< 17 July	19 July >

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. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denil Maldonado[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Subject has not played in a fully professional league nor has he represented his nation at senior or Olympic level. Simione001 (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG by a pretty clear margin. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Maldonado is also a "fringe" international player, having appeared on the bench for the last five Honduras matches but never being substituted in for the Gold Cup or recent friendlies against Paraguay, and could make his inaugural international appearance soon. SportingFlyer T·C 07:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How can one suggest that someone with 50 starts for one of the biggest teams in Honduras wouldn't easily meet WP:GNG? This is a WP:BEFORE fail - similar to that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristian Cálix. Players on top Honduran teams generally meet GNG. Is it time for a topic-ban? Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Doesn't meet NFOOTY now, and the argument that "he may meet NFOOTY soon" should be discounted per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. As for WP:GNG, there is El Heraldo, which is an example of WP:SIGCOV. Interviews like [7] (and [8]) aren't independent–they're the same as a press release–all the information is coming from the subject, not from any independent journalism. The rest of SF's sources above are brief mentions, devoid of content about the subject. I'm not seeing a second example of SIGCOV, though some come close [9] [10]. Unlike Christian Calix, who only had coverage in La Prensa/Diez, Maldonado at least has coverage in multiple Honduran newspapers, including El Heraldo and Tiempo. If/when he becomes a national player and/or a second example of SIGCOV is found or written, the article can be moved to mainspace. – Levivich 18:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easily meets GNG with sigcov with the listed articles. I don't know how you got the impression that a feature interviews in major newspapers don't indicate notability - they may not be the best source for accuracy on all issues, but that they even exist at all demonstrates GNG has been met, with 5 very good sources - I wouldn't call two of them borderline! A quick google search shows there's more too - even the amount of (not necessarily GNG) other coverage in the last couple of days is impressive - and this article isn't new. This article should never have been nominated. I don't understand how you imply it's a better case than a case that the community overwhelmingly had consensus was a keep, and you vote against keeping! That implies that you aren't imposing community standards here, but trying to change the standards. Nfitz (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems Honduras isn't on FPL so this doesn't pass NFOOTY (this is another NFOOTY weakness - "strong" players in the top-flight leagues that are semi-pro, particularly if they are at the edges of the national squad, are often notable - they definitely have more coverage than a player who made a few appearances in a 3rd (fully-pro) league and then disappeared). Per the multitude of hits on google-news - skimming through them - I'm convinced that WP:GNG is likely to be met. Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick search shows that the player would past WP:GNG with references stating him not even a week ago. HawkAussie (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree that saying he might meet NFOOTBALL soon is WP:CRYSTAL - but that doesn't matter when he clearly meets GNG. Giant Snowman 08:27, 25 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vilayet Jafri[edit]

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

This page does not meet Wikipedia's Author notability guidelines. There are multiple areas where the article attempts to establish notability, but fails.

The article says he is well known in the entertainment sector in India, yet there seems to be no significant secondary coverage. A breakdown of the article's sources: 1st Source: Does not mention subject 2nd Source: Dead Link 3rd Source: mentions the subject's name once, but there is not enough context to determine if the source is referring to the same person. 4th Source: An editorial, which does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. 5th Source: A photo gallery.

A google search of the name reveals only 300 results, which consist mainly of either unrelated material, Wikipedia duplicate sites, etc. There also exists no Hindi variant of the page, which is another sign the subject lacks notability.

The article makes numerous bold but false claims, most notably that Mr. Jafri has won an Indian Academy Award in 1989 (which there is no record of) and that he helped create a show called Badhte Kadam, which the article says is the longest running play in Indian history with 482 nights in a row. The problem is that 1. Badhte Kadam appears to be an indian charity, and 2. that there is actual reputable independent coverage of the play 'Hai Mera Dil,' which is the actual longest showing play in India, with over 1,000 showings (source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/With-1098-shows-Hindi-play-among-longest-running-in-Mumbai/articleshow/21889796.cms )

There are also no reviews that I can find of any of his supposedly 9 books, 11 plays, 20+ sound and light productions or any of his radio and TV serials.

The article claims the subject created the play Shatranj Mohre in 1999, but the play is an adaptation of a film of the same name, was Created by P.L.Deshpande, not Vilayet Jafri, and has been performed in India since the 1970s.

Awards: While the article mentions him having won numerous awards, there are no reliable sources to verify this information. In reality, there is information proving the exact opposite. The page states Mr. Jafri won the Tulsi Samman award, yet the sourced list of award winners on the award's page does not mention him. There is also no evidence the "Sanket Samman" award even exists. Going through every award results in either A. The subject not being listed among the award's recepients or B. Not enough verifiable coverage of the award to determine the award even exists.

Conclusion: this article is more than likely a hoax. Nothing the article says is backed up with any evidence whatsoever, with much of the information directly contradicting known facts (most notably having received an Indian Academy Award). No verifiable media coverage can be found. The icing on the cake is this sentence on the original draft of the page:

"Vilayet Jafri was born on 2nd October 1935 in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh, India to an illustrious family of patriots who stood against the British during the Indian freedom struggle. As a result, his Great Grandfather was sentenced to death while his Grandfather was imprisoned in 1921."

The article was clearly written from a non-neutral point of view and none of the information presented by the article should be considered trustworthy. Propose deletion Firstclass306 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Firstclass306 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Firstclass306 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page is terrible, but, more to the point, I got only 7 hits in a proquest newspapers search. Mere menitons with the exception of:

Vilayet Jafri on directing Ek Jama Do... RODERICKS, INDIRA. The Times of India (1861-current); Mumbai, India [Mumbai, India]23 Mar 2007: B16. Overall, I am just not seeing enough to pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@ThinkingGirl: there are some sources into article but they has not been cited inline into it. Can you suppoort every sententes of article with RS?Hispring (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The same person had created the page Chandni_Jafri too. Seems the editor is paid and using Wikipedia to promote the specific family. Fails WP:Notability --Harshil169 (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have sources demonstrating notability. Haukur (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacking significant coverage; he appears to exist but is not notable either. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Rampage from Exile Tribe. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaisei Takechi[edit]

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

No indication of individual notability for the performer in the group The Rampage from Exile Tribe. Individuals without notability outside of the band or group are normally redirected to to the group or band per WP:BAND, but the creator of the article removed the redirect, so I'm requesting input from the community. There is no significant independent coverage of the person outside of the band, therefore he fails WP:GNG, the article can be deleted, but redirect to the group is the normal route. Hzh (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A number of other individuals within the group are similarly lacking in individual notability, some of them appeared in minor roles in film, TV or other productions as part of the group that do not confer individual notability, therefore they are also bundled in this AfD below:

Hzh (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to The Rampage from Exile Tribe - no notability outside the group. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all. jawiki articles of Rui Yonamine, Takahide Suzuki, Ryu, Shogo Yamamoto, LIKIYA, Itsuki Fujiwara, Hokuto Yoshino only have sources related to TRfET, while Riku, Takuma Goto, and Zin have no jawiki articles at all. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:34, 21 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atli Harðarson[edit]

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

Philosopher and associate professor at the University of Iceland. I'm not seeing WP:NPROF here nor any WP:GNG grounds for an article. Haukur (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now found one newspaper profile: [11] and a couple of book reviews: [12][13] Is this enough? Haukur (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites of 46 nowhere near enough for WP:Prof, even for philosophy. Routine reviews inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I note that this BLP is part of a mass translation of articles in the Icelandic Wikipedia into the English one. More discrimination would be appreciated. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Another philosopher biography from the same translation effort is Arnór Hannibalsson. Think we should nominate that one too? Haukur (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his citations on Google scholar appear to be almost non-existent. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - fails the prof test and seems run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tech Report[edit]

