and the best that can probably be done is a redirect to those series pages. If someone recreate those pages then they would be welcome to do so. HawkAussie (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand the rush to delete. The page was prodded 3 hours after it was created, and then brought to AfD a day later. It doesn't seem to have had any page curation tags placed on it before that. The Talk page was created by the prodding editor - it has no Wikiprojects on it. Why not add Wikiprojects to the talk page and add tags to the article that it needs better sourcing? If the races are notable, per WP:ARTN ("Article content does not determine notability") and WP:NPOSSIBLE ("before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search"), it would surely be better to allow other editors to improve the articles than to delete or redirect them. A quick search of Google News and Newspapers.com shows that there was coverage. I have no interest in car races, but I am sure that there are editors who do, who could improve the articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per RebeccaGreen. A lot of effort has gone into creating this article and it is discouraging to the new editor to have it and the other articles he has written treated in this way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 12 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\ 18:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:44, 24 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

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

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]
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

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

Doesn't 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]
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. While consensus is to delete, this AfD is closed without prejudice against someone creating a redirect. The lack of consensus of a redirect target does not seem worth relisting when there is a clear delete consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Young Sinatra: Undeniable

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

Seems to fail WP:NALBUM ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 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) 12:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per rationale of first deletion. Nothing appears to have changed. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how this works, but deletion will be detrimental to informing about full discography AB365 (talk) 2:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@AB365: That's just bad luck, I'm afraid – Wikipedia only keeps music-related articles based on whether they pass the criteria at WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. As you state yourself in your last edit summary on the article, you have struggled to find sources. The Datpiff hosting site only shows the album exists to download, without any indication that it's notable, Genius is user-submitted work, and the Sputnikmusic review is from a user, not a member of staff. So the only source which would count as reliable per WP:RS is the Hot New Hip Hop website, and even there it's only a couple of brief paragraphs introducing a download link. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect maybe, but you can't "keep" just on the basis that the search term might be useful. Can you show how this passes WP:NALBUM? Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 18 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\ 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really answer my question, but never mind... Richard3120 (talk) 16:20, 19 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sòrcha Carr

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

Being at demos, and even having a caption mention you is not notability. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foxterria: There's not reason to delete it, and it has being sourced. She has being seen multiple times online and appeared in my own social media feed several times in New Zealand. She's obviously got some traction in the country. Foxterria (talk) 1:12pm, 9 October 2019 (NZT) —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:n, it is not enough to have been seen, she has to have been written about in her own right (by RS).Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the sources, she has being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxterria (talk • contribs) 12:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have and I am not even sure two of them mention her by name. The other two only mention here in a photo capitation, that is not enough to pass wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source all say Sorcha, so this article is riddled with OR from (literally) the start. Its hard to not assume there is COI here, and promotionalism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact is there anything in the article that is actually sourced and verified?Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, if there was COI involvement, you'd have to assume they know how to spell their friend's name... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, assuming that, and not assuming its a different person, or there is not COI and they have just seen them on FB or...but that is the problem with assumption, Hence why I have asked them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Instagram account uses the grave accent. Haven't checked if it really belongs to this person. Daß Wölf 19:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They have still not responded to my question about COI, so I am now going with that.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krant M. L. Verma

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

Fails WP:GNG , WP:NAUTHOR as well as WP:ANYBIO.

Of dubious credentials; see this RSN thread. ∯WBGconverse 11:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 11:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 8 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\ 18:25, 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 merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. (non-admin closure) ミラP 02:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yharaskrik

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

Non-notable fictional character. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Forgotten Realms. I agree with the nominator. The article is exclusively sourced to a single novel, which is not remotely sufficient, and I can't find any other reliable sources. However, as a potentially useful search term I'd personally have been tempted to just boldly redirect this rather than nominate at AFD. Hugsyrup 12:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 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\ 18:25, 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 merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liriel Baenre

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

Non-notable fictional character. The current reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 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\ 18:25, 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.  JGHowes  talk 02:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Casino

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

No indication of standalone notability. Presented sources are either directory listings or contains insignificant information. Does not meet WP:GNG. Routine coverage and passing mentions are not enough to demonstrate notability. Hitro talk 10:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 10:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 10:16, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons creatures (B)

List of Dungeons & Dragons creatures (B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lists like this only exist for two letters, A and B. Most creatures on the list don't seem to have any real-world notability. Not a very active user (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think all these recent AfDs have confirmed that Wikipedia is no place for an extensive list of all monsters in D&D, so having yet another list to gather non-notable monsters is unneeded. It's just gameguide material without some standard as to what monster are and aren't covered. TTN (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft, and we certainly don't need minor creature lists for every letter of the alphabet. Wikia material.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:31, 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 no consensus. Opinions were split between keeping and merging. Since the latter can be done outside of the scope of an AfD without any admin assistance, this seems like the best option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Dexter House

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

no apparent evidence for notability, unless every house where George Washington slept for one night is notable. There is no evidence that the building is on any historical register. If it is, it would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Town and historical society documents ([16] and [17]) indicate that this property is located within the NRHP Dedham Village Historic District, though I have been unable to determine if it is a listed property. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep List of Washington's Headquarters during the Revolutionary War, may just indicate that "every house where George Washington slept for one night is notable', especially if it is still standing, and certainly if it is a contributing property to the Dedham Village Historic District, which [18] clearly indicates it is. This article is less than one week old. Further research will likely reveal more sources and there should be no delete, but rather expansion to this very specific piece of American history. Djflem (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't readily count the number of AfDs I've seen where a previous AfD a decade earlier closed on the basis of "further research will likely reveal more sources" ... never to have done so, obviously. This notion has always flown in the face of settled policies and guidelines requiring such sources to have already been produced. In any event, I haven't seen any notability guidelines explicitly granting presumptive notability to buildings in which Washington (allegedly) slept, but NOTINHERITED definitely covers whether every building in a historic district is notable: thankfully, not, because the notion of a Wikipedia article on the tenement apartment building in which I lived for three years (and which just happened to be in the boundaries of a NHRP district) is a gigglefit. In any event, if there are sources discussing this building in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, they should be produced. If not, the content can be merged into the historic district article, which is just a scanty paragraph long itself. Ravenswing 02:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, Wikipedia:BEFORE, was cursory, since several sources were easy to find and could easily "be produced",as this building clearly saisfies Wikipedia:NBUILDING, which states:

"Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable."

