Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 November	3 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The consensus is clearly to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Toreeva

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

I've done some relatively extensive searching for references on this individual, as there are a lot of name drops and mentions. Unfortunately, in searching both normally and via some more art-specific publications via library databases([1], [2], [3] as a few examples, ), all I can find are mentions and name drops, with a few brief "bio" blurbs on some organizations which have been affiliated with her. I at one point had deleted this as the result of an AfD discussion, and restored it to draft when someone thought they could make something of it, but I just don't see the type of coverage necessary to sustain an article here. (I will also note that an editor who states they are the subject has been heavily involved with the article, though that has been done with full disclosure and via the talk page.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there are simply no in-depth sources covering the subject in either English or Russian, Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything that a subject says or wants to say themselves: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it, in reliable places. If there are no such sources then we cannot have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The first AFD still appears to summarize the situation. The subject does a good job of promoting herself, but Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. It is hard to sort out any neutral secondary coverage of the subject from the amount of publicity that she is trying to create for herself, but which Wikipedia ignores. The subject might be notable, and might be the subject of a future article, but not as long as she keeps overwhelming the signal with her noise. What I have seen is not persuasive. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autobio of a persistent self-promoter. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too have done my share of searching for items in several databases and have come up empty. I've even searched for the Cyrillic spelling of her name in databases which accept that search parameter and could not find anything. Seeing the other searches that were performed by editors here, I can say with certainty that if this article can't be saved it won't be due to a lack of trying. Spintendo 08:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks more like a resume or self promotion. Alex-h (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. The page seems to be well-sourced, but the quality of the sources is wanting; the references are local, self-written, or non-neutral. Zero evidence that any major (Internationally reknown) museum, art show, or gallery has ever held her art. Totally spam. We are a charity, not a webhost. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree I submitted complain to DRN and requested to have independent editor(s) to help with improving the article and who knows the Russian lang. and Russian Art. Instead article was cut and submitted for deletion by the same 3 editors stated the article does not have reliable sources and notability. To have artist name in the Russian Encyclopedia, or included in the Artists Trade Union of Russia, or the list of the exhibitions in Russia and US - not reliable sources? To delete the education, Bibliography, Cinematography information, published books, etc - all not reliable sources? My opinion it is retaliation of the editors without good faith and without knowledge of content. Is it the way to solve the problem? That's why I asked to have the knowledgeable editor(s) to re-install the article that was cut (from 7 p. to 1 p.), and help with improving the article. I don't try to convince you not to delete article, I can see the direction it will go without even dispute, I just want you to know what is behind of submission of article for deletion.Toreeva (talk) 19:27, 8 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 keep. Seems sufficient coverage for GNG, particularly with the book noted below. Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orosháza FC

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

Maybe all the "good stuff" is in Hungarian, which I cannot read, but I cannot find anything on this club other than the generic stats pages that exist about every footy team out there. Since its creation in 2011 it's been nothing but a listing of the players. A PROD was declined citing WP:FOOTYN, but even that guideline says that the team has to meet GNG. I don't see it here, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They played in the Hungarian second division for a several years, needs to be improved, not deleted. I've started by adding prose back to the article, though it still needs a lot more work. I don't think there's anything at all in English, and search engines weight stats pages before news pages for Eastern European/Balkan teams especially. This is the first news site I found, no idea on RS or the language as a whole, but they've certainly been covered by someone [4] SportingFlyer T·C 00:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Hungarian, and it's just match recaps. Coverage yes, significant no. Primefac (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's over 300 articles listed in that link dating back to 2009, and not all of them are match recaps. If this were a player I'd be inclined to agree with you, but it's damn clear this club gets coverage in the Hungarian press just based off the first actual news link I found. The language is irrelevant, it just makes it harder to find the articles which will count toward WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 03:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not debating there's coverage. I'm saying that the existing coverage is routine/MILL-type coverage that does not demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I manifestly disagree with you. Almost all Hungarian second division teams have articles. All Hungarian second division teams who have played in the division since 2010 have articles. The league is properly covered in Hungary. Not helping things is the fact the club dissolved in 2015. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A difficult one because I know little about the Hungarian league structure but I think this club does meet WP:FOOTYN and, given that they have played at second tier level, must have had significant coverage in the Hungarian media to meet WP:GNG also. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Change of opinion after I realised the club is dissolved. I looked for evidence of them taking part in the Magyar Kupa (Hungary's national cup competition), which would satisfy FOOTYN, but cannot find any. Sorry, but this looks like a delete after all. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOOTYN says that non-first-tier teams should meet GNG. As to your second point, if THEREMUSTBESOURCES where are they? Primefac (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: The club's dissolution has no bearing on its notability. They played several years in the Hungarian cup including 2005. Covered in local papers [5] and local TV [6] (I know Youtube's not reliable, but the source is local news) and the 300+ beol.hu stories above are national coverage, including discussion of the club in a national rag here (they aren't just match reports.) Difficult to search for due to the language issues. Definitely notable. SportingFlyer T·C 00:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no non-trivial sources just WP:ROUTINE- subject does not meet WP:FOOTYN or WP:GNG. If someone can locate WP:RS to show notability I am happy to revist my !vote Lightburst (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They finished 3rd in the 2006-07 season in the 2nd division. Also there is this book for GNG purposes. Dougal18 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, played at a sufficiently high enough level to presume GNG is met, and there are sources out there. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in the national cup and the 2nd division. That's sufficient. Also, notability is not temporary. Smartyllama (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily arguing that they're no longer notable, I'm saying that per GNG they never were. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear - that last part was directed at No Great Shaker, who changed their !vote after realizing the club was dissolved. If it were notable when it existed, then it's still notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, but improve. RockingGeo (talk) 06:36, 10 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 delete. Tone 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Besharat

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

Notability. Lexy iris (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent coverage, is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither of the two sources are independent, an interview, and google scholar list of citations, I searched for more sources and couldn't find anything apart for a blog that has one of his papers in it's reference list, everything else is published by himself, ie his own papers. I can't find anything to suggest notability through WP:NPROF either.YBm2XrpCP (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Scholar list of citations is independent, and shows 3383 citations with an h-index of 26. Such a record would most likely attract a lot of "keep" opinions in an AFD discussion for a British or American academic, so why is it considered insufficient for an Iranian? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Would 3383 citations be enough? If you can link me to AFD discussions where physiologists only required that many? I looked at (an admittedly very small sample size) of random psychologists from ~~List_of_physiologists and they all had 900+ citations on their highest cited articles over Mohammad Ali Besharat's 156 ([1][2][3][4])~~, List_of_psychologists and they all have over 1200+ citations on their most cited articles ([1][2][3]) apart from [4] but this psychologist has other awards and fits other notability criteria. Mohammad Ali Besharat's most cited article has 156 citations. However WP:NPROF doesn't specify a specific number for criterion 1 only that they need several highly cited works, and it does say that h-index is of limited usefulness. YBm2XrpCP (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't checked what difference it would make to the outcome, but please show some respect for the article subject by recognising that he is a psychologist, not a physiologist. Once again I must point out that it is unlikely that this silly mistake would have been made for an Anglophone academic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah my mistake I wrote psychologist then searched physiologist, I do apologise, I don't believe that his Iranian decent is relevant to his notability but correct me if I'm wrong, while there may be systematic bias towards non-anglophone academics, I don't believe it was the cause of my accidental mistake, I have corrected the error above.YBm2XrpCP (talk) 20:59, 6 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 delete. Tone 21:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Agoncillo

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

No evidence of any notability. The single source is highly unreliable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need much better sourcing to justify having an article on a 10-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all of her roles have been single-scene appearance, one-name characters ("Young Ma. Victoria"-types). Past practice for child actors tends to delete unless the minor is more than barely notable. See, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_McGovern_(actor). I've seen my share of Filipino/Tagalog/Ilocano films and vlogs, and this child is not a known star. Maybe re-create it when she hits it big, but for now it's too soon. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: she had leading roles in Dream Dad and Ningning if you read the plot sections, it's probably still too soon though Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 7 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 merge to The Guardian. Consensus to Merge post a re-list that was unchallenged; no notability so far outside of primary sources (this may change in the future). (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today in Focus

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

Podcast. Sourced only to the newspaper, The Guardian, that produces it. No third-party coverage as required by WP:GNG. Worth a mention in the main Guardian article, but probably not much more. Sandstein 21:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 21:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article now has two third-party mentions. The journalists and their guests in this series represent decades of experience in numerous European media outlets and focus on in-depth coverage of current topics of substance, as evidenced in the episodes mentioned in the article. Their guests are often authors of books on the topics discussed and/or veteran investigative journalists who have spent years reporting on the issue in question. It is my understanding, that unlike print media, news podcasts have fewer reviews. Based on the Wikipedia article on The Guardian, it is clear that the newsbrand is widely read, and considered to be high quality and trustworthy. All TiF journalists are also contributors to The Guardian. I wrote the article after listening to several of the episodes. I wanted to know more about the podcasts, the investigative journalists involved, and other topics they cover. There is no need to rush a deletion on this article.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Guardian per nom.—S Marshall T/C 14:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a mention per nom, whose rationale is sound. Once the primary sources are removed, this podcast is not independently notable. czar 16:48, 16 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 delete. Tone 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo