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (July 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about a random tech site which contains reviews for products that were also reviewed on multiple other similar sites, not really notable for anything significant according to Google Search and other search engines and cannot be improved in any way. Current version of the site does not even contain verifiable information about site owners or about its history or any information beyond "reviews" and articles about "deals" with referral links to online shops (here's an example of referral spam links https://techreport.com/news/34670/bargain-basement-32-gb-of-ddr4-3200-ram-for-125-and-plenty-more/). The only 2 reliable third-party sources that mentions it is Ananandtech which briefly mentioned that the owner of the site has stepped down and ExtremeTech which noted TechReport's benchmarking method article here. Long story short: fails WP:GNG, has no useful verifiable info from reliable third-party sources other than brief mention that the site owner has stepped down and brief mention of benchmarking method. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: due to extra sources found by a very helpful new editor Foxieauxy below, which I have already incorporated into article, I would like to change my own vote to "Keep" since I believe this article now has enough sources to determine its notability. The article still requires clean-up but this has no relevance to this nomination.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to a closing admin: when counting votes, please be aware of the fact that an attempt at vote brigading was made by a former contributor of the site at TechReport's own forums, the archived link is here in case this forum thread will be deleted: http://archive.fo/h15he Please note the time of this post at TechReport forums and the time of first "Keep" vote.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't seem to find any reliable third-party coverage for this website. So, delete as per nom. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a longtime reader of the site. What constitutes "reliable third-party coverage"? The Tech Report was one of the first independent hardware review sites on the internet. Notably, the site invented and popularized the concept of frame-time-based benchmarking which is used in some form by most hardware review sites that are popular today, such as Gamers Nexus. You can see here: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2354-scott-wasson-interview-on-amd-tech-frametime-tests where GN talks to site founder (now AMD employee) Scott Wasson about his invention of the technique. (Also: third-party coverage.) This article is the original article in question: https://techreport.com/review/21516/inside-the-second-a-new-look-at-game-benchmarking/ The site has new ownership recently and the new owners are utter morons, but that doesn't remove the site's historical importance. If it weren't for The Tech Report we'd all be wandering around thinking multi-GPU gaming PCs were a good idea. Foxieauxy (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are curious what constitutes "reliable third party coverage" - I highly suggest reading about General Notability Guidelines by clicking on WP:GNG. After that, I recommend using Google search to find reliable, significant third-party sources that mention TechReport. You provided a link to Gamers Nexus - that is good, unfortunately it contains a YouTube video interview and such things are generally not reliable sources per WP:NOYT, not to mention the fact that Mr. Scott Wasson (whom I love dearly and been following on Twitter for many years and went to BBQ with, all of which has no relevance to encyclopedic value of this article) has departed TechReport long time ago and being interviewed as a person not associated with the site, and multiple times in this video Mr. Scott Wasson says phrases such as "The work I did" or "I was doing database benchmarking for servers" (when talking about where he got an inspiration to implement frame pacing measurement into GPU benchmarks), without using words like "we did" or "TechReport did" so I believe that YouTube video interview would be more suitable (if we will disregard that YT videos are generally not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia) for a separate article about Mr. Scott himself (since he attributes everything to himself) ;-) And TechReport is not being mentioned in ANY form in the text of that GamersNexus article you linked to. If you would be able to find more reliable sources (preferably not YT videos or forum posts or TechReport's own posts, for the reasons stated at Notability Guideline) that mention the significance of TR in great details - you are welcome to add them to the article, I would only be happy to see that because I could not (I tried, and I know how to do that - I've been using interwebs since 1996).Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of the oldest and most reliable tech sites on the web, it's been going for 20 years and maintained a high journalistic and review standard since then, challenging game and hardware vendors and keeping the industry honest. As pointed out above, the most notable contribution it made was to introduce a new and critical method of reviewing the GPU which resulted in ending the viability of SLI and CrossFire in the GPU market and these technologies' retirement by NVIDIA and AMD respectively. Concentrate2 (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concentrate2, I understand that this might be an emotional topic for you since you wrote so many passionate words about TechReport, unfortunately your subjective opinion about "high journalistic and review standard" is irrelevant since it is not supported by any reliable third-party sources ;-) Same goes about "honesty" and other nonsense which is basically a WP:PUFF (I suggest clicking on this thing if you do not understand what I mean). I highly suggest finding something other than that, something that would be backed up by reliable sources and not an opinion of anonymous Wikipedia editor, which have no encyclopedic value and which is exactly what WP:NOT is talking about (I also suggest clicking on that policy link). Same suggestion goes for other people coming from TR forums after their attempt at vote brigading this article by bringing attention to the fact that it is being nominated for deletion and asking forum users to "join forces" to keep this article - please discard your personal emotions of being a long-term part of TR community and try to think from a position of anonymous user who just want to find useful, factual information about TechReport (and not, say, about Mr. Scott Wasson), based on existing Wikipedia policies and rules. As I mentioned in my reply to other user, perhaps you'll be able to find a significant coverage about TechReport by CNN, PC Magazine, CNET, Nvidia's or AMD's published articles or in some published book, but until you do - I would suggest to refrain from purely emotional votes. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be projecting your own emotional involvement by claiming I have such, given your above statement about how you "love dearly" the founder of this website you want deleted from Wikipedia, you have been following him on Twitter for many years, and have gone to the Tech Report BBQ's. That's prima facie evidence of your own personal relationship and involvement and so is a conflict of interest WP:APPARENTCOI. It's also unusual that you admit that you are on, reading, and linking here to new posts on the website's user forum, as this strongly suggests you are more involved with that website than you implied in the deletion proposal where you described it as just "a random tech site". I also don't like that you assume my gender. Concentrate2 (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concentrate2, I do not believe you understand what WP:APPARENTCOI means or implies. I do not, and never had, any financial interest in TechReports, nor am I an owner of competing business. The mere fact that I stated that I follow Mr. Scott on Twitter or has talked to him elsewhere or respect his work has absolutely no impact on my reasons for nominating this article. If you cast aside your baseless assumptions, you will see that I have nominated other articles for deletion in the past, as well as participated in votes for many others articles at AfD page. I do apologize for assuming your gender and I will remove all mentions of it. Now can we please get back to the actual issue here? Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom thank you for the change to your own vote to "Keep". Apologies if my understanding of WP:APPARENTCOI wasn't correct, I thought that it included having an apparent existing releationship with the subject of the article, and particularly that not declaring that relationship could reasonably be said to undermine the primary role as it gives the impression of lack of neutrality. And that should be particularly important when proposing deletion. Concentrate2 (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the argument here? That TR isn't "notable"?
Isn't this kind of a Catch-22? You won't find businesses talking about the relevance of their competitors. I think you're expecting something that simply would never exist.
You claim to have looked for other sites linking TR and make the hilarious claim that you've been using the internet since 1996, as if that has any bearing on anything. I don't believe you for a microsecond. Did you really look? TR has been referenced a thousand times over by other sites, which you could find if you had even attempted to check:
PC Perspective

...by the way, Samsung was so taken by the SSD Endurance Test that they made a music video out of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS6JJN7j-gQ

Hexus.net, largest UK hardware news site

Anandtech (you know, the biggest English-language hardware site in the world?)

You can find similar results from Tom's Hardware, The Guru of 3D, and Hard|OCP—despite the latter having a personal grudge against TR. You take a patronizing tone and discard our remarks as "emotional" but fail to address the completely reasonable and reasoned arguments that we've made, nor even do the most basic research which you claim to be so good at.
What's your personal involvement; why do you want to see the article removed? It clearly satisfies the notability requirements as linked at WP:GNG. Foxieauxy (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to find more sources. Most of those are, unfortunately, unusable because they mention the site very briefly but I will integrate useful sources into article. You are also welcome to do it yourself. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References in manufacturers' promotional materials: AMD Radeon 7790, Nvidia ION Platform, Intel Core i7, EVGA TV Tuner card. Other stuff: Article syndicated on Ars Technica. 77.138.85.77 (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding additional sources. Unfortunately they are very brief mentions which basically say "this site exists" and do not really help establishing notability of this site, per WP:GNG, and the Ars article is just a direct reprint of TechReport's own article. If you will find better sources - I would be happy to incorporate them. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters now that the deletion was rescinded, but won't a reprint in a notable publication establish notability? And why don't review quotes indicate notability in the eyes of those manufacturers? 77.138.85.77 (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foxieauxy, do you have some kind of connection to The Tech Report? Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I've spent more time writing forum and comment posts on that site than most people will ever write in their lives, even if they attain a liberal arts degree. But no, I don't have any particular connection to the site aside from the community. But that's just the thing; TR's users are a community. I got a bit rankled earlier when the original comment was making its ignorant, flimsy arguments for deletion and I apologize for that. It's ridiculous, though. It's like someone walked into the general store, founded in 1889 before the city was even incorporated, and told us it's not going to be listed in the phone book (or Google maps or whatever) because it looks dumpy next to the Walmart and Albertson's that just opened nearby. I became furious at the description of Cyril's concern about the site being deleted off Wikipedia being characterized as "brigading" in an attempt to discredit our concern. Two or three posters with legitimate concerns does not a "brigade" make, nor does "brigading" even make sense here.

