< 9 August	11 August >

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surbhi Javeri Vyas[edit]

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

Non-notable actress who appears to fail WP:ACTOR / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does pass WP:NACTOR with at least four prominent roles in nationally released feature films as shown in the article (credited in the top three of the cast list) as well as a number of tv roles. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are all web/YouTube and quick search turns up more social media. Agricola44 (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- article needs improved sourcing, but as Atlantic indicted, clear pass of NACTOR. matt91486 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Most sources are primary sources and not good for encyclopedia as it has editorial bias. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has certainly had lead roles in several notable films, and thus meets WP:NACTOR. Searching for sources is complicated by the variations in her name in Romanised script (Surbhi/Surabhi, Javeri/Zaveri), and probably there are also sources in Malayalam, Telugu, Kannada and/or Hindi, but we don't have her name in those scripts. (It appears there is another, younger, actress also known as Surbhi/Surabhi, active since 2013, who has articles in Tamil and Telugu Wikipedias - presentism applies there too, it seems!) But this one definitely meets WP:NACTOR based on her films - and has also appeared in stage productions, a number of which are named under "Personal life", and might well also be notable productions if we had access to sources to find reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD G12. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Batlokwa Ba Lethebe[edit]

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

No indication of notability of this group. Sources given are not reliable (e.g. a personal website, Facebook) or do not mention the subject. Google search of various names in the article come up with not much more, despite the article claim that "the history of this group is well documented." Also it seems like the subject is already covered in Tlôkwa tribe. ... discospinster _talk 22:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Zenas[edit]

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

Non-notable US business executive, fails WP:BIO. There are just 27 mentions for him on Google News, mostly trivial mentions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found only [1] in GBooks, which is a trivial mention. I've also found nothing substantial in a normal Google search. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article by single-purpose contributor. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill CEO of a company with fewer than 200 employees - and promotional as per DGG. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Barca (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Thorp[edit]

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

Effectively a memorial page for a man who was a murder victim. The murder was notable but nothing else appears to be. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article violates not news and not memorial guidelines of Wikipedia

John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is entirely about him being a victim of a crime, not a notable person.

Runipedia (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I doubt the circumstances of his death w3ill qualify him as a "martyr". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kalambay[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in Wikipedia'e terms. A lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Breaking sticks (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Breaking sticks (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Breaking sticks (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google search does not provide any significant coverage in RS. Non notable musician Ceethekreator (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'd be willing to change my mind if it could be shown by reliable sources that his live concerts were part of a major national tour. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Delete Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Possibly WP:TOOSOON the 'toosoon' being because of search result hits like this. Josalm64rc (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Right Smith[edit]

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

per WP:BASIC. While this is a massive article, a perusal reveals only a paragraph's worth of material about the subject (WP:SCOPE; WP:COATRACK; WP:MASK) with no reliable secondary sourcing. I pleaded for improvements on the talk page with no avail. — AjaxSmack 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — AjaxSmack 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — AjaxSmack 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Being a private (or a lieutenant for that matter) does not meet WP:SOLDIER. The claim that he was a "notable citizen" is not supported by the article, which merely says that he bought a farm, got married, had children, and lived a full life. Which is nice, but not notable. (I also find it hard to believe that he sold two bales of hay for $2,000 each.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTMEMORIAL, this is an interesting article about the war written from the point of view of the South, but scrolling down, Smith is hardly mentioned, it doesnt even say how/why he was promoted to 2nd/1st Lieutenant, reflecting the lack of significant/indepth sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with above. Article is sourced mainly to PRIMARY sources (e.g. service record), and then WP:COATRACKed with a description of the war. This is followed by an obit in what appears to be a local paper (unsure). Essentially - we have a civil war history told through the eyes of Smith's campaign record. Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.This is an interesting article. It seems there's years of research behind what he's writing. See here or there! IMHO, the question of using self-published sources has to be answered. His work was cited in an academic paper in 2004, so perhaps we could also do that. Is that sufficient to qualify him as an expert? His work is part of the Civil War Virtuel Archives Ring, which was cited here… Genium . 19:41, Aug 15, 2019 (UTC)

Delete -- This is clearly a potentially well-researched article, but on a NN Civil War junior officer. The article may well be worth preserving somewhere, but it is no encyclopaedic and does not belong in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7: No credible assertion of importance in article SpinningSpark 23:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Lane[edit]

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

No indication of notability, i.e. significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 19:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Vanity page by two SPA accounts, one of which was blocked for repeatedly messing with the AfD template. Wannabe YouTuber, no RS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's just one person and a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Panchayati Raj Prize[edit]

