< 17 June	19 June >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Weiner[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and has a lack of WP:SIGCOV Cox wasan (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 02:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Offshore piracy section looks like BLP unsourced negative material. Possibly smerge to WBCQ (SW) if no more in-depth references can be found. --94rain ^Talk 09:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mr. Weiner is a colorful subject, yes, but the article does indeed lack WP:SIGCOV.TH1980 (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plogger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not notable Clnreee (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Quite promotional in tone and style, with nary a third-party source helping establish notability to be seen.TH1980 (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly not notable, no reliable source reports from google search. I'm pretty sure if we were to include all libraries, Wikipedia would explode. Viztor (talk) 12:27, 22 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JoomlaLMS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

still not notable Clnreee (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An extension based on Joomla, and now it is not even provided on that platform. Doesn't meet NPRODUCT (or the essay of NSOFT). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPRODUCT, and does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:49, 25 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phoca Gallery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not notable Clnreee (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was the equivalent of being PRODed before and is no more notable now. Sourcing is all to self-published sources or how to guides. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dat sourcing, man... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:39, 25 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Action for Global Information Sharing[edit]

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

Non-notable network of organizations supported only by press releases, etc. Can't find any mention of AGIS or AGIS Africa in independent sourcing. Nolelover (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I found no independent reliable sources on this network either in a WP:BEFORE search I did. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice against refunding to draft if requested. bd2412 T 20:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gender roles in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe[edit]

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

No content. Article survived a deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender roles in Eastern Europe after Communism but was eviscerated. Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Tough one. The topic may be notable, despite the long-winded title, but the article has one sentence and only a general further reading references. I will reconsider my vote if anyone cares to expand it with proper, on-topic, content with inline citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOPAGE and given the complete lack of an article, I'm only able to say that the topic does not appear to be notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete may be notable but I also second Newshunter's words. Masum Reza^📞 05:59, 26 June 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. Retracted nomination. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscola Community High School[edit]

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

DePRODed by author without addressing the concern: "Article fails the notability requirement for organisations because of a lack of sources." - A Google and a Google News search show no sources indicating notability. MrClog (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC); edited 18:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Move to Tuscola Community Unit School District 301: High schools usually end up meeting WP:ORG. This one has been around since the 1870s, so it probably has coverage from the pre-Internet days. On the other hand, it's pretty small. I've added the basic history from one source (a local historic committee's book). If it's not separately notable, maybe it should be moved to Tuscola Community Unit School District 301 where it can be supplemented with history of the various grade schools, probably including pre-1949 rural schools. --Closeapple (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a legit public high school in the state of Illinois. The ongoing standard here on Wikipedia is schools that offer diplomas and are proven to exist are notable, period. All of the standard sources are here. We can assume that somewhere in the 150 years this school has existed that there are detailed sources to be found. Frankly this is a ridiculous nomination. A US public school that has been in existence for 150 years? John from Idegon (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. Finally, nominating the article less than an hour after creation does seem clearly premature. Just Chilling (talk) 20:19, 18 June 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) 03:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of mathematics[edit]

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

Most definitions given in this glossary are vague and cannot be used without looking at the linked article. So, it is faster for a reader to search the terms in the window search, for getting directly the correct definition, than coming to this glossary, searching the term in it, and use the provided link for eventually getting the correct definition.

Moreover, as the glossary is a stub, the probability is very low that readers find here the term that they are searching for.