Addtionally, stated at contributing property:

"Properties within a historic district fall into one of two types of property: contributing and non-contributing. A contributing property, such as a 19th-century mansion, helps make a historic district historic, while a non-contributing property, such as a modern medical clinic, does not. The contributing properties are key to a historic district's historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological qualities"

  • Keep or Merge: With the sources found by TheCatalyst31, I think this passes GNG. However, I think the article can't really be expanded beyond the current size much. The sources, after removing all the verbiage about how they determined the history, all pretty much just said when the house was built, who built it, and that it was where Washington spent a night (with more or less information about any of those items). From the primary sources listed in the article we can get information about the house's construction, architecture, and decorations, but I am not sure how much that information will add to the encyclopedia. No, really, I have no idea; hence my "keep or merge" vote. If adding that sort of thing will make the encyclopedia better, then keep it. If it won't, then merge. Rockphed (talk) 14:02, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons creatures (A)

List of Dungeons & Dragons creatures (A) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the creatures listed here seem to have any notability. It should also be noted that lists like this only exist for two letters, A and B. Not a very active user (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think all these recent AfDs have confirmed that Wikipedia is no place for an extensive list of all monsters in D&D, so having yet another list to gather non-notable monsters is unneeded. It's just gameguide material without some standard as to what monster are and aren't covered. TTN (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft, and we certainly don't need minor creature lists for every letter of the alphabet. Wikia material.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A random sampling of non-notable, primary sourced fictional creatures. Many of the individual entries in this selection have already had their own articles deleted, and shoving them all in one place doesn't confer any additional notability as a grouping. Rorshacma (talk) 01:48, 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. Technically "wrong venue" as copyright issues are discussed at WP:CP but it seems like the copyright issue was resolved here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jobos Beach

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

queried copyvio, for Jobos Beach or Playa Jobos Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gonzvaldo: User:Gonzvaldo said "Note from creator: The other page copy the info from my wikipedia page! Wich I am happy about it. You can see in the text that there are has mixed words (without space in between) because they copy and paste my words. I'm a local at that beach, those words about cleaning the beach are mine. My first "Jobos Beach" Wikipedia page was created on 2011, same time as the "Pozo de Jacinto" page, but it was deleted. 2 of the 3 pictures he has at the end of his page were taken by my phone. I don't mind him using my text, but don't delete my Wikipedia page. I just rephrase my wikipedia page to avoid deleting it. Jobos Beach or Playa Jobos is a beach facing the Atlantic Ocean located on the PR-466 street of Isabela in the northwest of Puerto Rico." :: see Template:Backwards copy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had the content first, at Playa de Jobos as of March 22, 2013, at 02:56. The purported source webpage is dated April 24, 2013. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 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. The consensus is that this individual does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The only arguments against its deletion were by the articles creator/main contributor to the page. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roop Chand Joshi

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

Previously deleted for lack of notability -- this version has a few more sources, but given the language issues I can't tell if this is enough. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the first deletion was done in hurry without any scope of giving contributors chance to add sources and expand the article. If you see it was not even relisted and deleted just on basis of one single vote. Therefore, I have created this article with more sources and information. Roop Chand Joshi is regarded is originator of new line of thinking and interpreting the ancient Jyotisha shashtra of India. The person is certainly notable and article is a Strong Keep.Jethwarp (talk) 05:18, 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.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Wikipedia is encyclopedia - the article is of encyclopedic values - if you have to learn vedic astrology today - the books of Roop Chand Joshi are a must to get in-depth topic and get masterly over the subject. Please note that none of the sources are unreliable. There are even newspaper article cited which mention that his birth day is celebrated please explain a bunch of unreliable sources. In fact he has been the only author who has written this science in urdu and in verse. All other ancient texts on astrology are written in sanskrit. Even most famous western astrologer Cheiro learnt this science from India. I hope better sense prevails before deleting the article. Jethwarp (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nomination. The article Fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I am at loss to understand that how an article on the author of Lal Kitab , who has created a new branch in Astrology does not pas WP:GNG. one can just check [19] the link on Lal Kitab is viewed as a new branch of astrology or not ? Roop Chand Joshi chose to remain away from lime light, in obscurity, was a mystic and simple man and never ever claimed name and fame for his work, which he dedicated to world - denying an article to his name would be injustice, when sources have been provided, which all name him to be the author and founder of this branch. Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 04:48, 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. Yunshui 雲水 09:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dire rat

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

Non-notable fictional monster. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Not a very active user (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Extremely minor creature with no reliable secondary sources. The article on "Dire Animals" in D&D in general was deemed non-notable enough to be redirected, merged, and ultimately deleted over the years. One very specific example of the concept is definitely not notable on its own. Rorshacma (talk) 01:46, 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 no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 04:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flights 7 and 8

Qantas Flights 7 and 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is now only the seventh-longest flight in current service, and the mantle of "longest flight in the world" gets passed around so much that the sources for this article are nothing more than WP:ROUTINE. I propose to redirect to Longest flight; however when I did this it was reverted, so I am taking it here. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete it - it once was for a time the longest flight in the world and fortunately no one has been silly enough to create an article for other such transitory longest flights. This article does not really have anything in it that you couldn't also write about any of the hundreds of thousands of routine daily flights which do not, rightly, have articles. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Firstly, if the nominator is after a merge discussion, that should have been raised at the talk page, not via AFD. Secondly, I don't see how this article is any different than a train route or something similar. The article is supported by plenty of external sources that discuss the flight, its development and how it came to be, so the route has been given significant coverage over the years, therefore meeting GNG, and a fair bit of the article is not about it being the previously longest flight anyway. Most flight routes don't have articles (and rightly so), but there are some that have received significant enough coverage that do. Bookscale (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources thus passing WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary; once a topic has received significant coverage, it does not have to have ongoing coverage. World's longest regularly scheduled commercial flights for a few years is a nice claim of significance. feminist (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:03, 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. Tone 07:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonghoon An

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

Fails WP:GNG lacks sources and one of the 2 links is a fundraising one. Can also see WP:BLP issues with this article. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:46, 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. Tone 07:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is upcoming his first cartoon was published in 2018 a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 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. Tone 07:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Youth (Aotearoa New Zealand)

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

This group has no notability; only a brief mention in one newspaper article from 2006 Ross Finlayson (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excalibur Publishing

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

Unnotable company; it appears as a side note in some sources ("Excalibur published X, will announce Y") but there is nothing substantial that would satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The topic also fails WP:NCORP. Lordtobi (✉) 06:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 06:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 06:26, 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. The sole keep arguments have been refuted, to say nothing that sockpuppetry is not acceptable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yivsam Azgad

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

not meet wp:notability Saff V. (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support most(if not all) of the sources are primary sources. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines and academic notability guidelines. Also there are a lot unreliable sources like Wikipedia in Hebrew. That's not a reliable source.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Yivsam Azgad is a well-known art curator, science fiction author, eminent journalist and spokesperson of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. He already has a Wikipedia page in Hebrew, which is well supported with links to reliable references and meets the Wikipedia guidelines. The article in English has been created in consultation with the above-mentioned article in Hebrew and with the references provided within the same. However, this article needs to be amended with regard to the references attached, which can be fixed via editing. The grounds on which this article has been opened to discussion for deletion is unclear to me and it seems a bit biased and suspicious, given that Yivsam Azgad has given a lot of service to Arts, Science, and Journalism including many science-based socio-cultural initiatives which are recognized worldwide and thus deserves a Wikipedia page in English.Q936 (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.:,@Number 57: I have edited the page, corrected the references and introduced sections. The article is objective with reliable links and references and as such meet Wikipedia's guidelines. - More references will be added soon. Q936 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.:,@Number 57: The page has been edited. It is no longer reads like a CV. Also, a new image has been uploaded.Q936 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.:,@Number 57: Please have a look at the Wikipedia pages: Nano Comics and Science on Tap.