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

Autobiography that fails WP:BASIC, fails WP:AUTHOR as all his works are self-published, fails WP:ACTOR because his role was in a short film produced by his fellow university students and he is uncredited in it, fails WP:CREATIVE for a non-notable local competition which was only held once... a recreation of an article previously deleted twice, and not addressing any of the problems of a complete lack of notability and sources. Would suggest that this article name, "JL Diazgranados" and "J.L. Diazgranados" are all salted to stop this pointless recreation over and over again. Richard3120 (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to enforce its anti-autobiography rules. This will mark the third deletion this year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. If Diazgrandos establishes notability later on in the future, the article can be drafted and accepted by an AfC reviewer to ensure that it doesn't wind up here again. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete six out of the nine sources are from Facebook and YouTube and thus are unreliable. Out of the three remaining sources one is from Blogspot which unreliable per WP:RSP. The remaining two sources are both in Spanish but which are allowed on Wikipedia but there are no translations and no way for me to verify them. This source on the article seems reliable [7] but the other is a brief overview of what looks to be a video game. These two sources do not provide any WP:SIGCOV and thus is not notable to have his own article. Also all seven of these unreliable sources are likley to violate WP:BLP. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. All of the sourcing are social media such as Facebook, YouTube, and blogs. Thsi is as spammy as they come. I remind the gentle reader that we are a charity and an encyclopedia, not a free web host. It was somehow recreated after two deletions: Cartago delenda est. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely fair to the creator, El Informador is a genuine newspaper and reliable source, as Spy-cicle noted above. But it's the only RS, and all it does is confirm that the subject was part of a team that won a one-off non-notable competition some years ago. That's not enough to grant the subject any lasting notability. Richard3120 (talk) 14:20, 7 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 redirect to List of wolf attacks. And protect. Any additional content can be merged from history. Sandstein 13:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Wyman wolf attack

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There are no unique circumstances that would make her death of lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG with RS. WP:NTEMP the article merits inclusion here. Wm335td (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The very few references here are not reliable or notability-making sources about the Wyman incident: one is a brief glancing mention of Wyman in the footnotes to a non-notable person's self-published personal statement about a different incident, and the other is a short blurb about Wyman in a wolf education organization's proprietary database of information on wolves — and the "external link" is just a repetition of one of the two footnoted references, not a new data point. These are not the kind of sources we're looking for to make this notable: we need sustained news coverage in real daily newspapers, indicating a reason why this would pass the ten year test for enduring significance, but this has no such thing. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect, and hard protect to List of wolf attacks per last AfD, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:SNOW. Short of a dingo attack that kills four people, such articles have been merged very consistently. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of wolf attacks and protect, per Bearian. Current sourcing doesn't meet the general notability guideline and a cursory Google Books/News search didn't find any great leads. I would suggest deletion but Wyman is already listed in the list. If that list had stricter inclusion criteria, deletion would make more sense but for now, redirection is a suitable alternative. czar 16:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect, and hard protect to List of wolf attacks per last AfD, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 17 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 delete. Tone 21:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Norman (businessman)

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

Article contains no RS, and no real assertion of anything that would amount to a real claim of notability. I'm not finding much in the way of coverage online, although his very common name and apparent obscurity makes searching tricky. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely run of the mill City businessman who has not inherited his relatives' notability and has done nothing of note. Bearian (talk) 14:22, 7 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Lee

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

Fails WP:BIO on the criteria of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The entire article is sourced to primary sources and news organizations for which the subject worked. I have searched Google for outside interviews with her but found only one blog. Yoninah (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While that article about becoming a citizen is her own words is from CNN (I don’t necessarily see what’s wrong with that when it was in the context of covering the 2016 election as a CNN reporter and immigrant. They also made a video about it where she was interviewing fellow naturalized citizens in her ceremony), you clearly haven’t look hard if all you can come up with is a “blog”. Just searching I’ve seen multiple independent articles citing her reporting of things such as Elizabeth Warren as the presidential candidate, October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts (again, being that the guy tried to bomb the building she works in she would have first hand knowledge of that situation), MeToo, etc. What do you realistically expect from a journalist? At some point they’re going to be involved in the process. When the Washington Post is covering her account of working in the 2016 election, why would they not ask her questions? It’s still a reliable source that confirms things she said. When the New York Times is highlighting her as a one of the Millennial journalist on the rise, are you going to stretch and say this is now unacceptable just because her husband now works there? None of it means she isn’t a notable reporter just because you disagree with current sources. Trillfendi (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything written by her is just an article; it proves she exists, not that she is notable. She is quoted in one line in the New York Times source. She is written up by her alma mater, Georgetown University, and the organizations she worked for, Politico and CNN. Nowhere is there an article about her—an interview, a feature. Her career is young yet; maybe one day she'll be a notable journalist. Yoninah (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is that Washington Post editorial not about her? Trillfendi (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have one reliable source. Yoninah (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A source which disproves your comment.... Trillfendi (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your sarcasm. The rule calls for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (plural). You have one reliable source. This is not considered "significant coverage". Yoninah (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who said, Nowhere is there an article about her—an interview, a feature. which is evidently false. Trillfendi (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that there are not a lot of articles about her, at least via a cursory Google search. And I've read the notability guidelines. But she's covering a front-runner, and her reporting has been cited by several legitimate publications, such as Newsweek, Miami Herald, Elle, Washington Post, CJR, New York, People, etc. (I'm not italicizing all that...), even if some are "just" using embedded Twitter videos, etc. She also seems to be cited in a couple of books about the 2016 election. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure though if being used as a source is enough to establish notability about her, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my eyes, if many reliable sources are referencing her as a journalist across many subjects, does it not make her a notable journalist? Trillfendi (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the notability guidelines for journalists (if they exist), but from what I understand about similar topics, being used as a source and being the subject of coverage are two separate things. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I’ve seen they more often explicitly cite her as CNN’s MJ Lee instead of being used as an anonymous source. Trillfendi (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to Keep but not quite clear that there are sufficient RS to nail GNG; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Georgetown grad did very well. High profile work and sigcov.Lightburst (talk) 03:30, 10 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muller & Phipps

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - run of the mill courier that is probably one of hundreds in Pakistan. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 20 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 delete. Tone 21:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hosseinzadeh

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

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

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

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

Not notable - Contains one self-published source, some interviews with Morteza Pashaei, some interviews with the subject of the article, also some other not-directly-related sources, such as a link to one of Morteza Pashaei's songs. Besides, the article has a promotional approach, contains sentences like "has had a passion for music since childhood" or "He would sing along with music and it would bring him the ultimate joy". Ahmad^talk 16:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ahmad^talk 16:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep‏Wikipedia rules say that one of the artist's favorite options is the production of the work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) ‏How an artist can have a 17-year work history but not be famous!! For more than 80 works produced on Wikipedia, It's unfair delete tag.Justiceisvictorious —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC) — Justiceisvictorious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KeepWith a little Google search you can find this artist's name, the artist is trying for a work, the people around the world know these people make them feel good about being more active, I know this artist and like all artists around the world That is respectable. User:setayesh1392 —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC) — setayesh1392 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep 379/5000 As an Iranian, I fully understand that artistic activity in Iran is very difficult, and I know Ali Hosseinzadeh as an artist. Much work has been done to mention Morteza Pashaei's Nafs song which is a famous piece, it is available on all Iranian music sites, he has collaborated with famous singers such as Mehrdad Asemani, Shahram Kashani(shahrumk), thanks to Wikipedia.newsightt —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC) — newsightt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I know this artist and I follow all his work, he is present and working in Iran and collaborating with great artists, an example of his work was composing "khayli vaghte" by Shahram Kashani in the Youtube music video (source) This music and Wikipedia page of Shahrum Kashani singles track has been named after him, arranged by Morteza Pashaei "Nafas" track recorded on Cover Music (Source) and on the song page of Morteza Pashaei Wikipedia Singles song, both of which are His works are all sourced and the rest can be followed from his page and the internet. Among other things, he has collaborated on other artists' in music albums . In my opinion, this type of editing may be in violation of Wikipedia, which should be complete rather than an artist's page being deleted, closing an artist's page violates the Wikipedia rules, I will do my best to help complete the page.Shafagh— AShafagh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep This artist has been working since 2003 . A few examples of this artist's pieces are available on the radiojavan.com AliHosseinzadeh. I love Massoud Emami's song Vaghty yeki mibakhshatet [8] Or Saeed arab, and he also produced for Anoushirvan Taghavi, who is a musician and has arranged for many Singers. keep the artist's support page. Thanks BalanceofTruth —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC) — BalanceofTruth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I have a lot of respect for this composer, I knew him from composing a children's theater called Pamble, my son fell in love with the theater, and after I knew his name I realized he was a singer. He has composed for Iranian singers. In Iran, many ordinary people do not know these people because the Iranian government is not interested in being recognized as artists. They are not supported by the national media. For me they are respectable shmallekian22 —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC) — shmallekian22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep It is only logical to find out about the work of an artist. His name is even found on Apple Music sites. I've read the rules of Wikipedia and I don't think it is wrong to create a page for this artist, I'm sure Wikipedia managers will make the best judgment Riyahiahmad —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC) — Riyahiahmad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I remember him at the first Morteza Pashaie concert in Milad Tower. Morteza Pashai's fans demanded the Nafas song. Before performing the song, Morteza Pasha introduced him to the fans as an composer. I know this artist.ahmadzadeh8053 — ahmadzadeh8053 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - notability is not inherited from the other musicians with whom you perform. Musicians, especially singers, are supposed to collaborate. Most of his songs appear to be duets. If he's not in the national media, as admitted by the proponents, that's not our problem. It's a crime that so many talented musicians are not known, and I've been publicly vocal IRL about that situation. However, Wikipedia is not an alternate source of original content. When there's evidence, in reliable sources in English translation, that shows he's toured nationally/internationally, then he would be notable. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:21, 8 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 delete. Tone 22:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promenade Pictures

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable films produced. Founder died in 2014. Domain name is for sale. Fails WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film production company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 2 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 procedural close - delete. Article speedy deleted under G11 —usernamekiran(talk) 17:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dabhi

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

No reliable sources exist, fails WP:GNG. Andrew Base (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 2 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 keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aclan Bates