So, this article is really not useful. D.Lazard (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC) D.Lazard (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are already glossaries of subfields (Category:Glossaries of mathematics), so either Glossaries of mathematics or List of glossaries of mathematics might be a useful navigation tool, but one potentially long one for all of mathematics doesn't seem to be useful. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subglossaries can be linked from here, so size doesn't matter. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable as there are plenty of published glossaries of mathematics and we seem to have a surfeit of them on Wikipedia too. Besides this page, we have:

List of mathematical jargon, for which there is already a merge proposal
Category:Glossaries of mathematics, with numerous sub-glossaries
list of mathematical constants
list of mathematical symbols
Category:Mathematical terminology

So, some merger and rationalisation might be appropriate but it doesn't make sense to turn this page into a redlink, when its title is so short and simple. The trouble with the detailed sub-field glossaries is that you need to understand those fields before choosing the right one. Perhaps this page should be made into a glossary of glossaries, like a lists of lists, providing some narrative to assist navigation at a high level. Deletion would not be helpful or necessary for this, per our policies WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems there is a general question of the usefulness of glossaries at all. I would point out that the readers need not go through the glossaries instead of going directly to the specific articles. The nominator is thus wondering who would then read an article like this. But if that argument is valid, then a vast number of articles in Wikipedia need to be deleted. Are glossaries useful? I would argue the right question is: can a glossary such as this one can be written? For me, why not. —- Taku (talk)
Keep - The topic is clearly notable but the article needs improvement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did anyone actually have a look at the individual entries of Category:Glossaries of mathematics? These. Are. Massive. It is a practical impossibility and entirely undesirable to have a catch-all glossary that combines or duplicates all these separate facets. Maybe turn it into a List of glossary of mathematics, but that's a one-pager and arguably surplus to requirements because the category already exists. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:01, 25 June 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. ST47 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boards of Education in India[edit]

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

Violates WP:DIRECTORY. We already have a category for this: Category:School boards in India; this list duplicates that with no additional content, and serves no purpose other than acting as a spam magnet for unreferenced and/or non-notable boards and similar organizations. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are these boards of education ubiquitous? Is India divided up into districts such that there can be a "complete" list of boards? There seems to be a list by implication at Template:School education in India. Are they an essential part of educational authority in India? The article doesn't explain what these boards are, how they're formed, what authority they have, whether schools are required to obey the boards, or anything else. --Closeapple (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really clear on it myself, but from this article, it sounds like there is a mix of (1) at least one central government-sponsored board (2) private org boards and (3) state-affiliated boards (presumably one per state?) The issue here (the source of spam) is the second category. Most of these private are probably not-notable (and of questionable legitimacy). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Poorly sourced, ill defined list which is often little more than a spam magnet. Category:School boards in India exists and better serves any "purpose" the list might have. See also WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7. -- Begoon 02:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. We have categories for information like this and there already is one for this topic, so this article is serving no purpose, except as a spam magnate. Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:13, 25 June 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. ST47 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oduse David Oluwadamilola[edit]

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

Provided citations are nowhere near demonstrating that it meets notability guidelines WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, I found nothing online either. Note that this was previously rejected at AfC, and that the initial editor circumvented this decision by moving it to mainspace themselves. Also appears to be WP:AUTOBIO, given the user's name and Oluwadamilola's pen name. I had previously nominated for PROD, dePROD by initial editor, who also decided to move the article to draft and back to namespace for indiscernible reasons. On the article's talk page, the editor wrote I write this to disapprove the claim that qualifies this article for deletion. This page is not an autobiography, rather it's just a coincidence. I'll add more reference to verify this. Please, remove the deletion template from the article. However, this fails to account for the fact that the primary issue here is a lack of notability, not the suspected COI. No other improvements were made to the article. I also don't buy the disavowal of COI, as the article has a picture of the subject which the initial editor claims as own work, and it also contains content that is not backed by any of the provided sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I am also deeply troubled that this article was very likely created by a COI editor. This article should be swiftly uprooted to remove such probable corruption from Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:20, 25 June 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. ST47 (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Hunter 2020 presidential campaign[edit]

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

(({text))} Does not meet notability requirements, article is largely being used as a campaign website. Content is the same as the Dario Hunter article Jp16103 15:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter is himself notable - the article Dario Hunter in its French version had a rousing discussion on his notability and decided that he was notable enough back in 2012, with a number of media sources covering his activities as the first Muslim born person to become a rabbi. IMHO, a notable person running for president is notable. But even if you don't agree with that, ample mainstream media sources have been provided here covering his candidacy itself, in the US and other countries - thereby serving as evidence that his candidacy itself is notable.