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

Not a notable prize (and not much of an article). Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this just barely escapes A1, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

draftify ~~keep~~ : The article has only one line without any sources, but it doesnt mean it fails notability. There are a few sources covering the award itself, and the award seems to be a prominent one itself. But as the award is awarded by state governments, the sources are scattered in different langauges. business standard article about the awards and Prime Minister's comments about it, article about panchayti raj, covering the awards - although the source is borderline WP:RS, official gov website detailing the awards, official website of the awards itself, another article covering the awards, and statements by Vice President of India about the awards. The award is new, just one ceremony has taken place yet. But claiming the future would fall in WP:CRYSTAL, still given the sources/rationale above, I think it is borderline notable. At the least, if the article is not kept, it should be draftified to be worked on, but not deleted. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
updated my vote from "keep/dratify" to "draftify" on 16:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC). —usernamekiran(talk) 16:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An incentive awarded by GoI to local governments for good implementation of the administrative reforms called "Panchayati Raj".[2] Not really notable. The reform itself might merit a section somewhere, but the incentives definitely don't deserve a standalone entry. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom, Not a notable prize. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton East (ward)[edit]

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

Clifton East ward ceased to exist in May 2016. See 2016 Bristol City Council election and https://www.bristol.gov.uk/statistics-census-information/new-wards-data-profiles

Please either update content to show it is a former ward, or delete page.

I have a conflict of interest as I was the councillor of that ward, and am now the councillor of Clifton Down ward, which covers part of Clifton East plus a neighbouring ward.

I have submitted a proposed new page Clifton Down (ward) which is currently waiting to be approved.

My motivation for creating the new page and asking for the old one to be removed is not self-promotion, I just want to remove this very out of date info as it causes confusion for my constituents.

I am new to Wikipedia editing so please let me know if you need any more info from me. Thanks C denyer (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. C denyer (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. C denyer (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. C denyer (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DEFUNCTS just because the ward was abolished doesn't mean the article should be deleted, if the info is outdated it should be changed to indicate that its no longer current. It could possibly be merged with the Clifton, Bristol article or new ward though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale and Spintendo: Crouch Swale, I nominated the article for deletion because Spintendo advised me to. I don't mind if it's deleted or updated, I was just doing what I was advised as this is my first ever foray into article deletion. Please do not merge with Clifton, Bristol though. This is a neighbouring ward that is 'separate' from both Clifton East and Clifton Down, merging them will add to the already considerable confusion about wards in this city. The reason I think deleting would be good is that Wikipedia generally doesn't have pages for other former electoral wards, because they're not notable, so I thought it better to create a new page for Clifton Down (ward) (pending approval) which makes a brief reference to Clifton East. C denyer (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@C denyer: there are several in Category:Former wards of the United Kingdom but there are probably many wards that no longer exist but simply aren't in that category. An entity doesn't simply become non notable just because it no longer exists, however it could be merged if there's a significant overlap with the new ward but as noted you don't think that's a good idea anyway. Also note that I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft:Sandbox since I'm not sure which article you wanted to delete. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no policy based reason being advanced for deletion. If the ward no longer exists then updating the article should be little more effort than adding the word "former" in front of "ward". That we have few other former ward articles is explicitly not a reason for deletion per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, WP:DEFUNCTS and WP:OUTDATED. SpinningSpark 23:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Formerly legally-recognized areas are still legally-recognized areas for GEOLAND purposes. I'm fine with a merger as well if that is desired. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and merge in new stuff, and move the article to the new preferred title. I am not familiar with the actual details, but from this discussion it seems the two overlap geographically mostly, and therefore it reasonable to have just one article titled "Clifton Down (ward)" with a section or otherwise covering the previous, defunct "Clifton East (ward)". In general we should prefer to keep stuff that has been created and seek alternatives to deletion (wp:ATD) such as moving/renaming and otherwise editing, rather than deleting and recreating stuff. Thank you C denyer for your reasonable discussion and contribution making sense of this here already. --Doncram (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Thanks all for your input so far. If the conclusion is keep and merge, I am happy to do the work myself, using the draft I recently submitted for a new Clifton Down (ward) page as a template. Alternatively, I can post the draft text here/send it to someone, if you feel it would be better written by someone without any COI. I'm happy to be steered by those of you with more experience. Thanks C denyer (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely convinced that you do have a conflict of interest. You certainly have an association with the subject, but that only becomes a conflict if your primary purpose is something other than writing an encyclopaedia. My opinion on merging is that it is unnecessary and at the moment it is looking unlikely that this AfD will be closed as merge. Although AfDs can be closed as merge, closing as keep does not preclude a merge (after consensus on the article talk page – see Wikipedia:Merging) at a later date. If a merge is to be done, the cleanest way of doing it is to merge the new draft material into the existing article and then rename it. Doing it the other way round, although possible, does not automatically retain the history and author attribution which is a requirement of the copyright license. But as I said, I don't think there is really a problem with having two separate articles. SpinningSpark 12:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although wards change a lot more than parishes they are really still legally recognized places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Insufficient rationale for deletion. WP:NTEMP is a policy reason not to delete. WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE are reasons to keep. Perhaps title change to include (former ward) - per suggestion of Spinning Spark. Wm335td (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural closure, this AFD was started on the wrong page but if it was meant for Clifton, Bristol then note that the settlement still exists and even though the ward doesn't that's not nessesarrily a reason to delete per WP:DEFUNCTS. (non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sandbox[edit]

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

Ward no longer exists C denyer (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. C denyer (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. C denyer (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SNOW keep, notability established. Tone 14:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lavinia Norcross Dickinson[edit]