  • Yivsam Azgad is the editor of Nano Comics (a comic series in English, Arabic, and Hebrew) and he is the one who initiated and responsible for the social-cultural Science on Tap.
  • Israeli author: He is also a well known Israeli author (see his list of publications).
  • Israeli curator (including science-art): Yivsam Azgad has also been exploring the concept of combining art and science: displaying contemporary Art exhibition in research spaces at the Weizmann Institute and exhibiting scientific images in art spaces in Tel Aviv and elsewhere (see: http://www.weizmann.ac.il/Arts/en/home).

Thanks, Q936 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q936, Thanks for your efforts, the main issue of the article is lack of notability, unfortunately, sources which were added by you are not enough to confirm his notability for instance, this one is self-published source. It is better to let to know other users' votes instead of calling me.Saff V. (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to Delete - Yivsam Azgad NOTABILITY:

To confirm notability, here is a link from the Lexicon of New Hebrew Literature, The Ohio State University: [1] Thanks Q936 (talk) 11:52, 16 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\ 18:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote for no deletion There should be hardly a question of notability here because Yivsam Azgad, as mentioned by user Q936, is a well-known journalist, writer, and art curator. He is the brain behind Science on Tap, which has been a great success in Israel and highly recognized worldwide. He is the creator of Nano Comics which is published in English, Arabic and Hebrew and is highly popular amongst children. Besides that, sources referred to confirm his notability are well established, for example, the article in Lexicon of New Hebrew Literature, The Ohio State University which is bagged only by outstanding individuals in literature in Hebrew and journalism. 0587 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)— 8570w (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Q936 (talk • contribs). [reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. There is no evidence of notability through independent coverage. The whole page is like a CV with primary sources appended for every single thing he's done. Plenty of writers and academics produce large bodies of work, but Wikipedia demands that notability be proved through non-primary sources speaking about the subject exclusively, or interviewing him, or discussing his accomplishments. The Hebrew Wikipedia article is no indicator of notability either, being as it is littered with primary sources affirming every single thing he's done, and produced by the same editor as here. Please read WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That is not the case here. Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 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 merge to Adaptation. Very selectively, as discussed. Sandstein 17:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niche adaptation

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

Article was redirected to Adaptation a year ago after a merge discussion. No merge was actually performed on the basis that this is an essay with no content worthy of merging into the existing article. The creator has recently returned to the page requesting restoring. Nothing has changed since the original merge discussion, this page reproduces content that already exists at Adaptation and related articles. The content should be deleted. Polyamorph (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteMerge anything worth saving: per nom, yes, I recall the events; it was a student contribution. The topic is a non-starter, and there is still nothing there worth doing anything with. We already have articles on Ecological niche, which, er, fills the niche for an article about that subject (all to do with adaptation in an environment), and as stated on Adaptation. It is hard to see how an additional article could usefully fit into the hierarchy of articles here, but the current sorry effort certainly doesn't fit the bill. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson Andrew, that's not what happened. After a period of some months of quiet discussion (few editors bothered to join in), I merged the articles. Recently, the student author resurrected it without discussion and after a brief edit-war, another editor brought it here. We have sufficient articles on the topic already, and there's not really anything to merge; since redirecting has been challenged, there's little alternative to a deletion discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is clearly an alternative, as I said: use the Request for Comment process. And the assertion that ""there's not really anything to merge" is false. For example, the page in question has a section about horizontal gene transfer as a significant mechanism. The adaptation page currently has nothing about that; it just talks of genetic variability and mutation. To deliberately use the deletion function to erase all such content and its history just to win an edit war with a new editor is outrageous; contrary to all the policies which I have listed. Andrew D. (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't agree. Merging was (last year) and remains the right answer; I don't much care whether a redirect is left ("merge") or not ("delete"), as long as the article is not recreated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also strongly disagree with Andrew Davidsons interpretation, I nominated this article for deletion on the basis that following a merge discussion over a year ago it was redirected with no useful content to merge. As I said in my nomination the article replicates content found in adaptation and related articles. As such it is a WP:CONTENTFORK and should be deleted.Polyamorph (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The merge discussion was not properly or formally closed. There were only two participants when Chiswick Chap said that he was closing and he was one of them. But WP:MERGECLOSE states that "the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. When Ssraza discovered what had been done, he naturally objected and reverted and so the close lacks consensus. The correct procedure to call for more participants in the discussion and a proper formal close per WP:RfC. Starting another discussion at AfD while leaving the other discussion open is procedurally wrong. And it is inappropriate because this good faith, valid content should not be deleted. Andrew D. (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the big talk, the material needs to be merged. I already changed my !vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A merge discussion that stays open for more than two months and has only two participants, who agree, can of course be closed by either of them. There is no requirement for a quorum of three, nor does unanimity require an uninvolved closer, or whatever Andrew postulates. I assume he has participated in enough normal merge discussions to be aware of this, and is merely doing his wikilawyering act on behalf of a random deletion here. The result stands, and should be affirmed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The other discussion was had over a year ago, and was closed by Chiswick Chap according to the consensus then when they redirected the article. There is no procedural error here. I also note that your interpretation of WP:SKCRIT is wrong since that applies to disruptive users. Polyamorph (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is procedurally improper. For further confirmation of this, see WP:DELAFD, "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion on this matter. Polyamorph (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my opinion; it's policy: "It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.". But as the nominator declines to withdraw, we must press on with this discussion fork. Andrew D. (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is your incorrect opinion that there is anything improper about this nomination, and your persistent wikilawyering about it is unhelpful and ultimately pointless.Polyamorph (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This policy is being misapplied. This proposal is clearly stated as due to redundancy/content forking, not a content dispute regarding this article. If an editor thinks that the other page, the page that was target to the earlier null merge, lacks important information, then the best approach is to add the material to that page, rather than (re)creating a content fork. Agricolae (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete Stop whining about process. There is clearly no need to have this article that duplicates content on other articles. Professors, please have your students improve existing articles rather than requiring new ones, these so often end up duplicative or essay-style. Reywas92Talk 16:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per discussion here. I actually think Ssraza's writing style is quite pleasant, which make it more of a pity that the work wasn't directed towards improving articles, or at least documenting any aspects of Niche adaptation that are unique compared to other types of Adaptation. However there is very little information or references in it that aren;t already present in the merge target page. Ideally, I think it is best to avoid deletion if possible in order to preserve the edit history. I can't claim to know the details of procedural policy on this, but I think that the overall direction is clear. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the work actually was directed towards improving an existing article. Niche Adaptation was as stub with about two sentences before it was assigned to me for this project. I since added nearly 1000 words citing ten new sources which were peer reviewed scientific articles. If this does not add value to Wikipedia, than I don't know what does. It is not the most important page in the history of the site, but it represents everything the site stands for-people adding knowledge to the internet. Ssraza (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assertion that "there is very little information or references in it that aren;t already present in the merge target page" is false. The page in question has 11 references. Only one of them appears in the page adaptation. That's Darwin's Origin of Species but, even for that seminal work, a different edition is cited. If we consider the section headings, then we see that they are all different and do not appear in adaptation or ecological niche. So, there's less than 10% overlap and the claims of redundancy are exaggerated. Andrew D. (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic in question was suggested as part of a set covering the field of integrated genomics. All the other topic titles in that set are blue links and, as it happens, I started one of those topics myself at a different event: beanbag genetics. All these topics seem quite respectable and sensible. The organisers were Laura Reed and Ian (Wiki Ed). The former is a professor who teaches in this field and so it would be good to get their input. Perhaps they have a view about the scope of the topic by this title and their expectation as to how this would fit alongside our other topics. Pending such expert advice, there seems to be no pressing need to take any action let alone deleting this good faith work. These topics are not concrete and discrete; they are theoretical abstractions; concepts which are used to explain and simplify the complexity of the real world. As such, their meaning tends to vary, depending upon the theoretical model. For example, adaptation currently starts by saying that it has three different meanings in this context. Likewise, ecological niche is split into three different theoretical forms. And then there are many other related topics and sub-topics. So, in this web of concepts and constructs, there is space for the view in question, especially as its title phrase is used in relevant sources and so may be expected to be the subject of search and readership. Andrew D. (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not exist simply to serve as as course-space for a university class. Just because your professor decides to organize evolutionary biology in this manner doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to organize it the same way. Agricolae (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was, in fact, improving on an existing article. I did not create the page for Niche Adaptation, it was there already and I simply added to it. I turned the stub into a short page that goes into more detail on topics that may or may not appear elsewhere on Wikipedia. Ssraza (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge per XOReaster. Poorly balanced and doesn't really work as a separate topic. Maybe a few bits and pieces can be salvaged, but probably not very much, and so a merge would need to be more rigorous than a simple Ctrl-C Ctrl-V dump. Reyk YO! 10:57, 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 17:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Piccolo