By the way, there's more noteworthy events even than just the SSD Endurance Experiment and the genesis of "Inside the Second". As Nordichardware notes, TR was the first site to break the news of AMD limiting Opteron shipments due to the TLB erratum, first to provide more detail about the nature of the workaround, and first to quantify its considerable performance impact. Bit-tech links TR's results here.

I could go on and on but frankly I think I've made my point. Foxieauxy (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding more useful sources, I will incorporate them into article. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megasports Warszawa[edit]

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

No significant coverage for this amateur sports team. SL93 (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick browse of the team's name has mentions of this team actually running in the Polish Korfball league but in terms of WP:N it fails on that front. HawkAussie (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article, it's not notable itself and also fails GNG.Forest90 (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have had regard to the fact that this team has apparently won a national championship, that the sources are likely to be in Polish and both the responses have been in the last couple of days so a relist may promote a fuller discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've updated some of the information and added national and international competitions. They were national champions in 2013/14 and are quite highly ranked in the national association. Nicnote^{say hello!}_contribs 18:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:11, 18 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo (2018 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/(Cargo) (2017 film)

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

This is the third time an article about the same film has been created. Without being able to see previous versions, it is difficult to know if anything has changed since it was deleted a year ago. In any case, this is a film that received neither acclaim nor much interest from critics. It received no awards and has only a handful of reviews. A non-notable horror film. Bitter Oil (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Bitter Oil (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bitter Oil (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The previous deletions were for versions of the article from before the film was released. The film now exists and the nominator has given no policy-based reason for deletion. The very fact that Thorsten Quaeschning composed an original soundtrack is as far as I'm concerned automatic notability right there. ‑ Iridescent 21:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should I have included the link to Wikipedia:Notability (films)? This film fails all criteria and doesn't have the significant coverage that would be required to meet general notability guidelines. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it does have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as full reviews in Aint it Cool News and Film Threat (already referenced in the article) which are listed WikiProject Film reliable sources so WP:GNG is passed and there are likely more sources available, also the review in Rue Morgue also seems to be reliable as that is a print magazine with offices in a number of countries and with it's own Wikipedia article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does not appear to be notable based on my interpretation of WP:NFILM, but the article cites a fair number of RS, and thus it meets WP:GNG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:00, 24 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Lusk[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as mayor of Prosser, WA (Population: 5,714). All non-local coverage Lusk has received is in relation to as sex scandal involving her and a minor so it looks like a case of WP:BLP1E. GPL93 (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @GPL93: I haven't read through it right now, but I don't think a mayor is a low-profile individual and as such WP:BIO1E, not WP:BLP1E would apply. --MrClog (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prosser WA is nowhere near large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors, but the coverage shown is not enough to make her special just because she got a small blip of 1E coverage in the context of a single event — and quibbling over whether this is a BIO1E or a BLP1E doesn't make a big difference here, because it's still a 1E bio either way. WP:GNG does not just count the number of media hits a person can show and keep anyone who hits two; it still tests for context, and what's described here is not a context that passes the ten-year test for importance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "name and shame all sex offenders" database. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and does not pass WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and is a negative BLP. SportingFlyer T·C 07:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail passes WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MrClog (talk) 21:31, 24 July 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. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Boyd[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as the highest elected office Boyd has held is the mayor of Medina, WA (population: under 3,000). GPL93 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as Nom says, Medina is way too small for even the mayor to satisfy NPOL. No other indication of notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Medina WA is not large enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on its mayors just for existing as mayors, but the sources here aren't notability-making coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:NPOL #2: two are government-published primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the ones that are to real media are glancing namechecks of his existence as a side player in coverage of other people. As always, the notability test for smalltown mayors is not just that they've had their name mentioned in the local media twice, because no mayor of anywhere would ever fail that test at all — the notability test for smalltown mayors is the reception of significant and substantive coverage about them, which demonstrates a credible reason why they could be considered significantly more notable than most other mayors of most other places the size of Medina. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. Sourcing of the elected councilmember is entirely local, not showing anything why the subject should be included in an international encyclopedia (as described by Bearcat). --Enos733 (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails WP:NPOL. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:08, 22 July 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bennett (basketball, born 1984)[edit]

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

This player does not qualify for Wikipedia's notability standards for basketball players. Specifically, he has never appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association, Liga ACB, EuroLeague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Lega Basket Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, Greek Basket League or Israeli Basketball Premier League. Omnibus (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It’s true he doesn’t meet WP:NBASKETBALL, but many players who meet WP:GNG don’t. What seals my Delete vote is that he also seems to fail WP:GNG as I cannot find sufficient independent WP:RS to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Looking for sources is made a bit more difficult by the Virginia coach of the same name dominating the search results for “Tony Bennett basketball,” but I tried a number of other word combinations which should have yielded results and came up empty. Rikster2 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the player is notable. GNG is met, in addition WP:ANYBIO based on the many awards this subject received as a basketball player: He was part team that won the NBL championship in 2014–15. He was a Premier Basketball League All-Star in 2010 and an Independent Basketball Association All-Star in 2012. In addition notable for playing professional basketball, and notable for a suspension. The brawl he was involved in was notable and remains notable. O.Canada, CBC, NBL Canada Lightburst (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please demonstrate your claim that GNG is met in the form of in-depth WP:RS that are centered in the subject (not merely articles about the team he happens to play for that mention his name)? The awards you name do not establish notability (all from what are considered “minor” leagues), nor does the single event of a brawl per WP:ONEEVENT. Rikster2 (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreeing with Rikster2 to delete (suppose my vote is obvious) the two minor league awards (all-star selections) you listed do not presume notability. Specifically an award or selection needs to come from either the NBA G League or Continental Basketball Association, or from one of the major basketball leagues listed above. See WP:NHOOPS. Omnibus (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that he passes any form of notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 24 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feerfeer-Xarardheere[edit]

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

No references that demonstrate that a city of this name exists, and nothing found on Google search. There is a Feerfeer region and a Harardhere in the general area, but not at the provided coordinates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying Delete until a proper article can be made about a potential population center topic at this location. Google Maps does in fact show at those coordinates a village, but the name is "Afbarwaqo District" and there's no way this place has a population of 1,000.Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Openstreetmap puts the dot exactly on a settlement, Af-Barwaaqo, which we already have an article for, but for which an article exists in detail on the Somali wikipedia. Probably delete on WP:V grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 04:40, 19 July 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. Withdrawn by the nom as I missed the international match (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dalí (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. To meet the SSC he would have to have played in a match for a fully professional league which is not the case. The sources are too weak to meet GNG. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:06, 18 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Fire Burning (Jaci Velasquez album)[edit]

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

Independent album that did not chart and has no notable coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 17:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Jaci Velasquez) - doesn't satisfy WP:NALBUM and couldn't find anything in a BEFORE sweep to demonstrate such Nosebagbear (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redirect is not necessary as it's not a likely search term. Adding an entry linking to the musician's article at the DAB would be a better choice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how is this in any way notable? It's totally run of the mill and, but its own admission, uncommon. Bearian (talk) 13:33, 25 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me (album)[edit]

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

Independent album that did not chart and has no notable coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A redirect is not necessary as it's not a likely search term. Adding an entry linking to the musician's article at the DAB would be a better choice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Demonstration School[edit]

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

We generally keep secondary schools, but this isn't a secondary school. We would keep it anyway if it independently met WP:GNG, but it doesn't seem to meet that either. Most of the references here are either not independent of the school, don't mention the school, or are not WP:RS for some other reason. My own searching found lots of mentions of the school, but mostly as directory listings.