The section noting his platform is similarly organized as other Wikipedia articles on campaign - e.g. Bill Weld 2020 presidential campaign. I don't believe the style is persuasive like a campaign pitch) - it reads as factual (i.e. 'here are his positions').

It's fishy to me that the same users are also trying to delete the Dario Hunter article that's been up since 2012. It's like they want to erase Hunter - just in time for this election season. It smells of Wiki vandalism.

70.13.118.40 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)— 70.13.118.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, and on the claim that the content is the same as the Dario Hunter article, I ran it through Word's 'Word Count' feature. At this time only about 13% of the words in this article refer to info also contained in the Dario Hunter article. The rest is unique content. It seems like there's grasping for straws to get this article deleted. SMH.

70.13.118.40 (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge

His campaign is not notable enough to warrant his own page, if anything this article should be merged with the article about him. The campaign article is largely written in a self-promotional page detailing his positions rather than the article describing his campaign. Granted, I'd say there is a fair argument that being the supposed first Muslim born person to become a rabbi may be enough criteria to meet notability requirements, simply running for president has not in the past met notability requirements on Wikipedia.

Also, ip-user, its generally in bad taste to accuse or suggest vandalism by other specific users here on WP. I've been editing on Wikipedia for around seven years and was a heavy contributor on the 2016 Green Party Primaries article. I'm simply trying to keep the articles to the high standard Wikipedia holds, deletion requests are not a slight towards the individual or subject, rather a chance to a have a discussion on the quality of the articles and whether or not they meet Wikipedia's standards. Jp16103 16:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable is not "well, I think this subject is well-known." Wiki criteria indicates this subject (the Hunter campaign) is notable enough - certainly more than some articles that have survived challenge. Let's examine what notability means to Wikipedia and how it applies here - it means significant coverage, in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. See Wikipedia: Notability As of today, the article contains 13 secondary sources, a significant amount of coverage. The sources are varied - local (Youngstown, OH), regional (e.g. elsewhere in the state of Ohio), national (US) and international. Hunter's campaign (not just Hunter himself) has garnered attention from local Youngstown media - WKBN, WFMJ and the Vindicator; from regional media - Cleveland.com, an outlet of the Cleveland Plain Dealer; from national media - JTA (the wire service), The Forward; as well as from international media - The Times of Israel and Judische Allegemeine (Germany). That's significant coverage (in volume), from reliable secondary sources all independent of the subject - and widespread.

23.25.30.113 (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)— 23.25.30.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

As of Jun 11, added since request for deletion: Coverage of the campaign by The New Republic and by German paper de:Jüdische Allgemeine.

23.25.30.113 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Hunter appears to be notable, but his campaign certainly isn't, or at least not to the point that a separate article is warranted. Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The addition of sources since the deletion request makes a more persuasive argument for 'Keep.' Hunter is notable AND it appears the campaign is also notable in its own right. The coverage is significant and more international than most mainstream candidates get. And it's certainly more than this Green campaign Wiki page, which isn't being challenged: Howie Hawkins 2020 presidential campaign Audentis (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Audentis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep The new source material and the lack of duplication between articles seems to support keeping. The campaign is also the only notable opposition to Howie Hawkins, and this AfD coincides with attempts to remove all candidates other than Hawkins from 2020 Green Party presidential primaries. Just sayin. AlanAugustson (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— AlanAugustson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep The original article met notability requirements. The comments above make that case. But after the deletion request, a lot of material that was objected to has been removed and sources added. I think the reasons given for the deletion request have been addressed. BrightNewMorning (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— BrightNewMorning (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Hunter is notable in his own right, and enough quality citations have been added to this article to make it a WP:GNG pass in its own right.--A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many people are running for president in the Green political party? Also Green Party of the United States shows they have 250,000 members, but none are in office in any federal positions at all nor in any notable state positions. Is this notable enough to have its own article, or can it just be redirected to the guy's main article? Dream Focus 23:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dream Focus While it is true that the Greens don't get many votes, Jill Stein threw the 2016 election to Trump, just like Ralph Nader threw 2000 to Bush fils. And some Green bozo could easily decide 2020. Even a nobody like Hunter.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