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

No evidence of any notability. Most sources are very local and/or niche and most seem to be based on press releases. Nothing substantial. Appears to be a promo piece. Fails WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:26, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luma Health

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Bad case of WP:REFBOMBING but none of the sources meet WP:ORGCRIT except maybe one from the Business Journals. Everything else is about funding, brief mentions, or general announcements. CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure whether the funding pieces do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Perhaps you meant that it's a single event, thus it is not significant? I see there are multiple reliable secondary sources from May 2018, May 2019, August 2019, September 2019. So the references do not revolve around a single event. Moreover, the pieces on The Wall Street Journal and VentureBeat were done by staff reporters, independent of the subject, and both articles provide significant coverage of the company. — Kstone999 (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are general announcements about recent funding so the WSJ and VB articles would not be considered significant when it comes to company notability. I agree that the sources are reliable, but they don't provide anything in-depth that can establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand what you're saying, but I still stand with my earlier decision. Both articles don't just mention the funding rounds but go more in-depth about the platform, it's history, successes. Moreover, it looks like there are other non-funding-related sources available, like this one, which were not added to the article. Perhaps it could be tagged with {More citations needed} or {Sources exist}, but I leave it up to you. — Kstone999 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • hi KartikeyaS343, not sure why you have pinged me about this as i have only added this afd to some subject/project lists, i do not have knowledge of WSJ reporting policy, and have not looked at the article sources, anyway, where i am it is early morning (definitely not early evening/5.30pm:)) so need some zzzzzzzzzs... Coolabahapple (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad! I mistakenly pinged you. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no probs:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, check the article now. There are in-depth coverages which I added in the article. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 10:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones pass WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking. Please, check [20], [21], [22] etc. and all of these discusses the services provided by the company. It has been cited in Journal of Medical Internet Research as well. Do you think the WSJ would cover a funding of non-notable business? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked do I think WSJ would cover funding of a non-notable business? Why yes, yes I most positively would! Also, it not only has to meet ORGCRIT, but references (for the purposes of establishing notability) must also meet CORPDEPTH and most importantly WP:ORGIND. Anyway, this article in HIT Consultant is based on an announcement and therefore fails WP:ORGIND, this Enterprise Talk reference also fails ORGIND as it is clearly written with large input by the company/client as a "use case" (and happens to be the only "use case" on the website...) but more importantly, does not provide any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Finally, the MobiHealth News reference is also based on a company announcement and relies entirely on material/quotes from the company, also fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, check [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Do you think these are spam? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. This Business Insider article could be a good reference since analyst reports are regarded as meeting the criteria for establishing notability so long as the report provides in-depth information on the company and isn't a mere mention-in-passing. Seeing as the company is explicitly mentioned, I think this is a good reference. This VentureBeat reference fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement. I've dealt with this previously, fails ORGIND. This Biz Journals reference fails ORGIND as it relies entirely on material provided by the company/client and is the usual spam/pr churnalism we see in business "journalism" and what tightening the guidelines in WP:NCORP was set to explicitly avoid for the purposes of establishing notability. Finally, this Business Insider reference is marked as PR and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. So there's potentially one good reference. We need two for a company to be notable. Any other research reports? HighKing++ 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind explanation. Do you think this WSJ article [28] adds anything to it? I believe WSJ wouldn't do churnalism. Please, let me know. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's largely based on a funding announcement, counts as "trivial coverage" (see WP:CORPDEPTH) and doesn't count towards establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's potentially one research report available which discusses the company but I am unable to access a copy. An article requires "multiple" references to meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the other references meet the criteria (most are the usual churnalism) and I am unable to locate any other references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP but I'm happy to revisit my !vote is another good reference turns up. HighKing++ 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please have a look at these researches and reports: [29], [30], [31], [32] and specially these:[33], [34], and [35] ? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks KartikeyaS343, this research resport covers Luma in depth so that research report, along with this one mentioned earlier means we've met the requirements for establishing notability. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking time to look at the sources. I have added another journal citation in the article. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, They have to be WP:SIG significant coverage - at least five of which provide significant, over-arching and exhaustive works on the company's history. They can't just mention the company in a tangential way or cover it from routine business, VC financing, and partnership perspectives. I still say it's a 'strong delete, though that's not to say someone is welcome to re-create it in the future and have it go through AfC process. We're drowning in WP:CORPSPAM and, to improve, Wikipedia's got to get smaller. -DM