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

I've been unable to come up with any WP:SIGCOV about this individual. Tons of mentions, but no in-depth coverage. I can't see that he passes WP:DIRECTOR since the only marginally WP:Notable work product I've been able to find is Broken_Angel_(film) (and even that might be a stretch in terms of WP:NOTABILITY). Of note is that a ~~possibly-paid, certainly~~ WP:COI editor is "currently working together with Mr. Bates to revise and update his Wikipedia page." This article used to read like a resume / promo for the director before some significant cleanup. Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aclan Bates is notable if only because he is the very first Turkish director to make a full-length feature film entirely in Hollywood with American B+ actors. I have been trying to add credibility to the page by providing citations and sources, but it is slow-going as much of the material is dated and theaters don't keep records of past seasons on their webpages. Surely you experienced editors would have more luck than I have with this work. Bedogan (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've provided plenty of links and citations. Now please assign someone else to check them out and write the page. I don't want to write the bio here since you've got me marked as a COI. I'll continue to research and provide links to what sources I can find. Bedogan (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more engagement in this; the Keeps need to quote the specific references at AfD that meet WP:GNG for a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline call. The sources added by Bedogan are not good RS. However, I have found some good RS. Please see:

Twair, Pat Mcdonnell (January 2007). An American dream: an Arab taxi driver overcomes massive hurdles to realise his dream of converting a church into a mosque. And US playwright Mark Sickman faced huge barriers to stage his comedy on the subject, as Pat McDonnell Twair reports from the United States.(MOSAIC)(Taxi to Al Jannah)(Theater review). p. 60-63. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Vittes, Laurence (November 1, 2006). 'Taxi to Jannah'.(Theater review). Vol. 396(42). p. 9(1). {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

The sources are not enough for me personally to say keep for sure, but they are not enough for me to endorse a delete either. I will leave it to others to decide.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems borderline at best; some new RS need to be challenged; try a final re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the films he has directed (some reviews of which are listed in External links, and 4meter4 also found two which can be added to the article) - he is a director with the Turkish State Theatres in the capital city of Turkey. Even if we don't yet have reviews of the plays he has directed there, they would certainly WP:NEXIST, and he would meet WP:CREATIVE - people don't get to be directors of capital city national theatres without being or becoming notable. The article still reads rather like a resume, and would be easier to understand with the stage work and filmography separated (what is the difference between Director/Actor and Actor/Director meant to be?) I have cleaned up the references a bit, and will try to add to and improve the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:22, 24 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 keep. Comments since the relist show a consensus that there is sufficient coverage of this incident to make it notable. RL0919 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident

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

Hardly noteworthy for a mention in Wikipedia and certainly not noteworthy for a stand-alone article. Wikipedia is not a place for trivial news stories. Contested PROD MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For a Canadian incident, the sources include international (Japan, U.S., Australia). Notability is established. XavierItzm (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 03:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – 'Trivial news story' is a good description. Is there any sign of enduring coverage either? --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Trivial incident, no lasting effects. The news media covered it for its novelty, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 14:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After revisiting the article, I have come to the conclusion that it should be included. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 12:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I performed some cleanup of the article - and added sections and WP:RSs. Outcome of arrests and Mr. X. The incident was international WP:GEOSCOPE reported in the press around the world, and even necessitated a Terror alert from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Notability is not temporary and this incident is notable. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reviewed you changes and, while that has improved the article and is appreciated, it has not changed the basic issue that the story behind it is WP:NOTNEWS. We are in "cat stuck in tree - rescued by fire dept" territory here. Sure it made the newspapers, it still doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting perspective. This incident uncovered an international smuggling ring and produced 8 arrests and at least one conviction (3 year sentence) along with worldwide coverage and Terror alerts for customs around the world: but you compare this to a cat in a tree? Sigh... Of course I disagree. Lightburst (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahunt: I have added WP:SIGCOV and the disposition of the convicted. Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Coomment stuffing the article with citations still doesnt indicate significant courage, it still looks like a local new story with little effect or coverage in the rest of the world. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG. -- Begoon 20:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Begoon: You are right that we are not the news. This particular incident had international coverage and necessitated airline changes around the world. Lightburst (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have read the article and believe it is a notable case because its the first of its kind, and it causes them to reveal their airport security. This has revealed a security threat as anyone can impersonate someone else wearing one of these masks. Dream Focus 06:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, this was a noteworthy event. I am basing my vote primarily on the significant coverage of this event by South China Morning Post and Associated Press. !Vote by User:BehindtheKeys - the !vote is on the bottom of the article so I moved it here for the editor.
Keep per persuasive arguments by Lightburst. Pithy delete !votes citing WP:NOTNEWS without elaboration are not persuasive. ~Kvng (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- COmment Presumable because anybody reading the article would see the NOTNEWS angle fairly clearly so doesnt really need elaboration of the obvious. Clearly not noteworthy for a standalone article despite the citation stuffing. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: "Citation stuffing" is a baseless claim which tells me you did not look at the article. WP:HEY. It is quite obvious to the readers that the added citations were for information regarding:

The stowaway Incident
The 8 arrests
The conviction of a conspirator
The placement of MR. X (apparent asylum)
The DHS terror alert.
The worldwide Air Bulletin warnings

I am saddened by the WP:RUSH to delete rather than improve WP:NOTCLEANUP. We have a case of WP:GEOSCOPE based on the WP:RSs. The article is now worthy of inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]

@MilborneOne: Lightburst and others have made some very respectable improvements to the article since you nominated it and your position is that this is citation stuffing? SMH. ~Kvng (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please assume good faith in others, saying that others "clearly did not read the article" is not clever and probably worth an apology. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a trivial newspaper story that is not worthy of a stand alone article in an encyclopedia. - Samf4u (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Due to expansions made since the original nomination. Whoever ends up closing this should also keep in mind the improvement that was made to the article over the course of the deletion discussion.Patiodweller (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after a "keep" closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 23.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments of Kvng and User:Patiodweller WP:Hey. This is NOT the article it was when the WP:AFD was initiated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor NEWS event without lasting coverage or significance. Reywas92^Talk 17:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - having reviewed the now-rewritten article, I still contend that this is just a WP:NOTNEWS event, not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine, dime-a-dozen crime, regardless of the DHS overreaction. Not on a par with the Essex lorry deaths. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to reiterate the delete !vote I cast above before more sources had been added to the article - in spite of the WP:HEY, this still fails WP:NOTNEWS (minor spattering of coverage around the time of the incident, minor spattering of coverage around the time of conviction). It's not enduringly notable. SportingFlyer T·C 00:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is silly and a waste of bytes, but I will play too. I want to reiterate the Keep !vote I cast above. We are all now aware of the delete !vote by SportingFlyer above (twice) and the subsequent deletion review started by SportingFlyer, which overturned the Keep AfD result based on this article's improvements. Perhaps we can get some Encyclopedia building work done soon. :) Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of major newspapers reporting on this incident can't be ignored so easily. Furthermore, I would say that the worldwide GEOSCOPE coverage puts it over the top. Hko2333 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – There's enough international coverage over a long-enough period of time to convince me that we have sufficient WP:RS coverage out there to write a stand-alone article about it. E.g., Reuters 2010, The Economist 2010, CNN 2010, Time 2010, Telegraph (UK) Jan 2011, AP (via NBC) Feb 2011, AFP (via News.com.au) Oct 2011, Telegraph (UK) again Oct 2011, AP (via Sify) again Oct 2011, McFarland book 2014, The Standard (HK) 2019. – Levivich 02:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTNEWS is just supposed to keep out routine stuff like the daily weather or celebrity gossip but this is different – an unusual and high-impact event which was widely reported internationally by respectable and substantial media. Notability does not expire and so we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG easily. discussion seems to revolve around NOTNEWS and similar. Issues 1, 3, and 4 of NOTNEWS obviously don't apply. Issue 2, which is basically saying "needs SIGCOV, not routine", I believe is satisfied/dealt with by the large number of sources reporting on it in detail. and seriously, everyone needs to chill. Hydromania (talk) 22:08, 6 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive.ph

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 Jainism in Belgium. No desire to Keep; the Redirect to Jainism in Belgium preserves the content if this can be improved in the future (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jain Culture Center of Antwerp

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

No reliable sources can be found. Interstellarity (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every local religious body is notable. This article has the extra egregious problem of no sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jainism in Belgium. Mccapra (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 3 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 keep. Consensus to Keep (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vilmos Tátrai

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

No reliable sources and not notable and fails (WP:NMUSIC). Interstellarity (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was concertmaster of the Hungarian National Philharmonic for more than thirty years. The hu.wiki article lists the prizes and distinctions he earned during his long musical career. I did a google book search and found that there appears to be another person of the same name in an unrelated field, but if you search for ‘Vilmos Tátrai violin’ you will find plenty of snippet view refs. Mccapra (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added multiple references to the article and expanded it a bit. He was a very eminent violinist and the concertmaster of a major symphony orchestra. He has an extensive discography, and an entry in The Oxford Dictionary of Music. On the centenary of his birth (2012) a month-long exhibition on his life and work took place at the Müpa Budapest. The review in Heti Válasz of his posthumously published autobiography (2001), describes him as "one of the greatest Hungarian violinists of all time." Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've also added a reference for him having been awarded the Kossuth Prize by the Hungarian government in 1958. Voceditenore (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you, Voce. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Voceditenore – nice work, VdT! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all; thanks Voceditenore for your work. Also, one thing I would like to understand is why this article was nominated for deletion just barely 2 hours after it was created. This really isn’t what Wikipedia should be about. Zingarese talk · contribs 17:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zingarese, I agree about the complete inappropriateness of nominating an article for deletion after two hours, especially when the subject already has an article on multiple Wikipedias. Admittedly, it's difficult to research, especially using those "Find sources" links at the top of the AfD—a very blunt instrument. For one thing, most of the best sources to establish notability, e.g. biographical dictionaries, will be first name last. The nominator should have searched for "Tátrai Vilmos" not just "Vilmos Tátrai". Plus, the subject is Hungarian in which people are normally referred to with their last name first. Adding "site:.hu" to the Google search would have helped too. I only came across the article by accident. I wonder how many other encyclopedic subjects have met a similar fate, or worse, have actually been deleted because nominators, !voters, and indeed the articles' creators, don't know how to search properly or don't care. Voceditenore (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per everyone else above. Andrew Base (talk) 17:33, 7 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee 87