we seem to have 1 other article Howie Hawkins 2020 presidential campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC) But it should probably be DELETED because, like Hunter, Hawkins campaign has garnered merely a couple of local stories in his hometown.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the page is persuasively sourced, with national and Israeli as well as Ohio papers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hunter may merit an article, there is no reason to have a seperate full article on his presidential campaign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have 25 articles in Category:2020 United States Democratic Party presidential campaigns , even Marianne Williamson 2020 presidential campaign, because the sourcing is there....E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dario Hunter, no need to have standalone article separate from main article that is quite small at the moment, similarly with most of the other campaign articles (afterall this is not Politicopedia:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge, with preference for delete. Page looks good at a glance, but on second look it is largely a copy paste of Dario Hunter. Hunter has gotten press, but his campaign has garnered near-zero attention. the local NPR station did run a local story when he announced. No WP:RS coverage for his national tour. He did get a little novelty attention by visiting Israel, but there is not enough coverage of coverage of this campaign to justify a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see enough sources to pass WP:GNG. No reason that more sources won't be added over the next year or more as the campaign progresses, either.--TM 02:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. Fact is that the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV coverage of this campaign was a very brief story back in February on the local Youngstown NPR station Youngstown Board of Education member announces 2020 run. Everything else - and it's not much: [1] - is coverage of his firing by the synagogue where he was rabbi. At this point, his candidacy belongs on his page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge- his campaign is simply not notable enough to get its own article. Could we at least wait until he gets his party's nomination before starting a article? Someone already went overboard by creating articles for each of the 50 people running for the Democratic nomination.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources to pass WP:GNG are there. There are more than just a couple of local sources; there's national publications (e.g. The New Republic, The Forward) and international press (e.g. The Times of Israel and Judische Allegemeine). In all, 15 articles cited. Getting the nomination isn't a requirement of notability. Sticktoit (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)— Sticktoit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [single purpose account with only this 1 edit] (UTC).[reply]

Note this is the 7th SPA to show up on this page, and only 1 non-SPA has argued keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New New Republic says that 14 people want the Green party nomination. It gives 4 sentences on Hunter. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judische Allegemeine wrote an entire article on the campaign - as did a number of other sources cited. On a side note, this is not a majority vote process. It's based on the merits of the arguments, which should be based on Wikipedia criteria. 184.215.104.160 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added press coverage of his campaign tour's stop in Carbondale, IL. 50.40.200.239 (talk) 03:30, 25 June 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. ST47 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt Force 2[edit]

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

A third party Playstation Controller that does not seem to have been notable. The one review included in the article, from "GameVortex", is the only in-depth review I was able to find on the controller. Aside from mirrors of this article, I've only been able to see product pages from sellers, and a few mentions on message boards, but that is it. Its main claim to fame, that it was the "first motion sensing game pad", does not even appear to be true, as I found information on much earlier gamepads for the SNES and Genesis that have the same motion sensing capabilities while searching for information on this one. Without multiple reliable sources, this fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ST47 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Cohen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