Have you checked [36], [37], and [38]? These are not routine mentions or about fundings. I still didn't get the answer to if publisher like WSJ started making news about non-noatble businesses! KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KartikeyaS343, Thanks. Ref #17 is a company-commissioned survey (trivial or trite coverage), #18 is a directory listing of select company executives as far as I see it, and #19 might qualify. I haven't checked the journal article, but if it's not about the company. it doesn't qualify. The company might be producing notable medicines, which could be notable, but that doesn't mean it is notable. Its researchers/employees would, however, be notable.Doug Mehus (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for checking. Could you please check if any of these: [39], [40], [41], [42] qualifies? These were the other sources I found using Google searches. Regards.KartikeyaS343 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am intentionally re-listing this for a third time, a several new sources have been presented for discussion without an analysis of these sources having taken place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Well, here's my two cents: a few of the sources are merely listings (e.g. Bloomberg), while others (WSJ, Business review/journal articles; medical journal) are both reliable and substantial. I'm leaning towards keeping because, overall, there is in fact significant coverage of the corporation and its services. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, Do they provide substantial coverage about the company, more than just tangential or passing mentions, and more than just capital raises, business partnerships, strategic alliances, asset sales or purchases, executive announcements, and the like—all of which are considered "trivial coverage"—such that we could write at least a C- or B-class article of sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH?Doug Mehus (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, The articles from WSJ and a few of the business magazines are behind paywalls, which in my mind actually means they are substantial. IF these media companies charge you, there must be something good behind the curtain, right? Bearian (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, LOL, that's disappointing Bloomberg has started charging for access to the articles. Many Bloomberg articles, though, tend to relate to corporate earnings announcements, merger speculation, asset sale rumours, and product announcements—none of which is substantial. I don't think my academic library subscribes to Wall Street Journal, so probably can't look it up. Have you tried using Sci-Hub or Academia.edu to look up the journal article?
Dmehus, *sigh* I can't, since I'm neither teaching nor enrolled in grad school full-time this semester. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If we ignore some of the business listings and company profiles, there are sources that meet both WP:RS and WP:IS. As HighKing pointed out with the research reports. I'm subscribed to the SF bizjournals and can attest that there is enough focus on the subject to meet WP:SIGCOV.  Centron   X   11:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CentronX.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What I see was a non-notable run-of-the-mill company that is lacking in reliable sources according to acceptable standards. An editor added more to apparently bolster the notability and I see two references, dated the same day, that mention raising 6 million and 6.3 million and I wager these are referring to the same money. There are at least five references that mention raising 16 million. On just a scan I see seven out of sixteen references on two items and this jumps out as source bombing to show notability. Justification that it is not a B2C company, so not going to receive a lot of coverage, is a reason to consider notability and not an excuse to make exceptions. I make my determination on the lack of reliable independent sources and the rationale of User:Flowing dreams (what is unique that stands out from thousands of other start-ups?), User:K.e.coffman (fails WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH) but I also base my decision on a logical opinion. User:HighKing almost persuaded me, but by that count there are only two sources that advance notability. I am not, nor should other editors, digress to such a low number. I have seen where it has become a community accepted standard to find at least 3 reliable, independent sources. An added 15 sources that were checked still resulted in only two that was acceptable to advance notability. This tells me we should consider the independence of sources more than industry related sources. This is an acceptable number but when I see "The articles from WSJ and a few of the business magazines are behind paywalls, which in my mind actually means they are substantial.", I cringe. That is a horrible rationale that it is there, but we can't see it unless we pay, but it "must" be substantial. Corporate money should not dictate or water-down our policies and guidelines. At the very least the discussion shows me it is too soon, and comments by User:Dmehus (I did a search) are accurate. A headcount (not how things should go) show 8 to seven with my !vote so either a slim margin to keep or the rationale for delete is persuasive to bring a closure of no consensus or maybe even delete. It is close but I think two sources out of sixteen on the article, and many listed here that fail to establish notability, should be taken into account that notability is so far lacking. Otr500 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what I understood is that you are basically referring to the rationales I gave earlier but it has been re-listed after that. If you believe there are at least 2 sources that advance notability, then I can check again if I can find more sources. Can you please advise? Thank you. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Thank you for your diligence. I would welcome the occasion of not deleting articles, more so than can be imagined. If you find an additional source, that follows our sourcing guidelines towards notability, I would most certainly change my !vote and I am sure a WP:Hey would be considered. Note; Please bracket a user you are specifically addressing (KartikeyaS343). I am about to leave and just happen to check my email or would have missed this. Also, this has been opened awhile so if you are successful, and it should close, ping me for sure. We can then possibly check with other involved editor for an opinion on reopening. Here's wishing you luck, Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to your comment I am not, nor should other editors, digress to such a low number. Just so that you know and it has been discussed on other AfD pages, the guidelines state that there must be "multiple" references (that meet the criteria for establishing notability) and consensus on other AfD pages is that there must be at least two. You say consensus on other pages is three - can you point to this consensus somewhere? Having been involved in hundreds of AfD I have never seen 3 suggested anywhere. HighKing++ 19:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's worthy of clarifying. I certainly argue what constitutes "multiple" qualifying sources to be at least 3, not 2 as that is far too low to establish notability, and ideally at least 5.Doug Mehus (talk) 19:43, 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 no consensus. That is, no consensus between merge and keep. Nobody agrees with deletion. Whether this content should be merged is perhaps better further explored on the article talk page than in an IVth nomination. Sandstein 18:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tantive IV