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

There aren't reliable sources and this topic is not notable (fails WP:NBOOK). Interstellarity (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough reviews to meet WP:NBOOK. [9] [10] [11] Haukur (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NBOOK the book is notable and reviewed. Lightburst (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, in addition to reviews listed above (thanks to Haukurth and Lightburst :)), there are reviews by BookTrust - "Set in an unnamed country, this is a timely and important book which illuminates the realities of life as a refugee.", The Sunday Times (subscription required) - "Children’s book of the week: Boy 87 by Ele Fountain", The Guardian - "Children’s and teens roundup: the best new picture books and novels - Full of tension, fear, heartbreak and hope, it conveys both the bitterness of having family, home and identity stolen away piecemeal, and a courageous determination to survive." (a snip), i do, however, suggest that the article title be changed from Refugee 87, the US title and published 4 june 2018, to Boy 87, the English title and published 5 april 2018 as Fountain is an english author and it was first published there. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 10 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 delete by an admin. (non-admin closure) LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Snedden

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

Not finding enough online to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since the only listed "source" is IMDb, which is not reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a review of his performance in The Lone Gunmen from The New York Times. It's no longer unreferenced. Let's do this properly by following WP:BEFORE.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In view of the last comment, let's keep it open for a while longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 10:13, 10 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarika Bahroliya

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

This person is not notable and fails WP:ENT. Interstellarity (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:ENT. Andrew Base (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the subject has only two credits to her name. One is a lead in a TV serial which premiered on August 27, 2019. And other credit is for extremely tiny role in a film, almost like an extra. Thus, subject fails WP:NACTOR. As there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, subject fails WP:GNG as well. She is very beautiful though. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:RS.-Nahal^(T) 10:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:57, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Price of milk question

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

Don't seem to be SIGCOV RS for this in sources given that are mainly news articles, and I doubt there exists any SIGCOV RS anywhere. This is at best some mildly recurring press conference question but either way no well-documented rhetorical tactic as the article seems to make it out to be. Gaioa (T C L) 19:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel there could be more on this. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
if the nominator would use words, that would be swell. Wikipedia is hard enough to navigate due to the bureaucracy, and initialisms aren't all that hard to avoid.~T P W 21:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear that this is a cohesive topic that has the notability for an encyclopedia article. Citations do not give substantive coverage establishing that a "price of milk question" is an actual thing, though Politician#Criticism could certainly be expanded to cover the concept of politicians being out of touch. One of the links mentions the Food stamp challenge, not knowing the amount of a pension, celebs not doing their own laundry, not using stamps, and not taking the subway, but there should not be an article about milk. LOL at the idea AFD editors being unfamiliar with WP:RS, that should be a minimum for voting here. Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:NEOLOGISM that absolutely nobody has used. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you mean the title itself, that's a description of the topic that was picked in the absence of any commonly-used name. The article is about the political/journalistic trope, not the phrase Price of milk question itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a trope or meme. I'm unsure whether it's worth as whole article. Could this be redirected or merged somewhere? Bearian (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotcha journalism looks like the place for it, given that the question is an attempt to get a soundbite of an incorrect answer. Tophattingson (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be fine with this. The BBC's reference to "ambush" seems to support it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A poorly sourced article that is doubted to be encyclopedic. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and would be open to a merge) per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Extended content

Barford, Vanessa (2012-04-24). "Should politicians know the price of a pint of milk?". BBC Online. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-02.
The article notes:

A Tory MP has described David Cameron and George Osborne as "two posh boys who don't know the price of milk". But why is knowing the price of milk so important?
It's a classical political ambush that has been popular on both sides of the Atlantic for decades.
Politicians, constantly primed to deal with detailed questions on policy, personnel or principles, are instead asked the price of something.
But it's not the price of the new fighter jet or flagship hospital - instead it's a stamp, a loaf of bread or, most of all, a pint of milk.
In 1992, US President George H W Bush, was forced to admit he did not know how much a gallon of milk cost during a debate with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot.
Another American to suffer a similar reality check was Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City who was rumbled while on the campaign trail in Alabama . He managed to underestimate the cost by about 50%.
...
But why milk and not a unit of electricity, or 80 tea bags, or a 40W bulb?
...
Anthony King, professor of British government at the University of Essex, says he understands why milk is a "shorthand - or a way of expressing succinctly that a politician may be out of touch".
Rudgard, Olivia (2015-06-24). "How much is a pint of milk? A celebrity's guide to normal people's lives". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-02.
The article notes:

Pint of milk, please

This one has been tripping up politicians around the world for years, so you'd think they would make sure they knew the answer. Not so. Politicians who have been caught out by the price of milk question include former farming minister Jim Paice, who admitted on Farming Today that he did not know the price of a pint of milk "because my wife buys most of it." Oh dear.
Boris Johnson was another who lacked basic milk knowledge - though he headed off the issue in his unique ebullient way, with a "so what?"
Smith, Jennifer; Sharman, Samantha (2012-07-12). "Why the 'pint of milk' test is past its sell-by date". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-02.
McNeilly, Claire (2013-10-03). "So what do milk and bread cost?...We test seven public figures". Belfast Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-02.
The article notes:

It's the oldest booby-trap in the book – yet politicians keep falling for it. They brag they're in touch with the ordinary man, then fall short when asked about the price of milk or bread. David Cameron and Boris Johnson (left) are the latest victims. Claire McNeilly quizzed a few well-known locals to find out how they would have fared had Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight asked them the same questions
Polman, Dick (2007-04-12). "Much bigger tests than cost of milk". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-02.
The article notes:

Here's my pop quiz: Who cares?
The price test is just a lazy journalistic gimmick designed to imply that a political candidate is out of touch with the lives of the masses. (Some political scientists refer to pop quizzes as "degradation ceremonies.") Giuliani flunks the milk question, ergo he is an elitist. Ditto Lamar Alexander. Ditto Tom Strickland, a Democratic Senate candidate in Colorado, who in a 2002 debate was asked to name the price of a gallon of unleaded gas, and got it wrong. Ditto John Edwards, who blanked on the price of a six-pack of beer in July 2004. ("I haven't bought a six-pack of beer in years, so I don't know.") His questioner, by the way, was Don Imus.
Kostigen, Thomas M. (2011). The Big Handout: How Government Subsidies and Corporate Welfare Corrupt the World We Live In and Wreak Havoc on Our Food Bills. New York: Rodale, Inc. pp. 62–63. ISBN 978-1-60961-318-1. Retrieved 2019-11-02.
The book notes:

Politics and the milk industry have always been tightly ound. And a typical test of a politician's "Americanness" is to be able to quote the price of a gallon of milk.
In 2008, presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani famously failed this test. And President George H.W. Bush similarly was taken to task for being out of touch with the American people for his purported amazement over a grocery store price scanner.
McSmith, Andy (2012-07-11). "Diary: A Tory who really should know the price of milk". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-02.
The article notes:

The price of milk is a time-worn interviewer's weapon, designed expressly to demonstrate how out of touch a politician is with the people he or she represents.
Judkis, Maura (2018-08-01). "Trump shows he's clueless about groceries — like so many politicians before him". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-02.
"Name that price: politicians struggle with cost of groceries". The Daily Telegraph. 2014-05-20. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-02.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs), who significantly expanded and sourced the article.
Cunard (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources I linked above demonstrate that this is notable: the topic of politicians' being asked the price of milk or of other groceries and products to test whether the politicians are out of touch with their constituents.
BBC Online says in 2012, "It's a classical political ambush that has been popular on both sides of the Atlantic for decades."
The Daily Telegraph in 2012 says, "This one has been tripping up politicians around the world for years" and "Politicians who have been caught out by the price of milk question include former farming minister Jim Paice".
The Daily Telegraph in a 2015 article says "Why the 'pint of milk' test is past its sell-by date".
The Belfast Telegraph in 2013 says politicians' being asked "the price of milk or bread" is "he oldest booby-trap in the book – yet politicians keep falling for it".
The Philadelphia Inquirer says in 2007, "The price test is just a lazy journalistic gimmick designed to imply that a political candidate is out of touch with the lives of the masses."
Thomas M. Kostigen wrote in a 2011 book, "And a typical test of a politician's "Americanness" is to be able to quote the price of a gallon of milk."
The Independent notes in 2012, "The price of milk is a time-worn interviewer's weapon".
If this material can be merged to an article where it fits better, I would support that. I oppose deletion since this is well-sourced material that sources have highlighted as being significant.
Cunard (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some good arguments for merge were made, let's see what the possible target is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 12:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. FOARP (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (thanks Cunard for the ping). I see enough sources providing evaluation and analysis of the topic to meet WP:SIGCOV. While there's not a ton of info here, it seems like a notable enough topic given the multiple sources over a number of years. I'd also be open to a merge, ~~but I'm not sure what a good target would be.~~ —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If the sources found were added to the article, and I'd see some fixes, then I'd go along. Bearian (talk)
Keep I would strongly advocate to keeping it as is, and expanding the stub. This topic gets media coverage quite often, and should be expanded upon with sources.⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan ^💬 14:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 9 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in the Bionicle Saga

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

Non-notable, completely in-universe unnecessary forked content. TTN (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There does not appear to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources on this subject matter. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this would be better on Wikia. It is a lot of crufty plot summary and excessively detailed fictional descriptions, and is sourced entirely to the work of fiction itself. Reyk _YO! 09:47, 7 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visions Electronics