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

Relationship to sister does not confer notability per WP:INVALIDBIO. SD0001 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relationships to notable people often result in enough being written about their family members that those family members also become notable; note that WP:INVALIDBIO qualifies the invalidity with "unless significant coverage can be found on A". While there is currently only one source in the article, there are more that can be added, including Critical Companion to Emily Dickinson: A Literary Reference to Her Life and Work [3] and Emily Dickinson: Personae and Performance [4]. Even in a 1945 publication, Ancestors' Brocades: The Literary Discovery of Emily Dickinson, the Editing and Publication of Her Letters and Poems, it looks like there is a lot on Lavinia [5] - and, as the article says, "Lavinia "Vinnie" Dickinson was instrumental in achieving the posthumous publication of her sister's poems ... Despite promising her sister that she would destroy all correspondence and personal papers, Vinnie sought to have her sister's poetry edited and published". A lot more about Lavinia herself, her relationship with Emily and other family members, and her role in publishing Emily's poems, can be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick search engine search does not bring up much, a lot of Wikipedia page clones, and a few pages that adds nothing to what's already here, does not appear to be notable in her own right Seasider91 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sewell's biography devotes a chapter to Lavinia. Her role in the complicated publication process of her sister's poetry is well-recorded in publications like Lives Like Loaded Guns: Emily Dickinson and Her Family's Feuds. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears that a proper WP:BEFORE was not performed. A JSTOR search under "Vinnie Dickinson" turns up tons of stuff, as does a Google Scholar search. Netherzone (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please don't forget to create redirects from other forms of names: I've just made Lavinia Dickinson and Vinnie Dickinson. PamD 11:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And added her to Dickinson (name). The article has been around for 11 years, but no-one made these navigational aids till now. PamD 11:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her efforts to disseminate the greatest poet of her generation's work has been itself the subject of scholarly work, and is almost always mentioned in classrooms across the English-speaking world as the test case of a relative saving the written work of an extremely famous writer that was supposed to be destroyed. This is not merely some writer's younger sister; she is the exemplar of an editor of one of the greatest writers in the English language; the subject is clearly notable herself. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wiki-notable for her achievements, regardless of those achievements pertaining to her sister's work. XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Hon[edit]

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

Looking through all the boosterism and selfstyled barony's and accompanying coat of arms, I am not convinced that this individual is notable by wikipedia notability criteria. He is in the UK press this weekend relating to a story around having members of the British royal family on his payroll. I am not convinced his business career in its own right constitutes notability. Uhooep (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 15:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 15:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is highly promotional in tone and needs serious trimming, but Hon is a prominent businessman and politician. He was appointed Vice Chairman of the New People's Party earlier this year and is a member of the CPPCC, China's version of legislative upper house, see Wen Wei Po report. The fact that he is in the UK press makes him more notable, not less. -Zanhe (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He is a member of the Heilongjiang Provincial Standing Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). Does this really make him a legislator? Uhooep (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes him a provincial-level conference member; being on the Standing Committee makes him a high-ranking official within the provincial conference. WP:POLITICIAN does not explicitly address Chinese politics, but similar sub-national legislators are presumed notable. -Zanhe (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hon's prominent and notable status is supported by various reputable sources that are linked throughout his Wikipedia page. He holds government titles that further support his prominent positioning. It is best to recommend amendments to any specific phrases within his Wikipedia description that have a highly promotional tone but the article should remain. Agree with the comments of Zanhe in that the recent press coverage further supports Hon's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.254.208 (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC) — 204.14.254.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep - promotional article - there are a number of references, but looking at them they all seem to be from minor sources, there isn't any significant coverage in major news sources, which indicates a Delete - but he has been involved in some international projects and been given some awards (although their significance is debatable), which indicates a Keep - so I lean towards Delete, but will go with Weak keep" - Epinoia (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that a number of the Chinese-language sources are from Wen Wei Po, Beijing's main newspaper in Hong Kong. -Zanhe (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of OpenBSD games[edit]

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

What does mean "OpenBSD games"?! all of them are the open-source PC games that are developed primarily for Linux and are *unofficially* compiled for OpenBSD and released via its software repository, such list can be created for all Linux distros and BSD OSes. Editor-1 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not follow from "We're missing content over there" that we should "delete this content over here" (see also WP:ATD). Do you have a reasonable belief that this content is either not notable or not what we should have on Wikipedia? It doesn't sound like it. --Izno (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that xe is addressing the open-endedness of the inclusion criteria for the list. OpenBSD comes with some games shipped in the operating system itself. There's also a formal repository of third-party games that have adaptations to the operating system. But that repository is not exhaustive, and potentially this list is identical to a list of all open-source/free-software games, as a game program can be available for OpenBSD without being listed in that repository. Also note that every citation here is directly to that repository, so verifiability here involves readers directly checking the repository.
  Ironically, it is an edit by someone other than the article creator, Special:Diff/909995269 that probably points the way, here.
  Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Izno: The correct and exact title for this page is "List of video games/PC games available in the software repository of OpenBSD" and this title obviously says why it is not in the scope of Wikipedia. None of the listed games don't have an official release for OpenBSD and do not officialy support even FreeBSD, let alone OpenBSD! as I said "such list can be created for all Linux distros and BSD OSes" what makes OpenBSD an exception?! --Editor-1 (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple case of WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - kind of a lackluster nomination, but that aside, it doesn’t appear to be a notable list. Not a single third party reliable being used to document anything. NOTCATALOGUE concerns too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Editor-1 said, this is just a list of files located in a directory on a server. It's a bit of a stretch to regard that a reliable source for the claim these are "released" on the OpenBSD operating system. I found no other sources that would suggest the topic is notable.----Pontificalibus 14:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Ajf773. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shobhana Desai[edit]