American Idol contestant, case of WP:BLP1E. Media coverage centers around her tragic death. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL also apply. Previous deletion discussion resulted in no consensus. Rusf10 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject's death appears in ABC News, NBC, CBS, CNN, People Magazine and these media outlets would not cover a non-notable subject or death. Also appearing on a popular national U.S television show with a worldwide audience makes a person notable enough that their death is covered by ABC, NBC, CNN etc. Even Rolling Stone covered her death. WP:NOTPAPER WP:ATD Tonereport (☎)(My Work) 23:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the subject can be found in articles from multiple sources, but that's still means she is notable for one event only. Events have to have a WP:LASTING impact in order to be included. Otherwise we would just write an article on every single event that appears in the news.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this person's notability WP:NTEMP is the applicable guide. WP:SIGCOV is easily met. In addition many more contradictory guidelines exist to vote either way. WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD WP:NOTPAPER. Tonereport (☎)(My Work) 19:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not an example of WP:BLP1E, as stated by the nom. The subject was a two-time American Idol contestant, not just one appearance. Notability is shown through the multiple and wide-reaching coverage of each TV performance because of the subject's expletive-filled rants at the judges as well as her bad singing. Then, when the subject was killed, local, national and international (the BBC) traditional media covered her death plus the ensuing indictment of the driver in the hit-and-run accident that killed her. WP:GNG is clearly met through the extensive coverage. As for WP:LASTING impact, the subject is one of eight Idol contestants who have died and the subject is included in every story written about the deaths (the subject was the 2nd Idol contestant to die). -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:03, 24 June 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)} 16:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lanie Banks[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician with no properly sourced claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. The references here are nearly all primary sources that are not support for notability, such as Google search results and online music stores and YouTube videos and directory entries on MusicBrainz or streaming platforms -- and the only one that's even semi-reliable (Watchdog Uganda) isn't verifying anything about him that would pass NMUSIC, so it doesn't magically get him over GNG all by itself as the only non-terrible source in play. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Firstly, please read all reliable references, secoundly Let us agree that google is the number one search engine and reference source website.so basing on that fact i would like to suggest if an entry such as this one has a google knowledge graph card or google knowledge panel it means they have impacted on society and thus their is no denying notability,and lets face the fact that wikipedia is a place for factual verifiable information and reason and not a battle field where young editors fight old editors no,so my standpoint is keep the article because whats the use deleting an article that is notable and only to be re created later by other editors, remember that entries about living notable people evolve with time and are often updated by editors on wikipedia read further about music here WP:MUSIC Elizabethfoundationn (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single thing stated in the article passes WP:NMUSIC, and not a single reference present in the article is a reliable source — Google search results are not evidence of notability in and of themselves, as they'll find any page that has his name in it whether it's a reliable source or not. To consider him notable enough for a Wikipedia article, we need to see journalism being done about him by media outlets, not blogs or streaming platforms or YouTube videos or online music stores where he was able to put himself. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was improved, and i can see you are not reading sources and you are only just focussed on getting the article deleted instead of determining if the article can be improved further or even has room for improvement.

Thirdly, another reminder is reliable sources differ according to the country and location of the subject for example dont expect an egyptian personallity to be covered by the same sources as  americans or russians personalities etc.

plus they are no youtube videos as claimed.and lastly wikipedia rules are added and amended each day so keep track. And yes media outlets have covered this subject including television have covered this subject multiple times but most times videos are not reliable sources.so i wont link those sources Elizabethfoundationn (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabethfoundationn (talk • contribs) 14:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we wouldn't expect a Ugandan musician to be getting coverage in American newspapers or magazines, but that's not what I said we need: I said we need real media, and Africa has real media. We do not have a rule that our sources have to be published in North America or Europe to be valid — but what a source does have to be, regardless of where it's published, is a reliable source media outlet that is independent of the subject's own self-published marketing. So we don't extend non-Western countries an exemption from having to cite reliable sources, or an entitlement to park an African musician's notability on his own self-published primary source public relations bumf instead of citing real media: to get a Wikipedia article, a musician has to be properly sourceable to real media, and African countries still have real media. So African musicians do not need special exemptions from having to be properly sourceable just because they're not getting into American newspapers or magazines very often, because Africa has newspapers and magazines too.