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

As written, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Sources are all primary sources. Per my WP:BEFORE procedures, using the article name in both Google quotation mark-enclosed web and news searches, the only non-duplicated web search results were directory listings, job listings, search engine optimization-type pages, and social media. Of the news search results, the only results were mere passing mentions or trivial, hyper-local coverage related to a shopping centre redevelopment plan in which the electronics retailer was a current or proposed tenant or occasional mentions whereby a store was broken into (note: even following WP:SIGCOV, a bank branch can be robbed multiple times and still fail WP:Notability). No evidence of either (a) current or (b) potential notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: Just a note, as I browse some recent AfDs. I've noticed you keep including "as written". That's going to cause you some trouble at some point, as AfD is supposed to be more or less indifferent to how it's currently written. If it's notable, it doesn't matter how it's currently written (WP:BEFORE and whatnot). If it's written in a promotional/nonsensical way, that's what CSD is for. The only time the current condition of the article is typically relevant is if you're arguing for WP:TNT. None of this is a comment on this nomination in particular, which I haven't even looked into yet. Just a note. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I certainly wasn't advocating for WP:TNT, just trying to strictly enforce WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. I actually picked up on the as written verbiage from @Piotrus: who attached it to AfDs he'd written. My intent was to show that the article, as written, is not notable but that also, in terms of potential sources, it's not notable, too. Hope that makes sense. Doug Mehus (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus and Rhododendrites: Weeeell, if you remove "as written", it doesn't change things at all. After all, if you say "fails GNG", it is assumed "as written". There's WP:BEFORE, but that's why we are here, to see if anyone can find better sources that the nom couldn't, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG/NCORP. Not seeing any in-depth coverage that's not a press release. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanrakshan

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

Can't find anything to support a claim to notability. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Here are some sources to claim its notability. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 12:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: thank you for digging, I did come across these during my BEFORE. Let's dive in:

xnepali.net is a personal blog and should be actively purged, maybe even added to the spam blacklist.
nepalisansar.com is a business startup based in USA that is clearly going for quantity over quality and has no journalistic credential. The most it has going for itself is that its About page is written in first person plural rather than singular, which is counterbalanced by the bad English (despite being based in the US). The Submit article page clearly says it will accept self-promotional contributions from its audience as long as it is of wide interest, and also clearly indicates its editors (plural apparently) will bother fact-checking if the content liable to be controversial. So, without a clear indication that it takes it journalism seriously, it's not acceptable either. Note that it dubs this movie the most (...) controversial of 2017. Where's the RS coverage of that controversy then (rhetorical)?
That leaves us with two Kathmandu post (which is RS) articles which hardly take the movie past WP:CRYSTAL. The first one is a promotional/routine coverage of a song dropping that occured way before the film was released. The second one was an Op-Ed by an undergraduate student in the US on a broader issue, written solely on having watched the movie's trailer online. I am well-aware of the hardship involved in covering third-world topics here, and am way more lenient with the notability guidelines (evident by my tempered rate of AFD nomination). Although these particular sources wouldn't count an iota towards notability strictly speaking, I do give them some weight ("third world" argument again) as mentions on a national newspaper. But it's simply not enough.

(Rhetorical) Did the movie actually get released? Was it popular with critics? Audiences? Was it controversial? Was it taken note of for apparently covering a sensitive issues of politics and social justice?

The sources we have here are simply not good enough even considering the third world problem. This movie was in 2017, not ten years ago. Notable movies of the last decade do get decent coverage in actual RSes, even in Nepal.

Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I generally think that Usedtobecool is correct in their analysis of the English-language sources, until there is some attempt to search in the film's language/script, we can't be certain it doesn't meet the requirements of GNG or NFILM. Unfortunately, my own attempts to approximate the film's title in Devanagari were ineffective. I will add to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Article alerts to see if that generates any expert input. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, ne:संरक्षण (चलचित्र) is probably the article on Nepali Wikipedia, although it doesn't give enough context or a single source. Be careful with the google hits though, as Sanrakshan is a generic term for protection/preservation/conservation/etc. which means anything to do with helping the Nepali film industry would also be included in the results. I had found one link worth clicking: this, which is SIGCOV but still from before the film's actual scheduled release; and without anything else, I deemed it insufficient to get the film over GNG. I think one more RS SIGCOV from after the film's actual release (which must have happened) would be enough, which I couldn't find. No opinion whether more coverage from before the film's premiere would also do the trick. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom as not notable. Five sources were given but these were debunked by the Nom and User:Eggishorn agrees but hoping more is "out there" and it seems feels concerned there is a language barrier issue which is likely. The article either has less than reliable sources or the same source as repeat which does not add to notability. I will offer that something can be considered generally notable in one area or location (such as Nepal) but not in another area or country which means not everything from one Wikipedia will necessarily be world-wide notable to be in the enwiki or others. If nobody else can weigh in with independent reliable sources providing significant coverage then it just isn't world-wide notable. Other than a good faith search it is not the burden of those checking to be able to also determine the notability but the proof is according to WP:VERIFY. Otr500 (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to Delete (ultimately the burden of proof is to produce refs that can be verified at en.wp); try a final re-list to see if the WikiProject India film task force replies
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — There are many sources: Film talks about Madhes Movement [17] [18], Nikhil Upreti's first collab with Saugat Malla [19], has soundtrack [20] [21] [22] ,Upreti's comeback film after 4 year of break [23] ,it premired [24], had budget of 1 crore 40 lakhs [25], it got reviewed [26] [27], it won award 3 Dcine Award [28]. Merging all this together surely could make a start-class article. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CAPTAIN MEDUSA, merging it all would be a mistake as most of these are miles from reliable. That said, although it's still not past GNG, [15] is a legit review that I hadn't found and assuming Dcine Award is a legit major award (I'm not really up to date on who all are giving out awards in Nepali cinema nowadays), I think we have enough to Keep it. Thanks for your hard work. I'd say, please try to be more selective with your sources, but your process clearly has merits too. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also thank CAPTAIN MEDUSA for their diligence. Only the nepalmag.com.np and Khanthmandu Post articles, however, appear to be significant coverage about this film. The other references are not significantly about the film or very short announcements of, e.g., release dates. That said, two reviews, including in the biggest daily newspaper in the film's home country, are enough to qualify as notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:59, 15 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Islamia Bhatkal

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

Non notable madrasa. Seems promotional and No WP:RS. Kutyava (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no RS can be found, notability in question.--WikiAviator (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, notability is iffy, but I have found some sources [29], [30], [31]. Willing to vote the other way on this one, but I feel like the GNG requirements are just met. Utopes (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd love to discuss the sources that I provided on the 27th now that I've been away long enough to have a refreshed take. Utopes (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems like a institution that is organized and celebrated its 50th anniversary. Notice coverage in a reliable source like the Hindu. Lot of ccoverage on Bhatkallys.com which appears to be a polished portal covering local and regional news. Coverage on Daijiworld as well of an internationl event they ran. This is one of many articles. This was pointed out by Utopes too. Regional Karnataka always has challenges in getting coverage in what we consider mainstream newspapers. As an editor who also covers Karnataka topics, I often fall back on portals like Daijiworld to look for coverage on topics related to regional Karnataka. So in summary my take is Keep! Arunram (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm in similar mind to @Arunram. صدیق صبري (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kutyava (talk) 12:27, 12 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. No new input to resolve the divisions from before the last relist, and it's not clear whether the nominator (who seems to have attempted to vanish before being indeffed) still supports deletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Oliver

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

Non-notable. Single reference -BigDwiki^talk 04:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 more sources, I'm not saying they're enough: [32][33][34] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more: [35] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:JOURNALIST. He was the editor of the New York Daily News, but apparently didn't distinguish himself. The New York Times obituary I'm going to dismiss as local coverage, as no other paper published one AFAIK. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional sources were found by G.G.S. above, refuting the basis for this nomination. Also it appears the nominator attempted to withdraw this (before being banned 14 minutes later). ―cobaltcigs 18:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - if the sources that have been found were added to the article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local obituary from the same industry does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:38, 13 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 delete. Notability depends on the existence of significant coverage in independent secondary sources, which do not appear to exist in this case. RL0919 (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pride

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

Original research on a non-notable person. We have an article on his father but notability is not inherited – also I can't find any sources that mention Thomas Pride having had a son, like this article says: "his existence remained hidden from all official records except for his gravestone". Article doesn't make a credible claim of notability, practically no coverage of this person exists, he is mentioned in passing in this source which lists some immigrants to Maine but there's no way of finding out which Joseph Pride it's talking about. The rest is synthesis and personal family knowledge.

Author declined PROD with the reason: "Family history preserved over 400 years, and passed down. I heard if from my father Byron, who heard if from his Father and Grandfather (Byron Pride). MARKED BY 200 YEARS OF EVERY FIRST BORN NAMED JOSEPH. How much do you want?" – Thjarkur (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the editor even know who charles 1st was? He was the only King of England Executed. This is about who his executioner was, and it presents credible evidence in a family history, supported by 200 years of census data, and direct testimony from members of the family who all heard it first hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniePride (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We report what reliable sources have said. Unpublished family legends and census data is original research. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significantly better sources are found and presented here or included in the article. I declined an A7 speedy on this, because there are claims of significance] here, that is statements which if supported by sources would establish or help to establish notability. But in an AfD discussion we look at the sourcing, n it just isn't there. If someone did a WP:HEY type of improvement, my view might well change, but that is what it would take. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DaniePride it does no good to be snarky here. I am well aware of who Charles I of England was, and I am confident that Thjarkur is also. The question isn't whether the events of Charles's reign and his execution were historically significant -- they clearly were. The question is if this Joseph Pride was in fact the executioner, or even involved in the execution. We can only go by sources, and a family's oral tradition doesn't amount to a reliable source. If some scholar listens to that tradition, does research into available records, including family records, and publishes a book or a substantial magazine article asserting that Joseph Pride was the executioner, that would be a source that we could cite. But nothing like that is in the article at this point, and two experienced editors say they have looked and been unable to find any such source. If you can find and offer published source, this is the time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Why is a census document considered invalid ?