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

This is a television producer and has produced one non-notable film in 2017. Doesn't appear to be sourceable to meet WP:NCREATIVE. PROD contested, so here we are. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems genuine and passes WP:GNG. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t know squat about Bollywood but what’s given here doesn’t show general notability. Trillfendi (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Out of the 5 references in the article only one is about the subject briefly mentions about her first venture. ( 3 movie Review and 1 interview with another person not the subject)

Sunday Tribune Hum Pardesi Ho Gaye". - Is a review about the movie Hum Pardesi Ho Gaye not about the subject
Interview with Vipul A Shah - interview witha directro not about the subject
Aankhen (2002) movie review - Another moviw review
"Shobhna Desai's first production venture titled Kho Kho". - This is about the subject's first venture mentions the subject.
KHO KHO MOVIE REVIEW". - Another movie review Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pharaoh of the Wizards, I came to the same conclusion about the sources, and should have shared my analysis like you did. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just having a job as a producer is not grounds for notability - no major achievments as per WP:CREATIVE - sketchy references - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McIlvane[edit]

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

Subject overwhelmingly fails WP:NHOCKEY as a player, with only 15 AHL games, 14 DEL games and no preeminent honours. He has however spent five seasons as an assistant coach in the DEL and is currently head coach for an EBEL team, plus the article has eleven references. If these establish notability, I will withdraw the nomination. Tay87 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Largely because of his coaching, there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and so I think it meets the terms of the GNG which override those of the NHOCKEY guideline. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that be the case I certainly have no problem withdrawing the nomination or let somebody else do it on my behalf. Tay87 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a hockey player and just got his first head coaching job. It's in the Austrian Hockey League which doesn't provide any notability for a player so I don't know why it would for a coach. Coverage seems to be routine sports reporting of his career with many of the sources not being independent, so I don't believe WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Boyd Roberts[edit]

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

Notability DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched the Googles (scholar, books, news), Proquest (Global Newsstream; The New York Times), and JSTOR. While Roberts has assembled and published various genealogies, and though these findings are occasionally picked up by the press, he himself does not meet notability. There is scant biographical information on him in this article, and so little of it is cited. In sum, he fails WP:GNG: ...a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a prolific book author (if one counts compiling a genealogy as a form of book authorship) only contributes towards notability if those books have published reviews, and I can't find any in this case. Nor is any other form of notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just deprodded so that this would get a closer look like what David Eppstein did. I thought there was a possibility that something might show up.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding published reviews: publishing a well-researched and well-sourced genealogy certainly does count as book authorship. Genealogical books are reviewed in genealogical journals such as the NEHGS Register, which Gary Boyd Roberts contributed to, or the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, or others. Most of these journals are not on JSTOR, but are well-respected within their field and often peer-reviewed. His close involvement with the NEHGS shows he is more than an amateur genealogist, but a respected researcher. He definitely appears to be notable within the field of genealogy. Notable enough for Wikipedia? I am not sure. There do not appear to be many genealogists who bother to edit Wikipedia. They are too busy doing genealogy. Tea and crumpets (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC) What I mean is, there does not appear to be much consensus on Wikipedia regarding what is notable within the field of genealogy. Tea and crumpets (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have actual references to in-depth and reliably published book reviews of his books? Preferably ones that not published by an organization for which he was director of publications. It would also be helpful if they could be viewed online but that's not a requirement. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found one review for Ancestors of American Presidents in the NEHGS Register that was not written by him, but by the main editor, Henry B. Hoff, although Roberts was also a consulting editor at the time, and the book was published by the same organization. It is in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Volume 163, page 75. I have access at [6], and it looks like those with access to university libraries should be able to find it on EBSCO. Still looking for other reviews. Tea and crumpets (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there is a review of The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States in a Canadian journal, Reference & Research Book News, volume 19, issue 2, starting on page 25. I can't figure out how to access. Another review in Arkansas Family Historian, Fall 2018, Vol. 56 Issue 3, p45-46 at EBSCO. Tea and crumpets (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found it [edit: the Reference & Research Book News review]. The entry reads: 'Roberts (New England Historic Genealogical Society) outlines the "best" royal descendants--from the most recent king--of 600-plus immigrants to the American colonies or the United States from the 17th century to the present, who were notable themselves or left descendants notable in American history. The immigrants fall into three categories: colonial notables; noted 19th- and 20th- century figures, or their wives, parents, or grandparents; and colonial immigrants who left sizable, often huge, progenies. The text includes a subject index and guide, alphabetized by title or surname, followed by the listings grouped into three sections: descendants of late medieval and early modern kings, high medieval kings, and early medieval kings.' Is this a review? If so, it's light/not critical.----DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not a critical review. The NEHGR review (not written by Roberts, but by another editor, Henry B. Hoff) gives a touch of criticism: "The only disappointing aspect of the book is that the ancestry of more recent presidents is taken back only a certain number of generations, not necessarily to the immigrants." The review is three paragraphs long, and mainly describes the format of the book. It touches a little bit on the research, saying "This book, an updated version of the compiler's previous books and articles on the ancestry of American presidents, represents the current state of scholarship on the subject...There are many major additions and corrections from previous accounts." Still, not a very thorough review. Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What EBSCO databases do these appear in?--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to find out. I found them referenced at my alma mater's university library website, but I no longer have access to the databases: Reference & Research Book News, volume 19, issue 2, page 25, ISSN: 08873763 and OGS Quarterly, volume 48, issue 3, page 166, ISSN: 15461408. Also note a Forbes article from 1984 discusses him: Saunders, Laura, "Descent from the trees, Forbes, 1984, volume 134:8, page 220, ISSN: 00156914