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

Look. I like SW just like any other SF fan, but this minor plot device is not notable - fails WP:NFICTION. The article is an in-universe description, plus an overview of merchandise, desperate enough to even mention that the ship appeared on two individual cards of related collectible card games. I am sure it can be expanded with mentions of video games and books it was mentioned in too... but let's face it, the topic has no real world impact outside a few toys. It is mentioned in passing in some books on Star Wars, but nobody dedicated as much as a paragraph to this, a sentence or two in passing is all it gets. Not all plot devices (ships, etc.) from SW are notable, folks. This is not a Deathstar, Star Destroyer or Millenium Falcon, this is funcruft. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • It's a trap! The idea that lists are a sensible place to consolidate such material is mistaken. When you have an extensive fictional franchise and universe like this, the lists tend to become huge and difficult to read. People use devices like phones and smart speakers now so it's best if our content is organised in small, well-named pieces rather than endless scrolls. And, here's the trap: the fiction-hating deletionists are now going after the lists too, as there are numerous D&D lists currently at AFD. Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a "trap" there. People need to check to make sure the list they are suggestng to merge to isn't also non-notable. Yes, there is such a thing as list notability, and the D&D lists all fail it. However, there is little chance the List of Star Wars spacecraft will be deleted because it passed an AfD before. Also, accusing people of being "fiction hating deletionists" is going into the realm of WP:NOTHERE, specifically "Treating editing as a battleground".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trap is obvious; that editors might be fooled into accepting merger into a list only to find that that the list is then deleted. This is happening in other cases because there are editors who do nothing to build the encyclopedia but whose only activity is to attempt to delete such content. Andrew D. (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closer should start at the top by considering the nomination. This is based upon WP:NFICTION which is not policy; it's a failed guideline and so clearly lacks consensus. The nomination's analysis of the evidence is prejudiced and inaccurate. There are clearly substantial sources covering this topic such as those about the movie model and its auction or those about the large LEGO model. The nomination also fails to consider alternatives to deletion, which are obvious in this case. The nomination is thus triply flawed and so the nominator has no high horse. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFICTION is a perfectly valid essay companion to GNG, and if you want to ignore NFICTION, sure - please show how this fails GNG. No source has been presented here outside a link to National Geographic, which I can't access, but which is almost certainly a mention in passing (if it is not, I ask that you quote the relevant paragraphs, provide a scan or screenshot, or expand the article, showing that the ref can be used for more than a single sentence saying Museum X has a model of this ship). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thinking about this since I posted the other day. In the movie its just a toy/prop. The Forbes article gives significant coverage of the LEGO version of this toy. Various science museums thought it notable enough to have a prop/toy of it featured in them. Dream Focus 06:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per the fact that virtually no real-world encyclopedic content has been or apparently can be written on this topic by itself. Also, it should be noted that Andrew Davidson's sarcastic comment satirizing the nominator's wording is itself far more uncivil than anything the OP wrote, and even were this not the case the civility of the nominator's wording is entirely immaterial to whether this article should be kept or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably also be noted that all (but one?) of the "keep" !votes are regular WP:ARS members who were canvassed on that page and showed up to block-vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per this source it is considered important within Star Wars fandom for being the first ship to be seen on-screen in the original film, but not important enough to have been a readily available vehicle in toy form. It should also probably be noted that apart from the Death Star, this is the only entry in Category:Star Wars spacecraft that is about a particular vessel and not a model that appeared in several iterations across multiple films. Given that not even Starkiller Base and Luke's X-Wing get their own articles, I can't imagine any more could be said about this than about those other topics that didn't get even articles back in the bad old "wild west" days of Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to catalogue die cast accessories and appearances on trading cards merely for being in the set. Excise that and the unsourced fancruft in the infobox, and this fits in the list perfectly fine. NotPaper "is not a free pass for inclusion" so stop mindlessly citing that! Reywas92Talk 08:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Star Wars spacecraft, per Reywas92. A lot of the sources are on its various inclusions in toy and card sets, rather than on the vessel itself. And a good amount of the information outside of that is either unsourced, or sourced only to the official Star Wars websites. It would make a perfect candidate to be included on the target list, however, as a ship that doesn't have extensive enough coverage to support an independent article, but is well-known enough to be a valid search term. Rorshacma (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Coverage of models/toys based on a fictional starship is also coverage of that fictional starship (just as coverage of any adaptation of a work from one form into another is also coverage of that work). As such more than sufficient evidence of notability has been cited above. FOARP (talk) 15:04, 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 no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse project

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

No evidence that this term (as opposed to the German original) is in common English use. Has been previously prodded and deprodded. Sole ref is to an ngram for the German term. PamD 07:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. PamD 07:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The term is used in hundreds of published sources, including academic research in English and other languages. My university library has 115 peer reviewed English-language journal articles using the term (several of them with the term in the article title), over 200 non-peer reviewed journal articles, 588 newspaper articles, 14 conference proceedings, four books, and four academic reviews. In other words, the term is widely used and lots of verifiable sources exist. I can copy paste a selection of sources if asked, but frankly there are so many it seems implossible that WP:BEFORE was followed.4meter4 (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here are several peer reviewed journal articles using the term in the title (only a small handful of the 115 peer reviewed articles):
  1. Transforming “The National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)” Into a Lighthouse-Project of Sustainability, Seifried, Dieter ; Zayas, Luis Fernandez ; Ramirez, Alex, Energy Procedia, 2014, Vol.57, pp.3081-3090
  2. Creating an Environmentally Sustainable Food Factory: A Case Study of the Lighthouse Project at Nestlé, Miah, J.H ; Griffiths, A ; Mcneill, R ; Poonaji, I ; Martin, R ; Morse, S ; Yang, A ; Sadhukhan, J, Procedia CIRP, 2015, Vol.26, pp.229-234
  3. "The Lighthouse Project", Le Rose, Barbara ; King, Linda ; Greenwood, Salldy, Gifted Child Quarterly, September 1979, Vol.23(3), pp.472-486
Here is an example of a conference proceeding:
  1. "Selected findings from a German lighthouse project on electric mobility: A summary of outcomes in the field of vehicle to grid communication, ICT- and business model solutions", Dornberg, J. H ; Lutz, T, 2011 11th International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, August 2011, pp.486-491
Here is an example of newspaper/magazine articles (there are more than 500 of these kind of articles; the term is often used in political bills):
  1. "BB&T Lighthouse Project pitches in at Vinson-Bynum", Wilson, Drew, TCA Regional News, Apr 29, 2018
  2. "Dept of Defence - CSI-SC BUILDING 180 secures contract for DVA Lighthouse Project services, Pivotal Sources, Jun 8, 2017
  3. "Alternative ; Medicine.(Lighthouse Project, Alternatives, helps those with serious drug problems)", Wellard, Sarah, Community Care, May 26, 2005, p.44

These are just a tiny selection of sources.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a stub with no reliable sources, so nothing really to keep. No prejudice against recreation with sources that show notability if they exist. BTW the above sources, though I don't have access to them all, don't appear to show notability. We would need evidence of some kind of in depth coverage of the concept, not just use of the term per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:07, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Motley