Also there are multiple mentions of Joseph in the New Model Army, Thomas's Son. I will provide them when I have time. But if I can not cite the US Census it seems quite worthless. If you understand the role of Prides Purge, the executioner choice would almost naturally go to him. This is noteworthy because it is supported by a 200 year tradition of naming the first born Joseph and the second born Henry and then Thomas, and an oral tradition that was passed down with the admonishment that "you will tell your children". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniePride (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

response A census document is a WP:PRIMARY source, and as such is not invalid, but of only limited use here. We cannot interpret of analyze primary sources --read the link. What we mostly need are secondary sources, sources that put together and analyze primary sources. A census document may be able to tell us that there were people of certain names and ages living in a specific place. It won't tell us how they were related, and it certainly won't tell us how any of them were involved with the execution of Charles I. An oral tradition, I'm afraid, is not published and is not something that our readers can erify unless someone records the tradition and publishes it. That could be done, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. If it were done, then perhaps that publication could be cited, if it seemed to be reliable. If there aren't published secondary sources, there won't be a Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Utterly NN - notability is not inherited. His father was highly notable. If the son (the subject) served in New Model Army, even as an officer, it would not be enough to make him notable. The story about an attempt to hang him is not credible: the ire of the Cavaliers fell upon the regicides at the Restoration, but not ordinary soldiers, who continued to be paid by the post-Restoration state for a period. I suspect that the story of what occurred subsequently got exaggerated in the telling. I am not doubting that Joseph became a settler, but so did many people, equally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Del per arguments above and nominator – I agree this article is unsuitable for inclusion. I also think the author may have a potential conflict-of-interest because they are using original research. If someone else wrote the article and found neutral, third-party sources, then I would have chosen "Keep" but by the username, I think it may be best to delete. Awesome Aasim 21:33, 4 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be-London

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

Does not appear to be notable, and I cannot find any reliable sources anywhere. The most major contributor to the article is now permanently blocked so it seems unlikely that this page will ever improve. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a clothing retail outlet, originally created for promotional purposes ("this article promotes the African culture and lets people know that there are African clothing services that will meet their needs" [36]). Searches are finding nothing beyond their charity sponsorship announcement, which doesn't provide notability. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable clothing store.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 2 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 keep. After two re-lists and a WP:HEY by Dmehus, no desire to Delete, and a consensus to Keep which was unchallenged by any Deletes (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Soldiers

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

Non-notable "Club" (which seems to be a euphemism for "gang"?). No inline references, and of the remaining footnotes, most are passing mentions only. There are two sources that are not obvious passing mentions:

[37] - I'm not familiar with what "mapinc.org" is but it appears to be re-publishing an article from a different sources (possibly a copyvio issue) and is otherwise fairly routine coverage - police seized a handgun and a crossbow, and there was a bar fight.
[38] - second does go into more detail on a specific concern related to a member of the "club" having been released from prison in 2006, however, those concerns don't seem to have materialized, as there's no newer reference material available at all.

This article seems to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. ST47 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ST47 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ST47 (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is well-documented, reliable and independent press coverage from CBC News, Postmedia-owned newspapers, The Globe and Mail, the Kelowna Daily Courier, and the like. I've added two sources and rewrote much of the second paragraph. Does this article need work? Yes, but AfD is not cleanup. @Bearcat: is involved in a number of noteworthy Canadian-focused articles and may have an opinion, or be able to cite additional WP policies and/or sources that established notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per your first linked source, that is the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. The article was originally published in the Kelowna Daily Courier and, presumably, reprinted with permission from that newspaper. No copyright violation here—none with respect to Wikipedia, which is what we care about. It's common for newspapers to permit non-profits and companies to re-publish their own news articles. Regarding your second linked source, that may be more useful as it provides important and substantive background information on this notable British Columbia gang, but I haven't yet integrated it into the article. I've added a number of sources, all of which establish its notability in a significant way. We're up to 7-10 sources, but more are definitely possible. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing coverage in reliable sources. We have some cleanup issues, however WP:NOTCLEANUP. WP:NTEMP is also relevant, since it was once notable it will always be notable. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, thanks...I tried to do a bunch of cleanup—check out its diff before I made my first edit when this article was nominated. It was incorrectly classified as a club instead of what it is, a street gang. It felt kind of odd that one of my few !keep votes at AfD was for a notorious street gang.

Also, do you think we can safely remove those bulleted Internet Archive references that I converted to fully formed citations? Could probably add those URLs to the applicable citations as "archiveurl," but haven't had the time to do that. Beyond that, we may want to sort the order of the paragraphs so it flows chronologically—save for the Lede. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes i saw right off this was a gang of some notoriety. I thought it odd that there would be a gang in BC. Layout is definitely something that should be improved. And the bulleted refs must be tied to the part of the article they represent, and then converted. Lightburst (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, Yeah, I didn't added those bulleted refs...I'll leave them for now in case someone wants to use those URLs to add in the IA archive URLs and dates. Doug Mehus T·C 00:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, Okay, I put the events in chronological sequence, added the archive-URL and archive-date attributes to the remaining footnotes, moved two of the currently unused bulleted refs to Talk:Independent Soldiers#Bulleted citations removed, then removed all the bare URL bulleted references. Only one URL I couldn't move to the page's Talk page due to nothing being in Internet Archive. I think the article is in a reasonably good shape now. Should I assess it as stub- or start-class, and do you think I would be OK to classify it as mid-importance to the WikiProjects? Doug Mehus T·C 01:36, 10 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 keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark C. Storella

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

Lack of notability Saff V. (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I once saw an article that simple said X person is a professor of such and such at z university. All it said. It was prod’d as not notable since there was no indication of publications, honors, etc. the prod was removed with the edit summary that as a professor, the subject is inherently notable. Assuming that is true, then a former ambassador who is a dean is notaBle. Cockwomble22 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep senior diplomat, high-ranking positions, dean of branch of major US government teaching institution (170,000 students), Google News search shows multiple entries in WP:RS. Meets WP:BIO, see WP:DIPLOMAT... was WP:BEFORE done here? Goldsztajn (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goldsztajn. Close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 9 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design-Altruism-Project

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

Little coverage, mostly in blogs. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small academic/creative research project. Looks interesting, but has not received enough coverage to be notable per our standards. Same goes for the related page David C. Stairs, also at AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The subject has non-trivial coverage in multiple peer reviewed journal articles:

"Atmoterrorism and atmodesign in the 21st century: mediating Flint's water crisis.(Flint, Michigan)"; Dettloff, Dean ; Bernico, Matt; Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, Jan, 2017, Vol.13(1), p.156(34)

"BEYOND TREADING WATER: BRINGING WATER JUSTICE TO AMERICA'S URBAN POOR"; Narcisse, Denise; Race, Gender & Class, 2017, Vol.24(1/2), pp.27-64

"Fourth World Theory: The Evolution of . . ."; Dotson, Olon; Buildings, 2014, pp.155-194

~~Appologies for no urls as I am accessing this through an internal database at my university library and not through the internet.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

False. I have all three papers sitting in front of me, downloaded from here, here, and here. In all of them, the word "altruism" appears nowhere but in the bibliographies or, in the first paper, in a footnote to the statement, "As David Stairs observes, such an approach only serves to reinforce a spectacle of unqualified optimism, feigning inclusion all the while only ever addressing and inviting professionals and entrepreneurs." (~~The other papers don't mention Stairs either.~~There's no further mention of Stairs in that paper either, and none in the other two.) Largoplazo (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A promising Keep was withdrawn at the last minute; also issues with the David C. Stairs BLP; use one last re-list to bottom out likely Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is space on Wikipedia for a Design altruism article. Design for Sustainable Change has a chapter on it, a large part of which is an interview with Stairs. The project could be covered in such an article, but I don't think it works as a standalone. SpinningSpark 22:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a need to distinguish between "deign altruism", which very likely is a notable concept in academic debate, and this Design Altruism Project, which is one designer's blog. The first reference is a poster that does nothing more than list this blog. The DesignObserver piece is a debate between the blog's owner and others about the idea of design altruism but only tangentially about this blog. Those are the two best references. The searches above and my own WP:BEFORE demonstrate that most of the references to this project are by the blog owner. The owner may be notable given the number of those, but notablity is not inherited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Eggishorn. The fact that a media outlet addresses a notable topic does not make the media outlet itself notable. That has not been shown for this one. BD2412 T 19:33, 19 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 redirect to 7 Up#Cancelled. Consensus that there isn't sufficient sourcing and that the relevant content is already included elsewhere Nosebagbear (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DnL

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

Outside of a few sentences, this page is already effectively merged into the 7 Up page. "dnL" just doesn't have enough notability to stand on its own. Jcmcc (Talk) 04:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that this article is over 15 years old, more opportunity for feedback seems appropriate rather than a quick move to soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to redirect to 7 Up#Cancelled, where it is listed, per WP:ATD-R. Agreed that on lacking standalone sourcing, though I saw some promising starts in Google Books. czar 16:52, 16 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 delete. bd2412 T 20:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Rajput

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

A non-notable actress, Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Charmboard and IMDB are not establishing notability. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NEXIST Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete all the credits given to subject are insignificant. The only credit i cant be sure about is from Gudiya Humari Sabhi Pe Bhari. Subject's article is a part of bunch of articles created of that shows cast. UPI is a possibility here. Anyways, the subject fails WP:NACTOR, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 13:47, 9 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 delete. Tone 22:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Mahashabde

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

Non-notable actor, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill actor and writer. No reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. The actor just had his first television role debut this past August (no time to evaluate sustained coverage). There's no RS and he has had only one role.4meter4 (talk) 13:45, 9 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 keep. Per WP:HEY by RuthVancouver and Thsmi002 (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Fairburn

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

It cannot determined what is she notable for, clearly fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to Rachel Fairburn from The Guardian newspaper, Time Magazine, The UK telegraph, The Guardian Newspaper and Esquire magazine. RuthVancouver (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the additional references show that she passes WP:GNG. Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the references are sufficient. I typically take a dim view of listicle entries as sources, but the three different best-podcast listings do amount to good coverage, as does the Telegraph article. Cheers, gnu 57 01:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY after good work by RuthVancouver and Thsmi002. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 7 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 keep. ST47 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kody O’Neil