@Tea and crumpets: Do you know of any biographical information about him that is published by an organization with which he is not affiliated?--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine any published biographical information would be limited to promotional "about the author" or "about the speaker" materials in books he published and conference materials. I don't have any in my hand at the moment. Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was some discussion of what constitutes a reliable source in the world of genealogical publications in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Dylan Goodwin, where it was suggested that a genealogical journal that is national in reach and has a firm editorial process might be considered reliable, but journals of non-national genealogical societies probably are not (Arkansas Family Historian would be an example, and probably also The New England Historical and Genealogical Register). Reference & Research Book News is perhaps more likely to be reliable, having wider scope. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would consider The New England Historical and Genealogical Register to be national in scope because most genealogists in the United States trace their lineages to New England. But it's debatable. National Genealogical Society Quarterly is a better example of a national in scope, peer-reviewed genealogical journal with critical book reviews, but their free searchable index is down right now so I am unable to locate any articles that discuss Roberts. Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the New England Historic Genealogical Society is the premier such society in the United States. His work for them allows him to meet the relevant notability guideline for scholars. His work has been cited hundreds of times by news articles. Bearian (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you mean by "such society"? Genealogical? New England? Historical? Do you have a source for NEGHS being the "premier such society"? The NEGHS article was in violation of copyright, promotional, and, for my lack of a better term, bloated until recently; that's the sort of phrasing the article used, which I haven't found elsewhere but might be able to add back if there is an independent source. Most of the news articles I found (on the genealogies of presidents and royalty, some of which wouldn't have been Boyd's own work) stemmed from several press releases. If you have something more than that, I would be interested to see it. Thanks! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few thoughts:

1. The article was started by what appears to be a primarily single-purpose account (Gary Boyd Roberts and genealogy edits). It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Gary Boyd Roberts, or someone associated with the New England Historic Genealogical Society, is the author, but it may just be a fan of his work. Regardless, the article is better now than it was before.

2. Some of Roberts' works are highly regarded within the genealogy community, but most of the press on his books and articles come from within the organization that publishes them/and/or that he works for. So far, I believe we have one source that reviews one of his works (that I pasted above). NEGHS is a large organization. Perhaps the genealogy community does not write scholarly reviews of other works as much as other disciplines do.

3. The biographical information has not been verified despite work done by several researchers here. No one has unearthed an interview or feature piece on him by any media. Should the biographical information be removed if it cannot be verified by those looking into improving the article now?

4. Wikipedia:NACADEMIC #6 could work, but I don't know whether "Senior Research Scholar" is indeed the highest position at NEGHS.

Thanks, all. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have only just started searching for sources on this person, but a quick Google News search shows that he is cited by news reports in many languages (eg Spanish, German, Indonesian, Czech, Hungarian, Italian, Arabic, etc) about the genealogical research he has done showing links between various well-known people (Clinton and Madonna, Elvis Presley and Jimmy Carter, Obama and Bush, that one of President Bush's ancestors was a slave trader, and of course that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are related). These articles go back to 2008, in the current google news (ie not archived). So I am thinking that he would meet WP:AUTHOR #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