It might make sense to do a selective merge of the History section into National Louis University or perhaps Wilmette, Illinois, but the rest of this is just trivia and fluff. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of extraordinary notability, we do not keep middle school articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dion[edit]

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

The prose in the present article is apparently a copy of the subject's about page. Sources seem to consist of mainly of credits (e.g. Discogs) in which our subject appears as a producer (or not at all). Older versions of the article have what appear to be routine announcement of job changes. Seems he (or a different subject of the same name) ran a small record label and held various positions as manager (the label being revived after he left business). Coverage does not rise up to WP:SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like gratuitous insertion of associated acts Catladyz6 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Notable music industry executive. WHAT THE HECK HAS HAPPENED TO THIS ARTICLE???? Somebody has morphed the original subject, Michael Dion the jazz record label producer into another completely different Michael Dion! This is the original Michael Dion and somehow over time, a completely different subject has been placed over the top. as per. Karl Twist (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nom refers to the pre-hijacked version. Neither Dion rises up to GNG. Dion ran ITI Records - a small label. The label went dormant when he went on to work in various roles in the industry - then was reopened after 30 years when he went independent again. What is lacking is in depth coverage of Dion as an individual (as opposed to routine coverage on job changes, passsing mentions, and appearing in credits as a producer).Icewhiz (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above. If that's the case then the subject page should have been reverted to what it was prior to the deliberate sabotage. Otherwise people have no idea what they're reading. Michael Dion the label owner and executive is a notable figure in the music industry. Anyway, your original deletion-nom really seems to be based on the the confused state of the article about Dion the singer. Not Dion the record label executive! And you have provided a link to Dion the singer's page in that nomination. That indicates the nomination was based on the singer Dion!
Now back to Michael Dion who the Wikipedia article was originally about: In addition to founding ITI Records and being National Sales Director for the prestigious audiophile label, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Dion has been written about in various jazz news publications. Yes, I know that Jazz isn't making major top 40 sales these days. He has a notable place in that notable genre. Yes, he had a hiatus from music when he was in military service. Karl Twist (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to that (but best done by someone familiar with the article). I BEFOREed the name on both individuals (due to article state - stumbled on it cleaning up MOS:ETHNICITY - thought AfD was appropriate - and indeed referred to botg article states). Might be merit for a redirect to the label - but I do not see much on the individual.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have brought the article back to a pre-vandalism / sabotage period. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since it's been reverted to original and vandalism removed. Peter303x (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in the article do not establish GNG - they are credit lists and passing mentions / routine reporting on changing positions as mid-level executive. Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the position of vice-president at the prestigious audiophile Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab label a mid-level executive role. There was an article about him in a hi-fi mag as well as a Jazz one. Anyway, I'd love to find out the culprits (There's more than one) who sabotaged this article to turn it into something completely different about a different person. There is more than one vandal by the look of it. Karl Twist (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter303x. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:29, 23 July 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) 12:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Alexandre LeMoyne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A completely unreferenced biography of an individual who, quite frankly, does not seem to have any claim to notability cited in the article itself. It was nominated for deletion way back in 2008, but kept on the arguments that notability isn't important, and that its plausible that there might be sources on the individual. Neither of those arguments would actually fly anymore, so I'm bringing it back for discussion 11 years later. As stated in that old AFD, the article history seems to indicate that this article was created by a descendant or relative of the subject, whose only edit was to create this article. I searched for sources, both using the name of the article, as well as both alternative spellings that were mentioned in the old AFD, and came up with nothing substantial with any of them. Outside of mirrors of this article, I'm only finding brief mentions of the individual in genealogy charts and similar texts, or a few short blurbs about a couple of his daughters that amount to stating that he was their father. I am finding nothing that would allow this individual to pass either the WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a book that states that it contains biographical sketches. According to the index, the subject is on pages 13, 16–18, 31, and 32. Pages 16–18 appear to be such a biographical sketch, as far as I can see. It mentions the fur trade and the Capitaine de Milice.
- (Le Moyne) White, Edith (1930). "Réné Alexandre Le Moyne des Pins". Le Moyne des Pins genealogies from 1655 to 1930. Private printing. Rene Alexandre Le Moyne, son of Jean Le Moyne des Pins, was born in the year 1668. We know nothing of his early life and education. He was married on the 2nd of February 1712, at Montreal […]
Uncle G (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That would be one of the genealogy texts I mentioned in the nomination. Based on the author's name and the "Private Printing" publication status, that would appear to be a book created by the Le Moyne family detailing their own genealogy. Rorshacma (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's undoubtedly a family history, and apparently not what the author of this article used (going by the first person editorializations that have stood in Wikipedia article space here for 13 years). But it isn't a genealogy. It is a bona fide biography, written in prose of complete sentences, talking about the aforementioned things and other stuff like a treaty. The article conforms to the family history, it seems, and I suspect that they both came from the same primary sources. The question is thus the reliability of the historian and whether there is any other source. (I may have mentioned, many times over the years, that multiple sources are a good thing. I did put it in a page somewhere.) I have no idea what the credentials are of Edith White, and I have no way of reading the other book mentioned in the first AFD discussion. But that's why this is a discussion. Now someone can find out, and we are a lot further along within a couple of hours than the silly argument about notability in the first AFD discussion got in a week. Uncle G (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the books mentioned in the old AFD appear to be here. It, as well as this one are about Marie-Marguerite d'Youville, who may have had one of Rene Alexandre LeMoyne's relatives as a follower. I say "may" because one of the books lists the follower's father's name as "Rene-Alexandre Lemoine-Despins", so this could possibly be a false positive, actually referring to someone with a similar name. Rorshacma (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to search also with a few variations in spelling. Names of that time can be written in a number of different ways in different documents. You could find, for example, Lemoine, Lemoisne, LeMoyne, Le Moyne, and Despain, Despins, Des Pins, Despains. The Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec (Library and National Archives of Quebec) writes the name "René-Alexandre Lemoine Despain", from archived documents in their 18th-century collection from the Seigneuries of Sainte-Anne and Sainte-Marie. The Dictionary of Canadian Biography also writes "René-Alexandre Lemoine, dit Despain" when it mentions him in the article about his brother Alexis Lemoine, dit Monière, by historian Louise Dechêne, and writes "René-Alexandre Lemoine, dit Despins" in the article about his son Jacques-Joseph, by historian José E. Igartua, and in the article about his daughter Marguerite-Thérèse Lemoine Despins, by Claudette Lacelle. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So, the "Lemoine-Despins" reference I mentioned above is our guy, then. I guess the question now is, with these references found under the various spellings, if it is enough to establish notability. I still find it rather iffy, since these sources are all rather brief mentions of him while talking about his arguably more notable relatives. Case in point, he does not appear to have an entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography that I can find like several of his relatives. I'll leave the notability issue up for discussion from here, but I just want to give shout outs to Uncle G and Asclepias for their excellent work on this. Rorshacma (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Given the problems researching this I'm open to changing my mind if someone finds better sources, but overall, I'm getting the picture that this is someone best-known as the relative of a more notable figure, and he was perhaps notable on his own merits, but there's simply not enough surviving information about him to put together a well-sourced article:

The genealogical text Uncle G found is up on archive.org here. The title page confirms that this is an internal family history; Edith White's full name is Edith Le Moyne White. pp. 17 contains a baptismal record followed (pp. 17–8) by a letter about his more notable daughter Marguerite-Thérèse, so the actual biography is just (most of) p. 16, and even then it's very thin—all it says is that he had certain titles at some point and some trivial personal details like when he married and when he moved. As for pp. 31 and 32, they are just a genealogical list with no substantive detail.
The article also mentions a notice in Sillon's Vie de Madame Youville. I can't find any online version of this book—though there's another Vie of Mme Youville by a different author which doesn't mention René—but the quote in the article is also given in a French-language genealogical journal. Given the context (M-T was a successor of Youville as superior of the Sisters of Charity), I assume it is just a mention of him as the father of M-T.
I note the author of the article seems to have relied on some other unpublished(?) sources because of the various notes indicating OR: "and the Michilimackinac. (I think this is the Makinaw Indians)."