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

Fails WP:GNG. While he arguably meets rugby notability guidelines, the league he plays in hasn't been shown to guarantee notability under the GNG guideline (it was just added to a list without discussion.) The three references include the team's website (primary) with the other two being wordpress blogs about U.S. rugby. A fairly extensive WP:BEFORE search brought up no other coverage apart from match reports. Two news searches brought up literally no results. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NRU seems to be satisfied by his play for the Glendale Raptors, who compete in Major League Rugby, which is on the list of approved fully professional teams over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria. I agree the article could use better sourcing, but that isn't a reason for deletion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I know we discussed this at the last AfD, but there's a (very lightly attended so far) discussion here regarding whether this league should even have been on the WP:NRU list to begin with. Furthermore, simply meeting a sports notability criteria doesn't mean you don't still have to pass WP:GNG, and I've thoroughly looked - I don't think there's any way to improve this article through secondary reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 13:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer - I understand, and wish there was more participation. However, the fact that the Rugby project has been alerted about this, and still that league remains on the list, makes me feel that it should be included.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody from the project has commented on the league, and the only other user who has commented in a much larger forum agrees with me. I feel like I could easily revert that change per WP:BRD and not get into any sort of edit conflict. Furthermore, an SNG is meaningless if WP:GNG is not satisfied. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NRU played for a fully professional team. Glendale Raptors, who compete in Major League Rugby. according to policy a subject needs to pass either SNG or GNG not both. Sometimes a handful of editors show up and a consensus goes against that policy, however that is why the subject specific guidelines were created. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case - look at any of our WP:NFOOTY-related deletions where the SNG is technically met, but no sources demonstrating GNG can be found, the articles are deleted. The SNG creates a presumption of notability. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states '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.' CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus that it meets WP:NRU, however, GNG is the definitive test here; however, no wider desire to Delete; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NRU and added one source. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: as I've noted above and on the league should not have been added to WP:NRU in the first place (see the discussion here), and while I appreciate you adding a source, WP:GNG still isn't satisfied - djcoilrugby.com is one person's blog. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 18 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 delete. Setting aside the confirmed sockpuppets and brand new accounts, there is little support for keeping this article and plenty of support for deleting it based on a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survival Edge Technology

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

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

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

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

This is a WP:NEO not in common use. No references outside of Rahul Banerjee's blog for this term and I was unable to find any additional. PROD removed by article author without improvement. Article author acknowledges this term is not in common use yet. shoy (reactions) 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source analysis after the changes mentioned below: #1 is Banerjee himself. #2 and 7 are Medium blogs (not WP:RS). #8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 21 are blog posts (not RS). #5 was written by Banerjee's wife and posted with no editorial control. #3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20 do not mention the term at all. shoy (reactions) 14:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a new concept. It describes the practical steps that need to be taken to solve the very important problems of water, energy, global warming and agriculture crises that are threatening the very existence of the human race on planet. There is enough work on the ground on this even though not much has yet been written on it by many independent writers. Consequently, this page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

I am the creator of this page and I found the objection of a lack of third party references to be correct. So, I have added third party references to the term "Survival Edge Technology". Therefore now the objection raised has been addressed and this page should not be deleted.IKPlusOne (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)IKPlusOne[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original author of the article has added new third party sources in it that cite "survival edge technology" and its implementation and so the objection of this term being a neologism without external third party citations has been addressed and therefore the article is not a fit candidate for deletion anymore. Xavier2209 (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Xavier2209 — Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

The sources cited appear to include a fair range of publications. Also I'm curious as to what constitutes "common" usage. I see no substantial reason for the page to be deleted - Arjunvenkatraman — Arjunvenkatraman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Arjunvenkatraman (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IKPlusOne. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have been following this page for a long time, and i can concur that lot of third party references have been added and debunk the deletion logic. I recommend removal of the deletion tag.~~ Akshatver (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Akshatver — Akshatver (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This should probably be relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very few of the sources provided meet the project's standards. Most are self-published (Medium user pages, Blogspot) or are directly connected to Banerjee, or both. There are better quality sources cited in some cases, like legitimate scholarly journals, but those sources do not mention this topic specifically, only the general background concepts (the essence of a WP:NEO objection). The best quality directly relevant source seems to be India Water Portal. But the cited content there has a disclaimer ("Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of India Water Portal.") that makes me question whether this material went through that site's normal editorial process. I am certain that the people employing this neologism are doing good and important work, but Wikipedia's standards of inclusion are based on different criteria, which I don't think this meets. The closing administrator will likely also want to note that all of the supporters above have very few, if any, contributions outside this topic (or, often, outside this AFD). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ossifrage's assessment, which I did double check, and can confirm that the sources are not reliable. Utopes (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in question has four references to the alleged neologism 'survival edge technology'. Of this only one is by Rahul Banerjee while the three others are by third-party sources. There are a total of seventeen other references for the matter written describing the term and of this only eight are to blog posts or articles by Rahul Banerjee. Thus, overall there are enough third party sources in the article in support of the term and so it cannot be characterised as a neologism. That these third party sources are blog posts that have been self-published do not in anyway mean that their quality is poor. So I would not recommend its deletion at all.BrownMaverick (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC) — BrownMaverick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — BrownMaverick (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IKPlusOne. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article is well referenced now as additional third party citations have been added. The disclaimer entered in the India Water Portal article is to protect it from litigation and not because there is no peer review. There is moderation and editing before an article is published in India Water Portal. So there is enough reliable citation in support of the article. Xavier2209 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Xavier2209 — Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

Keep I am on Wikipedia since 2016 and have created close to a hundred articles and edited hundreds more as can be easily verified. So I am well versed in the rules. It is in this sequence of my legitimate activity on Wikipedia that I had created this article also. The rule is that there should not be any original writing in Wikipedia and an article should be based on other third party sources. In that sense, this article initially was deficient in that it had fewer third party sources and relied mostly on the writings of Banerjee in his blog. However, once this was pointed out, I have later revised this article and added other third party sources. Even if some of these sources are self published the important thing to see is whether the content of these sources is of good quality or not and whether they support the matter of the article. Thus, the rule that there should not be original write ups and that the matter in the article should be properly supported by third party sources is met and so this article should not be deleted.IKPlusOne (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC) IKPlusOne[reply]
Note for the closing administrator. There may have been canvassing when it comes to the participation in this AfD. While I am assuming good faith out of all of the participants, may of the "keep" rationals involve a form of pressure to keep? I refer to such comments along the lines of "Therefore now the objection raised has been addressed and this page should not be deleted", "the article is not a fit candidate for deletion anymore", and "I recommend removal of the deletion tag". In my opinion, the sources added are still not sufficient, but that's not up to me to make the final decision on. Just be aware that there may be an ulterior motive at play? Utopes (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also invite the closing admin to look through the contributions of the accounts !voting on this AFD. shoy (reactions) 14:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note for the closing administratorThere is no pressure to keep. The words used to favour keeping do not constitute pressure but are opinions expressed without any ulterior motive whatsoever. A genuine effort is being made to broaden the knowledge base. Even if the article does get deleted from Wikipedia it will not affect the further development of the subject in theory and practice will it?!!! Eventually the decision will be taken in accordance with well settled policy. Policy is paramount and not the number of votes so there is no question of canvassing. If the closing administrator feels that the independent sources cited are insufficient or not up to the mark, the article will be deleted and that is that. Where is the need for acrimony? Xavier2209 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Xavier2209 — Xavier2209 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy. KeepThere are enough third party references to the subject of the article, some published in reputable websites and others self published. The reliability of these third party sources is being questioned by fellow editors. However, I feel that these sources are of good quality and provenance.Akshatver (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Akshatver — Akshatver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Akshatver (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]

Delete Regardless of the importance of addressing climate change, this specific article is promoting a neologism that has no established notability. The sources are a mixed of self-published material, content without editorial oversight, and superfluous items that may pertain to the theme of climate change but do not indicate adoption of this term itself. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to indicate that this neologism is notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article about a neologism, sourced primarily to blogs, and obviously created mainly to promote Rahul Banerjee (an article created by the same user who created this article, and like this article added to mainly by the creator and their now blocked socks...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article could certainly use improvement, I am surprised that people, who are otherwise quite knowledgeable and experienced, have voted 'Delete' without sufficient interaction with professionals in the field, who would find the term far from new, unknown, or unaccepted. The term 'Survival Edge Technology' refers to use of simple and widely accessible technology as an enabler. While this idea has been quite popular in the field as well as in academia, it is referred to as ′Gandhian Technology′, an obviously ambiguous and somewhat political term. Hence most professionals, at least in India, welcomingly accept and understand this term. - Yashvant.ritesh (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One tiny little problem; the article presents no evidence of the popularity and wide acceptance that you allude to. Please read WP:V. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essay on someone's neologism. E Eng 15:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources which actually mention the term were written by Rahul Banerjee or his wife (anar-kali is his personal blog), or by Medium blog posters with one post apiece, created after the AfD started. Cheers, gnu 57 16:13, 7 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. After two re-lists, there was no consensus (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Screen