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

The only reliable source supporting this is a WaPo article I can’t read. A search produced nothing else but mirrors of Wikipedia and a blog. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1 source is not enough to show notability. Beyond that, it is unclear if the WaPo source covers Motley in enough detail to add towards notability. Lastly, since he is from Washington, being covered by the local paper, even if it is a major paper, is not a sign of notability, at least not when it produces just one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The current article is rather misleading as a biography of this man, completely omitting his political influence and corruption charges. The earlier AfD produced a number of articles from Washington City Paper not mentioned here, including [47] [48] and [49]. All of those have "blog" in the URL, so I'm inclined to believe they didn't go through full editorial review. However this WaPo article unambiguously constitutes significant coverage. Finding a second source is harder, but I think this Afro article might qualify, and my guess is that there's more out there.
I could still see an argument for deletion based on WP:BLP1E with a redirect to something like Marion_Barry#Conflict_of_interest:_personal_benefit_from_contract_to_girlfriend, but he's not mentioned there, and the whole saga gets pretty messy pretty quick. I provisionally lean towards keep (and rewrite) unless someone points out a better solution.
Also, since it seems others have hit their free article limit on WaPo, the currently cited article is not nearly enough to support inclusion itself. Here is its full and only reference to Motley: The effort also grew out of the JOBS Coalition, led by the Rev. Anthony J. Motley, which challenged industry leaders such as John McMahon, chairman of Miller & Long and president of the foundation, to hire more District graduates for local jobs. MarginalCost (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless the article sees significant improvement. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing him a Wikipedia article, but the sources proffered so far in this discussion just make him a WP:BLP1E. Sure, it's possible that there might be more meat here, but that needs to be shown and not merely speculated about before it would actually change anything. We need more than just two pieces of local coverage to deem a person as clearing WP:GNG in lieu of having to clear a subject-specific inclusion standard, because GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that reaches two" — it does also consider factors like the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading, and the context of what he's getting covered for. As I've often pointed out, if two pieces of local coverage were all it took to deem a person "notable just because media coverage exists" and thereby exempt them from having to be notable for any specific reason, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who got into the local media several years ago for finding a pig in her yard. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is generally well-taken, though I think there's an obvious difference between human-interest stories of stray pigs and documented corruption scandals, which this article's inclusion would cause no danger of blurring. As I mentioned above, I'm sympathetic to arguments on BLP1E and WP:1E grounds, but that usually presumes having an article on the event in question. While I think some article like Marion Barry bribery scandal could be written, at the moment most information is contained in the article for Barry himself. I originally thought it would be an awkward fit to add Motley in to Barry's article, but I'm now coming around to thinking it wouldn't be that hard to add a single line and redirect Motley there.
You're also right that more sources need to be shown before it changes anything; my previous comment that's there's more out there was more an expression of intent to look more later than an argument itself. And as I've looked further, I've come up short, with the possible exception of The Chronicle of Philanthropy whose coverage is probably just WP:ROUTINE. I'm standing by my original weak keep though. MarginalCost (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the sources found above, I found additional sources with coverage in my university library's database. There were 61 entries, and I didn't take time to read all of them. Here are first ones given in order as they were presented in my library search. All of these articles are either about Motley or contain interviews with Motley or, in one instance, were written by Motley:
  1. "Scheduling Conflict Causes Bruised Feelings", Salmon, Barrington, Washington Informer, Mar 19-Mar 25, 2015, Vol.50(23), p.23
  2. "Leaders To Scrutinize Lending Practices For Blacks: Union Temple Launches Project Uhamaa", Washington Informer, Sep 22, 1993, Vol.29(47), p.22
  3. "Mayoral Candidates to Address Workforce Development Strategies", Tesfamariam, Rahiel, Washington Informer, Nov 24-Nov 30, 2005, Vol.42(7), p.4
  4. "Good Friday March to Stop 'Death Nails'", Afro - American Red Star, Mar 30-Apr 5, 2013, Vol.121(34), p.B.2
  5. "Mother's Tea Unites Victims' Families, Community", Collins, Sam, Washington Informer, Oct 9-Oct 15, 2014, Vol.49(52), p.5,9
  6. "Despite Debt-Ceiling Deal, Americans Not Out of Danger", Salmon, Barrington, Washington Informer, Aug 4-Aug 10, 2011, Vol.46(91), p.1,8
  7. "An Open Letter to My Friend William Lockridge", Motley, Anthony, Washington Informer, Jan 27-Feb 2, 2011, Vol.46(65), p.19,30 (primary source)
  8. "Wells' Possible Mayoral Run Has D.C. Residents Talking", Wright, James, Washington Informer, Jul 12-Jul 18, 2012, Vol.47(38), p.12
  9. Green-Collar Jobs Give Hope to Thousands of Youth, and Ex-Offenders, Humphries, Nydria, Washington Informer, Mar 13-Mar 19, 2008, Vol.44(19), p.6
  10. "Still Wanted -- Answers To Unsolved Murders In D.C.", Peabody, Alvin, Washington Informer, Jun 5, 1998, Vol.34(32), p.1
  11. "Forgive Past Transgressions; Mayor Williams Pleads on Behalf of Ex-Offenders", Doku, Sam, Washington Informer, Jul 16, 2003, Vol.39(39), p.1
  12. "Church Supports Jobs For Ex-Offenders", Wamble, Marvin, Washington Informer, Jul 10, 2002, Vol.39(40), p.14
  13. "Forum on Creating Job and Training Opportunities for Returning Ex- Offenders to Be Hosted by JOBS Coalition", PR Newswire, Dec 10, 2003, p.14meter4 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. "STADIUM DEBATE: Will new facility benefit taxpayers? Participants hear divergent views on who will benefit most", Stafford, Leon, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta, GA), Nov 7, 2012, p.A19
  15. "ANC Silver Scores Victory in Fight over Parking Lot", Wright, James, Washington Informer, Apr 15-Apr 21, 2010, Vol.46(26), p.11
  16. "Chris Barry Set for Jail; Motley Gets Probation", Wright, James, Afro - American Red Star, Jul 4-Jul 10, 2015, Vol.123(48), p.D.1
  17. "Should East of the River Be Called East End?", Adkins, Lenore, Afro - American Red Star, Jun 8-Jun 14, 2019, Vol.127(44), p.B2
  18. "Peaceoholics Begin Work at Anacostia", Van Lowe, Carlton, Washington Informer, Mar 29-Apr 4, 2007, Vol.43(21), p.5
  19. "PUBLIC SAFETY: Citizen board under scrutiny: Police resistance, internal politics put effectiveness in doubt.(Metro News)", Cook, Rhonda, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, (Atlanta, GA), May 27, 2012, p.B1
  20. "Ground Is Broken for Senior Wellness Center in Ward 8", Barnes, D, Washington Informer, Oct 20, 1999, Vol.35(50), p.1

Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Informer and the Afro-American Red Star are both small community weeklies in Washington DC, covering him in purely local-interest contexts, so they are not sources that can tip the GNG scales all by themselves if there's no strong evidence of any substantial coverage beyond just his own local media market. Press releases are not notability-supporting sources, so the PR Newswire hit doesn't count for anything at all — and he's not the subject of the Atlanta Journal Constitution hits, but merely gets glancingly namechecked in coverage about other things or people. So no, none of these hits make the difference. GNG is not just a matter of counting up the media hits and keeping anything that surpasses an arbitrary number; it also tests for the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what the person is getting covered for. A person can have 1,000 media hits and still fail GNG if those hits still fail one or more of those other tests; for example, a lot of local figures (city councillors, musicians who play the local pub on Friday night but have never accomplished anything that would pass NMUSIC, winners of local poetry contests, etc.) are not automatically notable just because they have some local media coverage in their own city. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 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, without prejudice against refunding to draft if there are editors willing to continue working on it. bd2412 T 04:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DG House

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

Completely non-notable artist. Page creator's only contribution to Wikipedia was to create this page, so possible promotional effort Yuchitown (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several actually means two or more. But it's not a concern here really, because we cannot so far confirm even one.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Artists have shows, but not all shows are significant exhibitions. As to significant critical attention, the profile in the WTHR is not a review, but it does mention that she is included in a two-day art "festival", which, if modeled after the juried Santa Fe "Indian Market" consists of outdoor rented vendor booths. I would not consider that a significant exhibition like a one person show at a museum. The Bozeman Chronicle article is a profile not a review (not significant critical attention), as is the G.F. Tribune. The Helena Ind. Record article has two sentences on this artist. I don't know that this artist has met any of the criteria for notability yet. Netherzone (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any artist who has ever had an art show will have newspaper coverage of that show. Not true. -- Hoary (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give more time to evaluate the sources listed by 4meter4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist, to allow time for more analysis of the sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Every exhibiting artist on the planet is going to have *some* newspaper coverage. How does this artist meet the qualifications for WP:Artist #4, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"? Yuchitown (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[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. (disregarding nominator's !vote as a blocked LTA sock) Yunshui 雲水 12:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.sch (file extension)

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

The article is a list of indiscriminate items. It lists six unrelated apps, all of which use the same three letters for their otherwise different file formats.