So, apart from the privately-published family biography, there's really not much apart from passing references in material relating to his more famous daughter. It might work as a redirect though it seems that there are multiple notable figures he's connected to. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 00:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. His only claim really is through his daughter, a notable religious in colonial Quebec. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:NOTGENEALOGY. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 26 July 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. note: nomination withdrawn 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jovian Chronicles[edit]

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

This article on an astronomical game book is sourced to an incidental mention in a book by game company "Evil Hat Productions" (in an entry on the game's manufacturer) and a single review. My standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) discovers no additional RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 16:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. 16:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. 16:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. 16:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep In addition to the non-trivial coverage in Designers & Dragons, the game is reviewed in reliable sources over two decades: here, in White Wolf #47 (Sept. 1994), in Dragon #244 (Feb. 1998), in Alarums & Excursions #313 (Sept. 2001), in Pyramid Volume 1 (Issue #24, March/April 1997 has extensive coverage) and in Pyramid Volume 2 (August 11, 2000). Meets NBOOK and the GNG. Incompetent BEFORE; the nominator would be well-advised to withdraw. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: More info on the review in White Wolf #47: "Rating 3.5/5. '...offers a lot of material in a beautiful package.'" https://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?articleid=16993 Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The review in Dragon #244 is extensive and compares it to other DP9 games: "Heavy Gear takes place in the year 6132 on Terra Nova, a war-torn human colony in a distant galaxy. Jovian Chronicles, set in the 23rd Century, focuses on the colonization of our own solar system, where the planets have become independent domains competing for resources and power. But both games have roots in tactical wargames and giant robot animation. [...] Both are beautiful games, into which a lot of effort has been invested. [...] I do, however, like the system, one of the smartest set of universal rules this side of the GURPS* game. Called Silhouette, the system uses 6-sideddice to generate quick and sensible results. [...] Other than the lifeless settings, I couldn’t find anything seriously wrong with Heavy Gear or Jovian Chronicles. But I couldn’t find much to be excited about either. As I fiddled with the robots, my mind kept drifting, conjuring up questions. Why, I wondered, didn’t the designers set both games in the same era? [...] Why didn’t they strip out the tactical rules and put them in a separate game? [...] A system this good deserves a setting with a little more pizzazz, something like . . . oh, I don’t know . . . like Reign of Steel maybe?" (Rick Swan, pg 101-104) Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Pyramid Volume 1 (Issue #24, March/April 1997) costs $4.99 but the preview does confirm they reviewed it & the game is the cover image: http://www.warehouse23.com/products/SJG30-8824 & http://luxor.sjgames.com/media/SJG30-8824_preview.pdf Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Pyramid Volume 2 (August 11, 2000). Article written by Wunji Lau & Lloyd Doug Jessee. Quote (from the preview): "Being truly excellent is a double-edged sword: On the one hand, of course, you're excellent -- and that comes with a lot of perks. On the other hand, though, you have set yourself a very high standard indeed -- and a failure in the details suddenly becomes a notable offense. Which is why I'm going to take a few moments to dwell on the failures of Ships of the Fleet, Vol. 4 -- a supplement describing six Venusian ships of the Jovian Chronicles line, the principles of Venusian ship design, and Venusian fleet operations. Although these failures may all be in the details, they are no less disappointing. Why are they disappointing? Because Dream Pod 9 has excelled -- with all three of their games -- in providing a level of depth, breadth, and quality for their fictional worlds that almost beggars the imagination. When, for example, you not only know the broad strokes of political machination and warmongering in the solar system of the 21st century, but also what the favorite books of the Jovian Confederation are, and how the details of shipboard life onboard a Constantinople differ from those of an Birmingham -- and all of this weaves together into a consummate and seamless whole -- you've achieved something special". http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=1797 Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If someone has access to this issue, could you pull a better quote on why they were disappointed for the article? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newimpartial – Designers & Dragons and the Dragon review (thanks to User:Guinness323 for that review) are already cited in the article; I do not have a copy of the White Wolf Magazine but I know there is a review. I have not seen the other reviews that he mentioned, but I will WP:AGF that they cover the subject as he stated, and appreciate that he was able to find them; would appreciate it even more if he can add something to the article from any of them as well. :) BOZ (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I added quotes to the article from previews of White Wolf #47 & Pyramid Volume 2 (August 11, 2000) I could find. If anyone has full access to the list of reviews put together by Newimpartial, could you please add stronger quotes to the article? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments proposed by Newimpartial and BOZ. If the reviews exist, then the topic must be notable enough to warrant an article. Utopes (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I haven't been able to read every review, I've found evidence that at least 4 of the 5 listed above did in fact review Jovian Chronicles. Given Dream Pod 9 had 2 successful Kickstarter campaigns (2017 & 2018) to create miniatures for the new edition they have in beta testing, I expect we'll get more coverage when new edition drops. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure why this was nominated for deletion, given the Applegate reference, number of independent third-party reviews from notable sources, and the game appeared on the cover of a Pyramid Magazine (Issue 24).Guinness323 (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because Kickstarter, YouTube, ecommerce product pages, etc. The usual deployment of REF cluster munitions rebranded as reliable sources. Chetsford (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, ignore those. But Dragon, Pyramid, White Wolf, Alarums & Excursions (if someone can scare up a copy of it), Applegate are all RS, and the three I have read (Dragon, Pyramid, White Wolf) are all substantial articles, not a passing reference. So given that it is clearly notable, having been noted by a number of industry publications, why not spend some time cleaning up the article by removing the non-RS citations rather than nominating the entire article for deletion?Guinness323 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I see only three sources that exist which are RS. And I use RS generously as each of these sources are such that no accredited library anywhere in tbe world seems to bother cataloging these pubs in their collections (even the Lake Geneva Public Library). It is unclear to me how that could meet any logical definition of something that is notable. AfD is not cleanup but Mainspace is not a fanzine either. Chetsford (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With '"Designers & Dragons, Chetsford, I cited 6 RS above, not 3. Maybe work on your arithmetic?

And you already took one examplar of these sources that you believe not to grant Notability - namely Space Gamer - to RSN and were told that such sources are indeed RS.
Three of those (let alone six) already meet the GNG and NBOOK, so why not stop with the IDONTLIKEIT, already? Your personal definition of Notability is, sadly perhaps, not policy. Newimpartial (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Newimpartial. Large parts of the article are unreferenced, but AfD is not cleanup and the game is notable for having several reviews in reliable sources. WP:PAPERONLY applies here as well with the search for sources the nominator conducted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per the above. --Goobergunch|? 04:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the evolution of feedback and input from the community regarding this article, I withdraw the nomination as nominator and do not object to an early closure as Keep. Chetsford (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsteinn Thorgeirsson[edit]

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

Contested prod. Being one of the director-generals at the Finance Ministry of Iceland is not much grounds for notability - there are many at a time.[14] I don't see that being a senior advisor at the Central Bank of Iceland would automatically qualify either. Article does not establish that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Most of the article consists of citations to the subject giving his views on various economic issues. Haukur (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like the proposal said, there is a director general in each department the ministry had. Viztor (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mehl[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST––the best piece of coverage currently cited is this piece in Dallas News [15], which is essentially routine coverage. Online searches led me to more promotional coverage but nothing that would contribute toward notability. Previously PRODed by Onel5969, dePROD by the initial editor, who to their credit did provide additional sources. However, these sources are:

[16] [17] coverage in local news sources of unclear reliability that copy each other word for word for a significant amount of their coverage
[18] a mere mention
[19] an exhibition catalogue which is not independent of the subject _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I said in the prod, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and there's nothing to indicate they meet WP:NARTIST.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search turns up only very minor coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage to meet Wp:GNG Alex-h (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. Dallas is not yet the art mecca that Houston is. He's never had a solo exhibit at any gallery notable for itself or a city known for its art scene. None of his works is shown in any major museum. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Party, USA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor Marxist party that has never elected a candidate or achieved ballot access as far as I can tell. Current cites exclusively to self-published content as far as I can tell. It does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see any demonstration of notability that satisfies reliable/independent. It's quite google unfriendly, with some filtering needing in anyone else's checks. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the more minor Marxist/Leninist organizations. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Land Party (United States)[edit]

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

Defunct political party that never elected a candidate and does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Vegetarian Party[edit]

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

Defunct political party or parties that never achieved ballot access - let alone elected a candidate - and does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agora Mall Ahmedabad[edit]

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

A WP:MILL mall article with no notability. There are no independent sources found. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page more looks like a spam. Fails WP:Notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshil169 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Mishra[edit]

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

The article was created by a paid editor and I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems paid editing and fails notbaility and GNG criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshil169 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources, no notability, thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 11:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks notability. Poorly written with improper referencing. Peter303x (talk) 20:53, 20 July 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) 16:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leyndardómar Reykjavíkur 2000[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not much coverage online though I'm limited to English sources. Unsourced since November 2006. Anarchyte (talk | work) 14:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 14:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've re-written the article using four sources, including two non-promotional (actually quite negative) book-reviews and two news articles. This ought to do under WP:BOOKS and WP:GNG even if just barely. In addition, many of the authors are notable and a print run of 8000 copies is decent by Icelandic standards. Haukur (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources book reviews or feature articles? What sort of publications were they published in?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's do an overview. The two key sources here are as follows:

A book review in the newspaper Dagur by Kolbrún Bergþórsdóttir. This is an independent review of the sort the first part of WP:NBOOK applies to. It's a credible newspaper, a credible journalist (plausibly the best known critic in Iceland) and the review is quite negative which makes it even more obvious that it is not paid promotion or anything like that.