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

Extremely short disambiguation page that links to the Nintendo DS and Multiple Monitors. Do not see this as a plausible redirect or disambiguation page, especially now that there are numerous dual-screen and foldable devices being available soon, including the Surface Duo/Neo, Huawei Mate X, and Galaxy Fold. Awesome Aasim 22:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: it may be too early to have a disambig page on this topic, but maybe in the near future! Awesome Aasim 04:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To start, disambiguation pages with two entries are just fine. Now, think of it this way. The disambiguation page for Dual Screen refers to two topics that are named for their dual screen. The simple act of having two screens is not enough to warrant an entry on the page. See Computer (disambiguation) for this. The The two entries for this disambiguation are Nintendo DS and Multiple Monitors. For the former entry, the "DS" stands for Dual Screen, as the system's name showcased the introduction of using two screens for a handheld device. The latter entry, working with multiple monitors can be equated to working with dual screens, or Dual Screen. While the Galaxy Fold and similar technology could be added to the list, as they do showcase their multiple screens, the existence of these devices do not minimize the need for a disambiguation page. In the end, they aren't truly synonymous with the term "Dual Screen". Utopes (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both Dual screen and Dual Screen to Dual-touchscreen which is almost always the context where "dual" is used._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Zxcvbnm:, how do you feel about my reccomendation? While it's true that "dual screen" can commonly refer to having two touch-screens on smartphones, it is not impossible that "Dual Screen" would refer to the Nintendo DS, or the act of having two computer monitors open. Because of the ability to associate multiple names with a topic, a disambiguation page should exist. If not at Dual Screen, then at Dual Screen (disambiguation). Requesting comment from @4meter4: as well here. Utopes (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both Dual screen and Dual Screen to Dual-touchscreen.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has the potential to be a useful redirect.Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: what Zxcvbnm said is a good alternative to deletion as the redirect is plausible, although I agree with the nom's sentiment regarding the uselessness of an outdated DAB. SITH (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet @StraussInTheHouse:, the new phones with multiple screens are not titled as the "Dual Screen Phone". The disambiguation page should only hold entries of articles that are named, or heavily associated with the name "Dual Screen". See Phone (disambiguation). That page is not a list of phone models, but only the articles named "Phone" or imply such. Sure, it's an extreme example, as there are many articles that could come close to this. But for something that is more uncommon, such as "Dual Screen", terms such as "Second screen" and "Dual touch-screen" make perfect sense on the list. Every two-screened piece of technology does not. Utopes (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems consensus that this should be either kept or redirect. Relisting to try and establish firmer consensus about which.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to make the split equal, but Keep. The distinction between dual-touchscreen technology and having a second screen for a computer is clear, each has an obvious article to point to, and both may be meant by the search term. That makes for a sensible disambiguation page. - An alternative might of course be a couple of hatnotes at the respective targets instead. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably heading for a no consensus (split of Keep and Redirect); try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As mentioned above by User:Zxcvbnm this is almost always used in context to the Nintendo DS, Therefor it should be merged to Nintendo DS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellwood546 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term dual screen has been in use for decades for dual computer monitors – long before game consoles even existed. Diambiguation is therefore required by some means. Furthermore, I would challenge whether Nintendo DS should even be on the page. There is no indication on its page that it is referred to as Dual Screen and the fact that that is what the acronym stands for is irrelevant. It is still only an example of a dual screen game console; even if the name contained the (expanded) term, it would still fail WP:PARTIAL as a partial match. SpinningSpark 20:47, 10 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 merge to Asgardia. Going by the arguments that mergeable content exists and that nobody has given a rationale for "not" merging Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardia Independent Research Center

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

Fails WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 16:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asgardia.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Asgardia. Mccapra (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to Asgardia. There is nothing notable about this organization and it is an unlikely search term. Best to merge any remotely appropriate content into Asgardia. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asgardia. The concept is not covered at Asgardia besides a brief mention, yet the content is completely pertinent to the article. I wouldn't include more than a section of content for the Research Center, but merging relevant information to cover more about Asgardia's purpose of creating a micronation on their satellite, and the research done prior to the launch from the research center. It's frankly an important part of their history. Utopes (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There isn't a lot of activity coming to this discussion, so I don't know how many more opinions are going to be shed on this topic. The Asgardia Research Center is a vital part of Asgardia's founding and early history, as it was where the plan to send their satellite into space was polished. Utopes (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Asgardia per Utopes. Britishfinance (talk) 01:48, 9 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 keep. The possibility of moving the article to a different title is left to regular move processes. RL0919 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous university

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

Short unreferenced personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Education in Singapore#Universities per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a disruptive nomination. The fact that an article is short is not a reason to delete it – see WP:IMPERFECT. The claim that this is a personal essay is blatantly false – there are no personal observations or opinions. And the lack of references is not a reason to delete – see WP:NEXIST. Per WP:BEFORE, the nominator is expected to look for sources in such a case and they certainly exist – see University Autonomy and the Governance System, for example. The appropriate admin action here is to warn the nominator against making further frivolous nominations without due diligence. Andrew D. (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference provided does not support the content of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clue is in what links here This word occurs in the lead definition of many Singpore unis- so in that sense is needed. The same end could be achieved with a footnote on each page --ClemRutter (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Education in Singapore#Universities. The article is an unexpandable substub, mostly unsourced, and the one source it does have technically doesn't verify the sentence it's attached to. Reyk _YO! 14:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Have added sources. Singapore may have 6 universities with autonomy but is by no means the only one. It is not at all obvious what "autonomous university" means exactly (though one may guess). There are around 80 universities in Spanish speaking countries with this in their name (see es:Universidad Autónoma) and if I'm a student of the Autonomous University of Barcelona and I wonder what that is supposed to mean, I most certainly would be WP:ASTONISHED to be sent to an article about Singapore. Possibly also convert into a set-index article like the Spanish article. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is an improvement. There may well be room for a decent article on what exactly autonomy means in the university sector, but I think this is still some way from it. The fact that some universities have the word in their title is clearly not enough. Maybe we should look for assistance to Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities? Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However, the significance of the concept is far more important in Spanish-speaking Americas, see es:Autonomía_universitaria. Singapore reflects more a technical-legal difference in status, rather than qualitative difference (ie all universities in Singapore still operate under various degrees of state control due to the nature of Singapore).--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment apologies to Þjarkur, I realise that editor says much the same as I just did, without me acknowledging their earlier comment.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to move this article to the more general title university autonomy. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:49, 4 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert 'Sean' Mitchell

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

Non-notable. Only biographical coverage is a book written by his wife and published by his daughter. Does not meet WP:GNG. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If doubt persists, I would suggest moving it into a draft. It would be incubate in draftspace. - Not logged in

Is notable. Meets WP:GNG. Only one book published due to anonymity of activities and political conflict. Book published 20 years after death of author. Biographical information included in notable book which is stored in national library archives and used by historians in other publications and housing development in homeplace named after him. Article mentions section of book where Mitchell was offered Command of the Southern Division of Irish Free State Army by politician and general Michael Collins, which he turned down. - Not logged in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.31.99.253 (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Main claim to notability seems to be that subject was a member of the IRA during the Irish War of Independence. In relation to this possible NN claim, I would note that there is no available evidence that the subject meets WP:MILPERSON (to the extent that this subject is any more notable than the 15,000 other people who were members of the IRA during the same conflict. "Captain" doesn't meet the rank expectations of WP:MILPERSON). In terms of WP:GNG it seems pretty clear (given that the only material source is the single "family memoir" stle work published by the subject's own immediate relatives) that SIGCOV is not met. That we are otherwise relying on self-published genealogical sources and trivial mentions (to support the content) would seem to reinforce this. In short, mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. (The author might also do well to heed the continued and repeated advice about not using Wikipedia as a free web-host for family genealogy content). Guliolopez (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His accomplishments as an IRA captain aren't even specified. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the subject of writing by family, that seems to also have been self published, is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale above, and per that at the Maud Mitchell page, the wife. Both pages seem to have been published by family members... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopes (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was NOT a communist. Story re Michael Collins is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6A00:7D00:1DD3:1306:6BB1:CF8A (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was not privileged. Mitchell family were lock keepers on the Grand Canal with a small piece of land. He lived with a large family in a small lock house owned by the Grand Canal Company.

He was a member of Fianna Fáil in later life.

The reference to Tim Quill is irrelevant as they had little in common and rarely if ever met.

He had no accountancy qualification.

He had little interest in religion regarding all all similar and is unlikely to have studied Newman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6A00:7D00:1DD3:1306:6BB1:CF8A (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a single source in the article is reliable. This page appears to be one of a string of page memorials for someone's family members. Even though he's deceased, the allegations that the subject was the member of a criminal organization or a closeted communist makes me especially wary. There's no evidence that he was at notable for any reason. I remind the gentle reader that we are a charity, not a free obit service. The subject, on its face, was an ordinary person. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 7 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maud Mitchell

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

Non-notable author. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If doubt persists, I would suggest moving it to draft. Incubate in draftspace. Not logged in.

Notable author. Book stored in national library and used by historians in other works. Housing development named after her in homeplace. Meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Not logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.31.99.253 (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The main potential claims to notability seem to be WP:MILPERSON (based on subject's membership of IRA and C na mB), WP:AUTHOR (based on subject's book) or WP:GNG (based on general coverage of the subject). In terms of MILPERSON there is no evidence that the subject held a rank or received any award to distinguish them from the tens of thousands of other people who participated in the War of Independence. In terms of NAUTHOR, a single family-memoir publication does not meet the expectations of the guideline. And, in terms of GNG, there just doesn't seem to be enough coverage to establish notability (a single passing mention in a real-estate advertorial piece falls short of SIGCOV by some distance). That we are relying on a user-generated genealogical website to support the content would seem to reinforce the lack of significant coverage to support the content. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. (The author might also do well to heed the notes from several editors about not using Wikipedia as a free web-host for content better suited to a family history blog or to ancestry.com. WP:NOTMEMORIAL.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Giuliolopez and nom. Author fails to meet notability guidelines and sadly only gets a passing mention to the book in a footnote the Peter Hart IRA book. Pilaz (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her book has no reviews that I can find, and she herself hasn't received any media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above rationale. Utopes (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Spleodrach (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a single source in the article is reliable. This page appears to be one of a string of memorials for someone's family members. Even though she's deceased, the allegation that the subject was the member of a criminal organization makes me especially wary. There's no evidence that she was at notable for any reason. I remind the gentle reader that we are a charity, not a free obit service. The subject, on its face, was an ordinary person. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 7 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.