A template has erroneously identified this page as a set index article, defined as "a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name". However, I wouldn't call "Microsoft Schedule", "Altium", and "Protel" similar names.

Update: Since this nomination, it has come to my attention that two of the items listed in this short laundry list are not apps at all; Altium is a company and Protel is its former name. A product named "Protel" in not listed in Altium § Products or the article's sole source. So, the designations "old versions" and "some versions" are inaccurate. In the absence of reliable sources, we don't know what else is bogus.

Update 2: The author of the page has since then changed both entries, so that they point to Altium Designer. Still, it is one product, no sources, and the original concern of not being a list of barely related items with no educational value.

flowing dreams (talk page) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. flowing dreams (talk page) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. flowing dreams (talk page) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. This is not an indiscriminate list of items but an article about the file extension ".sch", which is used by several ECAD programs for schematics. Actually, some of the programs in the list are even related (Protel and Altium) and use(d) variations of the same file format, thereby invalidating the nominator's claim, they were unrelated.
Depending on how much work will be put into the article it could become a full-blown article or remain a set list or trunced down to a disambiguation page. The reason why it cannot be changed back into a redirect (as it originally was) is because multiple ECAD programs use .sch as a file extension so there is no primary link target. The reason why deleting it would be an exercise in futility is because the article helps readers running into this file extension to select the correct application using this file extension in order to learn more about it. As design files are often interchanged, running into this scenario without knowing the program beforehand is a common scenario. The article name .sch is unlikely to collide with many other meanings, so there is no point in deleting it to make room for an article about a different topic. We have similar small articles about other file extensions for the same purpose of helping to disambiguate them and aid navigation. Deleting it would be destroying a piece of Wikipedia's infrastructure while gaining absolutely nothing for it in return.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please make up your mind: Is it an article or a set index list? If it is an article, you have to deal with Wikipedia:Notability, which is lacking. As for "the nominator's claim, they were unrelated", it is actually the article's claim. It reads: "all using different file formats". And since you're the writer of the article, it is you who have said it. So, the claim that get invalidated is yours. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, in the current state it is a set index - this gives the most flexibility for further article work for now. But it could be reworked into a full-blown article over time or trunced down to a disambiguation page. But that's something that can be decided upon by contributors on the article's talk page and not a reason to nominate it for deletion.
Regarding the claim, the wording could be improved but is not incorrect as it is.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is bogus. It just comes apparent that you are not familiar with those EDA programs (the programs are typically referred to just as Protel and Altium for simplicity). That's not a problem, but your somewhat aggressive-demanding undertone is: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and while it can be helpful for readers to comment on weaknesses in articles or missing information (on article talk pages, not by drawing the articles to deletion processes), in most cases the contributors already know about it and even might have plans how to improve the articles, but just had not enough time to research and/or add the new information yet. That's why anyone is encouraged to improve articles, including you. Together, and over time, the quality of articles will rise. But that's a lot of work, and it will take years.
(BTW. I moved your "update" down for chronology, because it was a significant modification of the original nomination, and if it would stay before the other comments, they could look as if they were out of context.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Set indexes, disambiguation pages and redirects don't need any references at all, in fact they are even forbidden on the latter two types. Also, disambiguation pages don't need to be notable, they exist to aid navigation from ambiguous entries (like a file extension here) into related articles. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply here (neither does WP:PRODUCT) - in fact, WP:NOTLINK even explicitly excludes disambiguation pages and lists: "Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation". So, it's perfectly okay to list the various EDA tools associated with file extension .sch here. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this is the very nature of file extensions, but this does not make them non-notable. The opposite is true, they are notable because they are used by various programs (in this cases even many for which we have articles, thus even more notable). But either way, notability is not even a requirement for disambiguation pages and WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply to them either (see WP:NOTLINK). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. The consensus above is, rightly, that there isn't a notable use for the extension. This means there shouldn't be an article in this space. But it's likely that someone who doesn't know what a .sch file is, and finds one, might look for more information in an encyclopaedia. They should find a disambiguation page that enables them to find that information. The "article" in its current form is nearly a disambiguation page already. And of course, disambiguation pages aren't subject to notability requirements.—S Marshall T/C 21:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is very easy to fulfill DABMENTION with a sentence like "This EDA tool uses the file extension .sch to store schematics" added to the articles. That would certainly be useful and I would not object to it at all, but is more a topic related to a discussion on article improvement rather than for AfD. Our MOS states that the purpose of disambiguation pages is to aid navigation, and that while we have some standard formats how to present the information, we are also free to choose other presentations if they serve the purpose better. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Firstly this is not a notable file extension. Secondly, this article is absolutely empty, as it only lists softwares that use ".sch", rather than telling the readers what is sch file. Moreover, this article is weak in citations as it relies on one single source.WikiAviator (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a normal article (although it could possibly become one in the distant future - but this is not an alternative right now). As a set index or disambiguation page it does not need to have any citations as all (they are even forbidden on disambiguation pages). Also, disambiguation pages don't need to be notable, their purpose is to aid navigation to articles related to the topic of disambiguation, in this case a commonly used file extension. Also, the very fact that this file extension is used by quite a number of EDA CAD tools for schematics establishes the need for disambiguation, because people will run into this extension and try to figure out what it is and which tools can be used to open the files. Not offering them the choice of links to related articles would be a disservice to our readers. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:54, 24 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 07:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanisto

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

Article on apparently non notable software. Survived AfD in 2006 but still unsourced today. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 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. Tone 07:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narintorn Chadapattarawalrachoat

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

Notability Evrdkmkm (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 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. Tone 07:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Schultz

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

Article nominated for deletion on the very inclusive Polish Wikipedia, and I have to say I concur the subject doesn't pas WP:NBIO. Sources are all primary. Working for NASA is not sufficient (WP:NOTINHERITED), nor all aquanauts notable by definition. She participated in NASA's NEEMO training, that's not sufficient ot make her notable, and this is reinforced by the lack of outside coverage of her outside several documentation writeups in NASA documents. Bottom line, she has a "cooler" engineer career than most, but still not notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 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.
  1. ^ Lexicon of New Hebrew Literature, The Ohio State University
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_October_8&oldid=920302797"