A book review in the web publication Múrinn by Katrín Jakobsdóttir. This is also a credible (and negative) review; the author is an expert on Icelandic crime fiction.

Together these two reviews fulfill WP:NBOOK: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." The other two sources (newspaper articles in Morgunblaðið and Dagur) are basically regurgitated press releases and don't matter to establish notability, but they help flesh out the text of the article. Haukur (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(earlier comment edited slightly) I've now also added a citation to a 2001 book by Katrín Jakobsdóttir which briefly discusses the work. It's such a short discussion that it doesn't add much to the notability case. Haukur (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Harkur.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Harkur's expansion meets both GNG and WP:NBOOK-1 MarginalCost (talk) 15:03, 25 July 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 Na`at#Notable Na'at Khawans. (non-admin closure) MarginalCost (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Naat Khawans[edit]

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

I don't see anything here that isn't already covered by this list. Frietjes (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Na`at#Notable Na'at Khawans. samee converse 20:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I also agree that it should be redirected to the main article: Na'at. Notable Naat khawans are already included and listed there. Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, as some blue-linked names in the nominated page are not in the other list. – Fayenatic London 23:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboes Spruit (Eastern Cape)[edit]

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

My WP:BEFORE search indicated that this is an 'occasional stream' rather than a river. It does not appear to be notable per WP:NGEO or WP:GNG. The article has already been draftified once, with the author having moved it back to mainspace after adding one reference (to geonames.org - where it is described as an intermittent stream) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Party of America[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article appears to be lengthy extensively cited, but this is an illusion. Almost all the sources are either to the Unity Party itself or election results. Almost all of this article is just election results (none of which the party won or came even close to winning), candidacy declarations, and incredibly minor party activities like Facebook page creations. There is very little here that is actually salvageable when you examine beyond the blatant REFBOMBing.

This party has elected no candidates to any office and does not appear to receive substantial, non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 12:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with the source analysis performed by nom. OhioShmyo (talk) 22:28, 23 July 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. Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup hosts squads[edit]

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

Clearly WP:TRIVIA. Its a list of hosts. I doubt if anyone would even need this data. A list of winners exists, which makes sense, but this one shouldn't. Daiyusha (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a very weird intersection of information. – Pee Jay 12:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another list of copied content which I really don't see how it helps readers, it's a lot worse than List of FIFA World Cup stadiums but same problem if strange content forking. Govvy (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolute nonsense. Why would anyone want a combined list of the players that played for the teams which happened to host each tournament? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FIFA World Cup hosts squads and delete Template:FIFA World Cup hosts squads Redundant. Sawol (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. It is a perfect example of a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization; I don't see how any correlation is relevant. ComplexRational (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless list doesn't need to be here on Wikipedia. HawkAussie (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT at its finest. We have a list of hosts - whomever wants the squads - is welcome to click on.... Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems an unlikely search topic and looks like original research. Papaursa (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Aina Party of Hawaii[edit]

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

Minor political party that did no achieve ballot access and elected no candidates to any office. What limited coverage exists seems to be oddity coverage - “Look at this weird new political party” - not actual substantiative, non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 12:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this failed 2000 attempt to collect the 700 signatures necessary to be recognized as a political party in Hawaii.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:20, 18 July 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 High-speed rail in Europe#Switzerland. Sandstein 13:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

High-speed rail in Switzerland[edit]

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

Article shows the same text as in High-speed rail in Europe#Switzerland and has hardly been changed since its creation. Obviously no need for a separate article. ZH8000 (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to High-speed rail in Europe - a clear outcome that the nominator would have been well within their rights to do without an AfD nomination. Bookscale (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge keeping a redirect. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per the above. Very plausible search term but no need for a stand-alone article at present. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No editor has put forth why any given reference meets the criteria set forth in CORPDEPTH, ORGIND, of generically, GNG. Therefore by strength of argument I judge consensus to be "delete". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jobster[edit]

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

Limited notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. Sourcing is not well-formatted too.TH1980 (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be plenty of independent sources.Rathfelder (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and content doesn't help its cause MaskedSinger (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources exist to meet WP:GNG. Please review WP:BEFORE. Re: content, formatting, etc, see WP:NOTCLEANUP. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read both WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the articles you reference meet these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dennis Bratland is completely write. Cheerio042 (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs a major clean-up, but is notable per the significant coverage in major newspapers as shown by Dennis Bratland. --Surachit (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:RS, though a sudden rush of media coverage might not help the cause and the article with get ~~deleted~~ -- I mean fired. Chronic and consistent media coverage is good, though. TheEditster (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the Keep !votes above, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. "Sufficient sources exist" is not mentioned in the guidelines and is invalid as a reason - volume of references has no bearing on establishing notability if those references fail the criteria. The references added invariably are mentions-in-passing or fail WP:ORGIND as they are based on company announcements or interviews. Similarly, "significant coverage in major newspapers" is demonstrably untrue since none of the coverage is "significant" but more importantly all the references either fails WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND (or both). Finally, "chronic and consistent media coverage" is also not part of the guidelines. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references in the article fail. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As concerns merge or keep. This discussion can be continued on the talk page. Sandstein 13:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Free-floating carsharing[edit]

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

I do not think this is a sufficiently notable cariation on car-sharing to justify a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carsharing. It probably merits a sentence in the models section of that article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote for now. I'm still not seeing evidence of this being a notable term on its own merits. Could help if those suggested keep provide asource or two as an example of the high quality coverage they're seeing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: A selection of article in peer-reviewed journals from the last six months alone:

I've got over 110 hits on a simple title search alone for peer-reviewed articles. A couple from 2012 and 2013 but coverage begins in earnest in 2015. I must comment it's very odd that I only get half a dozen news database hits, but I don't see that as being a problem when there are higher-quality sources in their multitudes. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That matches up with what I found. While I originally !voted redirect, merge probably better encapsulates my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google scholar returns around 100 articles on this exact topic, so there’s no doubt that there is a substantial body of knowledge about it which the present article hardly does justice to. Mccapra (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. There is a lot of detailed coverage in transportation journals and conference proceedings and discussion of how it differs from "traditional" carsharing. Passes GNG without a shadow of a doubt. Current article is not great but that's no reason to kill it. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. There's a lot of coverage about it. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 11:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't see promo here. Cheerio042 (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carsharing. Yes it's notable but that doesn't mean there needs to be a separate article for it, as that article already covers some of this. Reywas92^Talk 21:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carsharing - I concur with Reywas92 - The article subject is indeed notable however given the little information there is It'd make more sense to merge here. –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Carsharing I agree with the preceding two posters. Iamorangelightning (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now re-read both articles and my view is still that we should keep this one. The generic Carsharing article barely touches on Free-floating carsharing. Yes we could insert the current content from Free-floating carsharing into that article but it would make it long and lop-sided. Since the notability of the topic is not in doubt and we know there is already plenty of scope for expanding the existing article, this seems like the right time to expand the content we have rather than merge it back into something more generic. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 12:58, 18 July 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 Keep. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoto Animation studio fire[edit]