I have also just done a quick search on Newspapers.com, and there are 744 results! I will need to spend time to cull the event listings, the occasions when he was a pall-bearer, etc - but I do see reviews of his books and reports about presentations he gave at conferences, in papers such as The Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. I think it's likely that he will also meet WP:AUTHOR #3. I will try to add sources and any information in them to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tea and crumpets: Thanks for all your comments. I see one of the databases is MasterFile Complete; I have MasterFile Premier, which is not so aptly named as it does not contain the article you cited. It sounds like Gary Boyd Roberts may meet notability based on his media coverage after all. And I too question whether NEGHS is not national... New England colonies were settled so early that it now has a wide national reach. And if not going back to immigrant generation is the main criticism in that one review, I'm actually satisfied that Boyd Roberts did not rely extensively upon commonly known research in that book (as Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's combined ancestry is). Not that that matters for our purpose here.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen: When I searched for him on the open internet, I mostly got upcycled press releases picked up by the popular media due to celebrity connections, and nothing much to show his peers/successors took his work further, unless we count the book for which he wrote an introduction or foreword. Hmm, I had not checked Newspapers.com. On looking at it now, I see he does have much more coverage there than in ProQuest newspapers! Thank you for offering to improve the article with what you've found. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that Who's Who is considered kind of fishy for notability I'm not sure if receiving their Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award (as Roberts did earlier this year) would qualify for WP:PROF#C2. However, the Who's Who website does describe it as very prestigious. [7] IntoThinAir (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have started adding references to the article - so far reviews of two publications, and sources that verify his early life, education and career. I'll try to do more tomorrow. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:AUTHOR "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Good work by Bearian and RebeccaGreen Lightburst (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dearth of reviews by independent reliable sources, certainly not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. No specific in-depth biographical coverage of him either, so does not pass WP:BIO. The "Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award" is a well-known vanity gimmick award by a vanity press. The presence of this award here is a major red flag. Nsk92 (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsk92: I don't see any mention of an "Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award" in the article about Gary Boyd Roberts under consideration here. Did you perhaps intend that as a vote on another AfD? RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Comment three paragraphs above mine, by IntoThinAir, with timestamp 22:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC). The Nelson "award", with a link, is mentioned there. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per WP:A7 and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) --KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewindia[edit]

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

A CSD that contested by the creator Sanjit2012. The company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Matthew hk (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as Promo. Not much to salvage as likely not passing notability either. As a side note, article creators cannot remove CSD tags to contest, they need to make a case on the talk page for admin review. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the author as since deleted the spam csd tag (again), but also removed most of the promo elements. May be in reach of A7 as lacking a credible claim of significance. GNG and NCORP still prevail anyway._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mikiko Watanabe[edit]

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

It’s a stub and there isn’t a lot of information on this particular person. Of course, I don’t mean to be disrespectful. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HurricaneGeek2002 :P (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Of course it is very sad that this person died, but sentiment cannot and is not be the basis for retaining an article. The truth is that this article was created only because of the tragedy at the Kyoto animation studio, and therefore fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT, the lodestars of the notability policy for people who are becoming notorious solely because of one event. Michepman (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person is not notable outside of this one event, I was thinking of a redirect but that would run into WP:MEMORIAL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft or Keep - turn this into an draft and try to improve it. BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kyoto Animation. This is probably our best-case scenario. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while I initially considered a redirect vote, I agree with Knowledgekid87's concerns regarding WP:MEMORIAL, and I think deletion would be the better option. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral maybe Miss Watanabe is notable, hints for notability are given. --Goroth (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or do something sensible, she was an art director as seen here [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a458:2f92:1:5455:a519:4f45:2003 (talk • contribs) 22:54, August 6, 2019 (UTC)

Just because she was a art director does not mean she’s notable. By that logic, every art director you see in movie/tv show credits would have their own page. We can’t redirect the page because it would fall under WP:MEMORIAL. Also, please sign your statements, thank you. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft or Delete - As it stands right now, there are not enough different sources to have this as an article on its own, but perhaps drafting it to see if more sources can be found to not let this article be too stubby would give it chances. ShindoNana ^talk? 12:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mikiko Watanabe was a noteworthy member of Kyoto Animation and served as one of the studio's main staff on the art direction side (overseeing all non-character art in her productions). In animation, the art director is a senior/supervisory role equivalent to animation director or character designer (which receive their own pages without questions of notability). On an animation production, she would have been one of the top four artists on the project (director, character designer, chief animation director, art director). Additionally, as Watanabe was the art director for 7 productions, she was a prolific creator and one of the major staff on all these projects. She also had a long career with the company as a background artist (first step to becoming an art director) of more than 10 years. This article needs more sourcing and explanation of her role to be suitable, but the question of notability is answered by her extensively production history and importance to the company. Simply because other equivalently-important creatives who hold her job title in other companies/productions haven't been properly represented in Wikipedia doesn't mean she should be removed. LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources exist demonstrating notability in her role as an anime film art director. Polyamorph (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no pictures of her and besides the stuff she worked on, little to no info on her. We can’t include somebody in a article just because they worked on something or two. I also don’t see any notability at all. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You think a photo is a requirement for inclusion? Being a stub is also not reason for deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it is a reason for it to be deleted. There no point of the subject having its own page when there’s not much info on the subject. How can she be notable if there’s not much info on her? HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are articles in need of expansion, not deletion. There are many sources that state this individual's substantial contributions (as art director) of some significant animated films. Per the notability of people guidelines, a person is notable if they have ...created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. This work has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length movie, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.. Sources are sparse but they do exist, more reviews can be found by searching in Japanese. The recent coverage (despite WP:NOTNEWS) does provide reliably sourced biographical information. I believe they are sufficiently notable. Polyamorph (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A keep vote seems to have been made in the middle of the above conversation. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. There’s also the matter of WP:NOPAGE. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's an article in need of expansion. Further, it is conspicuous to me that a man with similar credentials, Futoshi Nishiya, whose article was created due to the same event, is not nominated for deletion. lethargilistic (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No convincing claim of notability and not notable per se. Agricola44 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no proof from any of the keep votes that the article's notable, just vague claims that it is. Obviously it's a terrible tragedy, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable in herself, only notable because of the tragedy, in which 35 people were killed - the article Kyoto Animation arson attack#Victims mentions her among the dead, there is no need for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Sharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Film producers are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they exist. I'm unable to verify if the subject really produced these films and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDB link shows that he was only an associate producer for 5 Weddings and Amma ki Boli came in 2013. Can not find anymore solid source that tells anything new.