And no, you can't get an article kept by just saying that the subject has media coverage you aren't citing — anybody can say that about literally anything, even if they're actually lying. To get an article kept on the basis of media coverage, you do have to show the media coverage you're talking about, so that we can evaluate its reliability and depth and range and volume and context. We don't keep articles just because somebody says there's media coverage they didn't use, because people can and do make inaccurate claims about that: we evaluate the sources that people show. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check this list of all african>ugandan notable personalities which include potical leaders and musicians in this database If you are still arguing after you read this then i dont have anything else to say to you. I always edit wikipedia in my free time ,otherwise i have other things to do as a woman Elizabethfoundationn (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabethfoundationn (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that is a user-generated database to which anybody can add anybody they want, even themselves. That is not evidence of notability; it's evidence of self-promotion. Notability derives from media coverage, and nothing else.

Secondly, new comments in this discussion go at the bottom of the page, not the top, and you do not have any right to blank the rest of the discussion so that your newest comment is the only thing left on the page: you are allowed to comment in the discussion, but you must leave the rest of the discussion in place. I have had to repair this page literally every single time you've ever edited it at all, because you followed improper format — and you're getting dangerously close to receiving a temporary editblock for being disruptive if I have to keep doing that again. You add new comments at the bottom of this page, not at the top, and you are not allowed to erase so much as one comma of anything that's been posted to this page by anybody else. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. Clearly fails WP:NMUSIC and any notability guideline. Given the unnessesary difficulties they've had to put up with in this AfD, I'd like to thank Bearcat for their dedication to seeing this process through to the end properly. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 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)} 16:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghent Students Rowing[edit]

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

Student club, no in-depth coverage, passing mentions, self-published sources, etc. Fails WP:NORG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indeed lacks notability. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG due to lacking independent sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:44, 25 June 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 Athaenara: CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Abhishek) in violation of ban or block). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avi J[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized article about a musician, whose claims of notability per WP:NMUSIC are not properly referenced. No reliable sources that can support notability. Sumitpatelster (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:59, 18 June 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. ST47 (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UBB.threads[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/UBB.threads

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

not notable Clnreee (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT due to lacking independent sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:53, 25 June 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. ST47 (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Byrd[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO with no WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is not a source but a link to the East Valley Tribune main page Mysticair667537 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mysticair667537 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mysticair667537 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Mysticair667537 (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Mysticair667537 (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV or any sources for that matter. I found none in a WP:BEFORE search I did either. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:00, 25 June 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. ST47 (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Gas Grid Management[edit]

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

No apparent company notability. Most of the article is talking about the role the company fulfills rather than the company itself. creffett (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as almost all sources are self-published and the company lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:07, 25 June 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. ST47 (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AM-C (rapper)[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. I can't find much in either language but fails GNG/NMUSIC. Praxidicae (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable rapper. Fails GNG. Geoffroi (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:30, 25 June 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. ST47 (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mithula UK[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. ∯WBG^converse 14:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBADMINTON due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV or being a top level player. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:36, 25 June 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. ST47 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Research Symbiont Award[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seem verifiable given that there is a primary source for the data, which is the award web page. It is not original research. It does not advertise, merely informing. In fact, it was built on a template for another science award. It is not a hoax. Notability is not a criterion since it is not a biography, not about music, not about musicians, not about a company or corporation, not a fictional topic, and not about web-specific content. Therefore, it does NOT meet the criteria for deletion and should NOT be deleted. It seems there is some sort of voting; unfortunately none of the links supplied describe how to do that. But I clearly vote to keep it. I don't see how it could rightfully be deleted given the stated criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADP85xzVcQD (talk • contribs) 12:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC) ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My signed text was edited by someone else. That editing actually eliminated most of the argument and the structure for the argument and support for the argument--which was based off the criteria for deletion Wikipedia page. While I'm sure it was done in good faith, it is poor form (e.g. one would not open a letter someone wrote addressed to someone else, change it, and put it back in the envelope; likewise, one would not edit an e-mail they were forwarding without disclosing that). I respectfully request that someone revert it. I know how to, and I know I can, revert it myself. But every time I revert I get threatened by an editor that they will delete my account; so I don't feel comfortable doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADP85xzVcQD (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Secondary coverage is needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "it exists" is not a criteria for inclusion on an encyclopedia. There is no independent, in-depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Parasite Award, FWIW, "research parasite" is a potential article Amkilpatrick (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary coverage is not enough to proof notability. --MrClog (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG since it lacks secondary sources. Was also recently created by a now discredited and indefed editor. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:43, 25 June 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. ST47 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mikki Koomar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination: previously deleted by AfD and recreated. Was tagged as G4 speedy but this version is not the same, and has a number of additional sources. Whether they are enough to establish notabililty is another question. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Definitely doesn't meet any notability standards as a martial artist. Article tries to make a case for notability by listing every job he's had, but I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage of him required to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sandals1 He has been awarded as International Youth Icon by an annual event called Rajeev Gandhi Global Achiver Awards 2019. Iam having complete proof of it.--Babitahamdard (talk)
  - It shouldn't be too difficult to add a reliable source saying that then. Mind you, these awards are so notable that their web domain http://www.rggea.com/ expired last week. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is a mess of dependent promotional sites, directory listings and press releases. No sources I can see that would pass WP:BASIC03:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)GirthSummit _(blether) 12:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Already deleted once through an AfD discussion, and now recreated, without any indication of notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Was deleted once before and there is no indication he is any more notable now then before. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:46, 25 June 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) 03:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Groundswell Effect (Business)[edit]