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

A recent act of arson, covered by the media, as many building fires are. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Parts can possibly be merged to Kyoto Animation. Sandstein 10:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep murder of 26 people in Japan is noteworthy and deserving of coverage in itself. By no means fails NOTNEWS. Much more notable, for instance, than many gun crime articles we see (yes, "arguments to avoid" but nevertheless). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
26 deaths at a well-known studio in this field, this is the kind of thing that may get into WP:ITN. It is impossible to know what the longterm effects will be, but this is probably the biggest mass murder in Japan in decades. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not really a normal act of arson when it's a studio that is known in the "anime world". There is also the fact that 26 lives have been lost due to this act of arson from the suspect in question. It still needs work to be encyclopedic but it might be possible. HawkAussie (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a large loss of life to a fire in Japan, let alone an act of murder. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Large death toll and international coverage, certainly makes this noteworthy and article-worthy. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not just a regular act of arson. This was a perpetrated, deliberate and premeditated attack by a 41-year old man, which killed more than a score of people. I really do not agree with the title for this page (it should be called an massacre, not a fire) - the death and injure toll is still rising and is over 25. Some parts fail WP:NOTNEWS in the way they are written, but not what you are alluding to which I'm presuming is rule 2 (this is clearly not a routine news report of announcements, sports, or celebrities). As major international outlets continue to report on it more and more information will be released on which the article can summize about instead of offering some original reporting. The incident is still at an early stage in terms of information released, articles like the Akihabara massacre exist, and since the death toll is large and rising it is far too early to consider deleting the page. Kettleonwater 11:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an act of murder that leads to a large loss of life, and considering that it happened to one of Japan's well-known animation studio and the story receives international coverage, this article is definitely worthy of keeping in Wikipedia. RezaMaulana98 (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment time to snow close this, the AFD tag is completely unnecessary and would potentially stop this from going to the main page as it stands. Clear (unanimous) consensus in favour of keeping. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Keep I agree with The Rambling Man, the afd is unnecessary for now. This accident is one of the most violent events in Japan in decades. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 11:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I argue that the amount of investigative information that such a rare event (mass murder in Japan) is likely to produce would distract a reader of the Kyoto Animation article. A reader should reasonably expect the article to be a concise encyclopedic review of the work of the animation studio. Baltakatei (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Cáceres[edit]

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

I can't find anything about this person. This article may be a hoax. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a hoax; she exists, and if you search for her name together with 'Tu no sabes querer' you can find her music on spotify, itunes and amazon music. But that's all I've been able to find about her - nothing at all to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also could not find anything else. She does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SINGER SamCordes^Talk 04:05, 25 July 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 11:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Cebu[edit]

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

The page is already at Metro Cebu Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: I withdraw nom. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:34, 18 July 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. Speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F/A-18 Hornet Solo-Display-Team[edit]

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

Recreation of "F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display" that was deleted after this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display Also suspicion that the author is a sockpuppet of User:FFA P-16. Investigation on that point ongoing. The Banner talk 08:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

identical text as in FFA P-16 suppage User:FFA P-16/sandbox1 and behaviour makes clear: It is no suspicion of user being FFA P-16 but a certainty.--Caumasee (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these get created about once a month under slightly different names clearly by a sock of FFA P-16, previous ones have just been redirected to Swiss Air Force rather than deleted. :
F/A-18 Hornet Display Team
F/A-18 Hornet Display-Team
F/A-18 Hornet Display-Team (Switzerland)

Perhaps we should get rid of these as well MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 18 July 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. Speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super Puma-Display-Team[edit]

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

Recreation of "Super Puma Display Team" that was merged into Swiss Air Force after this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Puma Display Team The Banner talk 08:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also suspicion that the author is a sockpuppet of User:FFA P-16. Investigation ongoing. The Banner talk 08:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

identical text as in FFA P-16 suppage User:FFA P-16/sandbox2 and even more behaviour makes clear: It is no suspicion of user being FFA P-16 but a certainty.--Caumasee (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these get created about once a month under slightly different names clearly by a sock of FFA P-16, previous ones have just been redirected to Swiss Air Force rather than deleted. :
Super Puma Display Team
Super Puma Display-Team
Super Puma Display-Team (Switzerland)
Super-Puma Display Team

Perhaps we should get rid of these as well MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ortiz (writer)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this telenovela co-writer. Strangely enough, the article of the telenovela Passione (TV series) that it says he is a co-writer of doesn't even mention him. SL93 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced since 2010, no sources found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:53, 24 July 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Idah[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and NFOOTY. DePRODed by creator. His reasons may be enough to leave the article as draft, though. BlameRuiner (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No need to draftify. Giant Snowman 09:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG following sources below. Giant Snowman 14:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am still new to the creation of articles, but I would like to know why this page, out of all of those about footballers, is being chosen for deletion. How does it fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL? There are references, and the footballer is part of the first team squad. Therefore over the course of the season there are only going to be more references added, as well as appearances to be made. In reference to the guidelines of NFootball, Adam Idah has signed a professional contract, and is now a fully professional footballer. As a professional footballer, Idah is likely to achieve point 2. this season with Norwich or on loan. I would also like to argue point 1. As a professional footballer who has appeared for the Under 21’s, it is likely that he will make his full debut soon. I feel that his 40 appearances and 22 goals at youth level also applies to the following statement; “The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage“. I believe that the article does not fail any of the GNG guidelines. The article with additional references is; providing significant coverage, reliable, includes sources, was not made by anyone connected with Adam Idah, and makes no presumptions. I would like to hear why you believe this article fails to meet the requirements.

All the best,

OLLSZCZ (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Footballers pass WP:NFOOTBALL when they play in a fully pro league or play senior international football. Idah has yet to do that. Claiming he is likely to play fails WP:CRYSTAL. Match reports/transfer news are WP:ROUTINE and can't be used to establish notability.--Dougal18 (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to state that Idah has played in a fully professional league. Last season he played in the 2018–19 Professional U23 Development League. The league, as it states is professional. Professional is defined as: "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur". Those who play in professional leagues come under that definition. In reference to WP:ROUTINE it says; "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." I don't believe that occorances which happen once in a life time are a routine event, such as the signing of a first professional contract, playing and scoring your first goals for a club. Those things will only ever happen once. Routine is defined as; "a sequence of actions regularly followed", the things I have stated are not regularly followed, and Idah will now for example never sign his first professional contract, or score/play for the first time as a pro. OLLSZCZ (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @OLLSZCZ: We have a list of fully professional leagues which pass WP:NFOOTY and the development league is not one of the leagues on that list (possibly since it's a reserve league.) WP:GNG is borderline here too, lots of references from the club. Since he's probably going to be notable very soon, but still fails WP:CRYSTAL at this point, I recommend copying the information to your sandbox or to a draft and then moving the page over once he makes an appearance for Norwich. SportingFlyer T·C 07:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SportingFlyer: Ok, thank you. Information saved. Delete the page if you must, and I'll re-upload it once an appearance is made. OLLSZCZ (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:GNG (whether the article meets WP:NFOOTY isn't the only question for AfD discussions...). The WP:THREE are: Irish Examiner 2018, The42 2019, and Eastern Daily Press 2019. Also, I'm not a subscriber to The Sunday Times, but if anyone out there is, perhaps they can tell us if this article is SIGCOV: "Adam Idah predicts bright future for Ireland under Stephen Kenny’s leadership". – Levivich 03:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur subject meets GNG (as English Premier league prospects often do) - per sources by Levivich. Also likely to meet NFOOTY once the season starts (considering - [20] he's playing on the first team in the pre-season, and is signed to a long term contract [21] - likely to get some time) - however GNG trumps NFOOTY in any event. Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG through fails WP:NFOOTY as subject has not yet played for Norwich City F.C..Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify If this player never makes another football appearance, he will not be notable - the Examiner article is a profile of a youth sports player which are typically discounted, the42.ie article is a youth match report even if it's mostly about him, the Freezer article is a local article about how he has been called up to the first team. I suspect he makes his first appearance soon, but we do not assume in these types of situations. WP:CRYSTAL. SportingFlyer T·C 14:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amigos Worldwide[edit]

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

Non-notable company, has all signs of UDP, most of the content was uploaded in one go, Lacks RS, Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as a 'notable company'? Upon creating I followed other examples of Wikipedia pages of non-profit companies. I thought editing in one go was advised by Wikipedia as I recall being encouraged by various blog posts to have something ready to upload and to have practiced editing other articles. The article yes will lack reliable sources as it is a work in progress, I thought getting the skeleton of the article down was wise and then to come back to the resources. --Angelli.badillo (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Angelli.badillo: See WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 21:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is very weak.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:44, 18 July 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) 07:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qais Qandil[edit]