IamKhandelwal (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Lefcentreright (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be WP:TOOSOON with only one co-producing role of note and a lack of coverage. May be notable in the future but not at present, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Thompson Bartholomew[edit]

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

The fact that this article has survived since 2005 only sourced to the author's own website is a sad commentary on our lack of monitoring articles. It may also indicate it is too involved of a process to nominate articles for deletion. I looked for additional sources. I got one or two reviews of her novel, but in places that review basically every young adult novel that gets published, so not something that would show the novel is notable and clearly not enough to show Bartholomew is a notable writer. Beyond that I found works by Bartholomew, such as the poem in the Friend and an article in Meridian Magazine co-authored with her huband. Here (http://www.ldsliving.com/search/author_search?q=Lois+Thompson+Bartholomew) is a listing of her four articles in Meridian Magazine. This is not the stuff notability is made of. This passing one-line mention in an amazingly exhaustive history of Walnut Grove, Minnesota (https://books.google.com/books?id=KBNVAwAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA1993&lpg=RA1-PA1993&dq=Lois+Thompson+Bartholomew&source=bl&ots=nBXAcETim8&sig=ACfU3U1StEL0gTWMEdnxFuPJOVmMPX3ZPQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt1NuM0ffjAhWWUs0KHZ-jBi44ChDoATAGegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=Lois%20Thompson%20Bartholomew&f=false) notes that she lived there for a few years. It's telling that to even get to a third review of her novel I have to dig all the way until I find this blog post [9] from the artly named Forgotten stories blog that gives her work as an example of pseudo-fantasy. Bartholomew is just not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lack of eyes on this article is appalling, especially given the utter lack of notability assertations and sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found 5 reviews of her novel (in Booklist, School Library Journal, Book Report, Kirkus and Publishers Weekly), but as it's only one novel not several, it would be more likely to make the book notable, rather than her. I'm not suggesting that the novel is notable, though - even apart from any considerations of how much reviews in those journals contribute to notability, they say things like "the novel ultimately falls flat. Both the main and supporting characters as well as their relationships to one another remain cursorily developed. The unmasking of several characters' true identities at the end of the novel consequently delivers little suspense or resonance for readers"; "The conclusion is somewhat disappointing because it is so open ended"; and "there is little to hook readers into making an emotional investment. Without a history of the kingdom, the plot is pretty thin. Tasha's father sounds more like a really nice rich guy than a king, and his abdication sounds more like a lark than the grave act that it was. Another jarring note is the death of young Gil. The situation doesn't fit the rest of the story and seems gratuitous. The author's note asserts that this is not a fantasy but places the kingdom of Comnor alongside Narnia and Prydain. It is a fantasy, but certainly not on the same map as either of those realms." As for WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, there is just not enough: in Newspapers.com I only found birth notices, a book reading, and an article she had written about botulism. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ORPHAN, likely fan/vanity created by SPA from the early days of WP. Agree with premise of nom and would point out further that the current fervor for creating articles that counter bias and such is basically serving to generate articles like this far faster than they can be policed/deleted. Agricola44 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Did we have that problem back in 2005 when this article was created? Probably. That was when we thought every candidate for US house was notable among some other unwise inclusion criteria. I have found several articles in Category:1924 births that are sourced only to IMDb. Some may have more sources findable though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts (film)[edit]

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

Does not qualifies WP:NFO or WP:GNG, no signs of notability, no reliable sources found to establish this is a notable movie. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article looks well written enough to stay. Docor726 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)— Docor726 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Per sources that are already in the article. SL93 (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"Must-Watch: HEARTS"	?	Site is not reliable for sure	It's not a review by someone else, just a long qoute by Nakshatra	✘ No
Bhatia, Saumya (5 September 2014). The Asian Age			whole news is just two paragraphs.	✘ No
Pawar, Yogesh (9 March 2014) DNA	Written by another activist/friends		Only reliable source	✘ No
Godbole, Tanika (17 February 2014) Gaylaxy	Mag aims at promotion of queer issues	Editorial processes are unknown/ possibly self published no editorial processes.	As it is affiliated source and unreliable	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, Even after looking at the above table would you keep your vote the same? QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes. I found an archive page of The Asian Age and although it is a brief mention, it can be used to verify things in the article. I found an archived link of the second dead link which is a review. DNA India is independent. I don't think you understand what independent sources are. Gaylaxy is about queer issues, but they had no hand in making or releasing the film. SL93 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, * SO we have only two articles out of one has reliable and significant coverage and another has two paragraphs only.