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

Created by an undisclosed paid editor, fails WP:GNG, published a high quality private photo on the page. Meeanaya (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the work in the article have articles in Wikipedia, and half of them not even released that say alot of the notability of this producer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definite lack of citations Catladyz6 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avalok langer[edit]

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

Lacks RS, WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Neizer[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ, has performed only locally,NO RS, WP:TOOSOON. Meeanaya (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject has not gained any significant coverage in RS upon a Google search, he fails WP:NMUSIC. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:48, 19 July 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. Canley (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faye McMillan[edit]

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

Not notable. WP:PROF is not yet met--as the article didn't list any of her published work, I added her most cited paper (19 times in Google Scholar). The next highest is 4 times). Notability otherwise would have to be based upon a number of announcements of non-notable awards, and I don't think that meets GNG. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not remotely a pass of WP:Prof#C1 on basis of citations in GS. I don't see enough yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. I have added sources, which now range from 2003 - 2019, and include the Australian Journal of Pharmacy, Deadly Vibe, The Koori Mail, Dubbo Photo News, Triple M, Western Magazine, and Narromine News. At least four of them are SIGCOV. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF, but the sources now in the article cover her in-depth, appear to be at a national level rather than purely local, and are from a wide enough range of years to show that it's not just for the new AWY award. So I think she passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All other things being equal, I'd be inclined to say "delete". But we cannot tolerate the out-of-control and institutionally sexist arrangements that hold professional athletes (mostly male) to manifestly lower inclusion standards than academics (a more gender-balanced profession). There's at least an argument here that the subject of the article meets the GNG. It's not a great argument. I have qualms about the reliability of trade magazines such as the Australian Pharmacy Journal and local news papers doing puff pieces. But the article is in good shape thanks to the good work of experienced editors, and the subject of the article is clearly a highly accomplished individual who can make multiple claims of notability, and the article is sufficiently verified, so I am happy to have the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually saying that because the consensus is to have a low standard of notability in one field, we should have it in other fields also?

(as for equity, there has been quite a flood of barely notable female athletes also. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that. Ideally we would lift the standard of notability for athletes. It's absurd that merely being a professional athlete is usually sufficient for notability. But being a professional academic, or a professional artist, or a professional nurse, quite correctly, isn't. In the meantime, the next best thing to do is to say that if the case for an academic is marginal, male or female, I'll incline towards keep. Here WP:PROF isn't met, but WP:GNG is at least arguable, and the article is ok, so I'm comfortable with keeping it. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm persuaded that she passes WP:GNG, per David Eppstein and RebeccaGreen. XOR'easter (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added more sources, now from The Sydney Morning Herald (2003), Illawarra Mercury (2010), and Daily Advertiser (2014) - all articles about her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RebeccaGreen does great work. This subject meets our GNG. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems obvious under GNG. AFD might have been avoided and probably should have been... --Fæ (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourced found by Rebecca Green.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:04, 23 July 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giga Ltd[edit]

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

Lacks major RS, fails WP:GNG, clearly WP:TOOSOON. Meeanaya (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet ready even for draft, as there is no present chanceof an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. A private Internet Service Provider (ISP) that does not satisfy WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:56, 18 July 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 keep. Nomination effectively withdrawn as the nominator now believes that WP:NBAND is passed with the evidence from the FA version on Russian wikipedia. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pipes and Pints[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Article not written from WP:NPOV and appears to contain some WP:OR, the removal of which would leave little remaining content for an overall non-notable band SamCordes^Talk 04:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SamCordes^Talk 04:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. SamCordes^Talk 04:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while this article is indeed a complete affront to NPOV and encyclopedic writing, the fact that there is a FA on ru.wiki caught my attention. Enough of the sources cited there seem to be decent, especially the ones from musicserver.cz. I would say the subject does pass GNG, but wouldn't be opposed to the article in its current form being blown up or stubbed. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As for WP:BAND, the release on Supraphon won an Anděl award in 2012. I think that qualifies it. This is a bad article but the band is notable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi @Filelakeshoe:, thank you for looking into this further! It slipped my mind, embarrassingly, to check the interlanguage links and the added fact that they won an Andel award (which appears to be the Czech equivalent of the Grammys?) would appear to meet WP:BAND. I can try and remove a lot of the questionable content to return the article to a NPOV and add some more sources from the ru.wiki article and perhaps should add the Expand Russian template. Best, SamCordes^Talk 02:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks - as the article has been cleaned up my vote is now a keep – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries and the Deaf community[edit]

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

This article duplicates content at Deaf culture#Libraries and the Deaf community and should be deleted. The duplicate content was previously noted here. In addition, I believe the content was copied from an internal university wiki with unknown copyright status.

The article was created May 17, 2014 by Catladyface (talk · contribs) whose Wikipedia career lasted 25 minutes, during which time she created four articles (including this one, at 8kb) and added content to three others (12kb). Three other articles created by this user during their brief career (discussed here, here, and here) were later deleted.

It is relevant to this Afd that a day earlier, on May 16, 2014, Librarystudent1983 (talk · contribs) edited Deaf culture adding 6.5kb in two edits during a Wikipedia career lasting 25 minutes. The edit summary for this edit (their first ever) reads: →‎Characteristics of deaf culture -- added information from SJSU SLIS Wiki. In researching this, I found this SJSU blog and this SJSU wiki, which is a Wiki about library information science publications for students at San Jose State University. I believe that Librarystudent1983 copied material out of the Wiki into Deaf culture in their two edits. Although I can't prove this, the edit summary implies it, as does the large amount of content added in so short a time. (Subsequent edits added content which was the subject of two copyvio removals; the article is now smaller than when it was created. The content in the original version has not been challenged, to my knowledge.)

The subject article of this Afd, Libraries and the Deaf community, previously underwent a speedy deletion nomination and was kept. The problems noted by the reviewing admin (DGG), along with the comments about the three deleted articles as well as the very similar pattern of editing at Deaf culture by Librarystudent1983 whose career was equally brief, leads me to believe that Catladyface is or was another SJSU Library Information Science student, who was also copying information from the SLIS Wiki into Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Catladyface. Couldn't find a likely WPROJ at Deletion sorting. Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:05, 18 July 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) 07:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigríður Þorgeirsdóttir[edit]

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

I can find no clear indication that this professor of philosophy meets WP:PROF. Haukur (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her h-index is six, which If I understand it correctly means six papers that were cited by at least six others. That's not terrible, but how does it rank in terms of those who usually meet WP:NPROF?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Low, but you're asking the wrong question. The h-index is for scholars in journal-based fields. For scholars in book-based fields, we should look for published book reviews instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the excellent reply!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. The citations are indeed low, but may be validly compared with those of other philosophers. It should be noted that academic books are reviewed as a matter of course, so the existence of reviews does not necessarily signify notability. The situation may be clearer for this ~~currently early-career~~ academic in another ten years. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- Early-career? She's had her doctorate for over 25 years. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Lots of academic books go unreviewed, and, even if it was the case that every academic book had multiple reviews, that would just show how notable lots of academics and their books are. Your argument is not based in WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:ACADEMIC (there is a note there about journals that publish reviews of basically every refereed book, but that's a different matter). The subject of this article finished her doctorate in 1993 and is currently a full professor. I think you and I have very different ideas about what "early career" means. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I should probably not go into detail about my opinions on the lack of correlation between visible publication impact and internally-perceived prominence among philosophers. But in any case, for Wikipedia all we have to go by is what is visible. In this case, the article lists three edited volumes (not worth much), and separately as "books" two more collections, two calendars, and one thing that actually looks to me like a scholarly book, her Vis creativa. Searching Google books didn't find much else. I found no published reviews of her one book. I don't see any evidence on which we can base a keep, neither in her citation record (WP:PROF#C1) nor her book publishing (WP:AUTHOR) nor anywhere else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's also the fact that some scholarly books make a significant public impact, sometimes to the extent that they become public figures (or notorious and widely-flamed on social media). Þorgeirsdóttir certainly doesn't seem to be the author of any of those, either. Since David Eppstein is certainly correct that she's been around for 25 years, we can probably safely say that she hasn't reached the big time yet, and really hasn't garnered much critical notice. Of course, if she does become notable sometime in her sixties, then we'll be able to create an article for her. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:32, 22 July 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.