* Gaylaxy is not a reliable source as their editorial processes are unknown and it's a possibly self-published one. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaylaxy even has an article here. How about you stop responding to me because I’m not changing my vote? The closing admin will take everything into account. SL93 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional views of the suitability of sources can help clarify consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remain on my stand, as I don't think movie which has only 2/3 reliable sources should have an article on wikipedia. lack of sources and that too reliable sources is a sign of being notable itself. As the movie is recent one, it was notable, it should have more coverage of reliable sources. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can't find any sources that show that it was actually released. All the sources in the article talk about it as currently being made, and due for release. While they have some information about what's in the film, I don't think they add up to SIGCOV of the film (some have more about the actors than about this film). I have no problem with the reliability or independence of the sources, I just don't think there's enough coverage to meet the notability guideline for unfinished or unreleased films, WP:NFF, which says "films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." If anyone can find evidence that the film was released, and reviews of the completed film which provide SIGCOV, I'm happy to reconsider. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any evidence that the film was actually released - does not meet "widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" as per WP:NFO - definitely non-notable - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Richmond#School of Professional and Continuing Studies. No secondary sources cited, but still can merge some primary source paraphrase. czar 00:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Richmond School of Professional & Continuing Studies[edit]

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect or Merge. Not notable to be a stand alone article - Redirect or merge to University of Richmond. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Richmond. When you strip out the simple listings (everything except the lead) per WP:NOTDIRECTORY there are only a few sentences. There is no reason why these can't be contained in the University of Richmond article.----Pontificalibus 07:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Syrian Democratic Forces#Alleged internal conflict between SDF factions. Although the merge option has received a fair amount of support, there is an unresolved issue regarding the reliability of the sourcing and original research. Issues of that nature cannot be resolved by merging. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inner-SDF conflict during the Syrian Civil War[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The School of Artisan Food[edit]

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The definition What is artisan food at [10] was cited in multiple research papers, example: Dunne, Michelle; Wright, Angela (2017). "Irish local and artisan foods: Multiples make space!". Cogent Business & Management. 4 (1). doi:10.1080/23311975.2017.1324242.

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many "delete" !votes refer to the issue of paid editing; however, the article has since been cleaned up; and it's this version that needs to be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Western Power Corporation[edit]

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

May not meet WP:GNG. No third party source. Current article relies entirely on a single article.

Support deletion or merging into another article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - don’t have the ability to search for sources right now, but this was the main electricity company in WA for over a decade. Would be shocked if it failed GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I've tried searching but didn't find much coverage other than press releases. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 05:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added digital sources. Additional sources be available in print version. Subject is notable as the former major electricity provider for the state of Western Australia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep to the point of snow - the corporate body was of importance in the western australian context, and https://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=western+power+corporation clearly shows the notability, and importance of that particular iteration of a power generating body in an Australian state. JarrahTree 06:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - was the major electricity supplier to an Australian state - a WP:BEFORE check would have been a wise move in this instance. Bookscale (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ADHOM with reference to accusing editors of not having carried out a WP:BEFORE search. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bookscale, PS I had done a BEFORE check but it's muddled with other energy providers with the same name. And several of the top hits were press releases. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Jarrah Tree. Hughesdarren (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Flight Memory[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jose Martinez-Diaz[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

African-American lobby in foreign policy[edit]

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

I don't think this is a hoax as such, but it definitely seems to fail WP:GNG and heavily violates WP:SYNTH.

3 of the refs are to the website of TransAfrica, founded in 1977, who already have an article, and one is to resolutions by ANLCA, which existed for 5 years in the 1960s. The other two refs are to a single 1996 paper by David A. Dickson.

The external links are both dead. What we have so far are 3 disparate organizations, some of which did not even exist at the same time. The claim that they constitute an "African-American lobby in foreign policy" would seem to be synthesis, unless other authors tie them together, and is not a notable distinct concept unless sources treat it as such. Dickson does seem to do this. Do we have any others?

Looking for new sources for 'African American foreign policy lobby' (no quotes), among our new sources we find this paper from 1980, but given the timeframe it describes and specific subject matter of southern Africa that it focuses on, it seems that it may just be about TransAfrica. Of the other sources, at first a few look promising, but this paper does not refer to the lobby as distinct from TransAfrica, so it is no good, same as this book. This book isn't about a lobby.

All the other sources, while perhaps being on related subjects, don't seem to discuss any distinct lobby of this kind. As GNG says, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."

Of interest may be that the article was created by a user who is blocked for sockpuppetry and before that for edit warring, so who knows if this article was in the service of some POV.

Since we seem to only have 1 paper on this direct subject as distinct from TransAfrica, it seems that GNG is not met and the article should be deleted. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH as detailed by nom. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 02:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given by nom. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --SalmanZ (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TransAfrica already has an article, and discussion about TransAfrica makes up 90% of this article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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