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

Roundabout way of attempting to publicize the non-notable Charlene Li & Josh Bernoff, and their P.O.S.T Framework concept Orange Mike | Talk 01:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Groundswell (book). The concept is cited by others, but not much. Two line mention with citation in reliable source here. Another one, seemingly more in-depth, here. Overall, rather borderline for notability. Next to nothing on regular google. I couldn't find a single review on Google Scholar for "Groundswell. Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies" BUT the book has 5 reviews in Lib Genesis ([2]) which I recently found to be a much better search engine for book reviews :) Which lead me to conclude the book is notable, and then I noticed we already have Groundswell (book). So how about merging this concept, of unclear standalone notability, there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:PROMO. This article is just a way to advertise a business concept the creator of the article desires be promoted and the article even links to his own user sandbox, which is a mirror copy of this article. Wikipedia is citing Wikipedia as a source here. It's clear there is some COI going on with this article. The article should be swiftly uprooted so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:58, 25 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madrat and Chiko[edit]

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

Notable?. Possible WP:TOOSOON Ceethekreator (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first three pages of Ghits are YouTube videos which doesn't mean much but it shows that they don't perform in English but in some other language which we can guess is Swahili since they're from Uganda. It would be important to evaluate if they have coverage in Swahili-language publications. They do have a bit of coverage in local English-language media (and of course, if they perform in Uganda in Swahili, that's all we'll get) as shown in the sources provided in the article and others such as this and this. All in all, I guess I'm a Weak keep for now. Pichpich (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Pichpich.Tamsier (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV. Also falls under WP:TOOSOON. Based on the available sources, this duo is not notable, but may become notable in the future. That sources may exist elsewhere in a different language and could be found at some vague future point is not a reason to keep this article now, as that is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL. The article fails on the merits now, which is the only thing that matters. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:05, 25 June 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. Normally, I'd lean towards closing a discussion like this as merge, per WP:ATD. But User:Newshunter12's comment convinced me otherwise. No sources means no WP:V, so there's nothing to merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Carter[edit]

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

The only references I can find are to press releases, and I can't find any evidence this company meets WP:NCORP. Marquardtika (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into the AmeriMark Direct article. AmeriMark bought them up in February. Since then, they've received a small amount of press coverage regarding store closings and a class action regarding wiretap allegations. Orville1974 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG since it is unsourced and sources found online by the nominator were just press releases. I understand the above two editors' desire to merge this content, but the lack of any sources whatsoever in this article means this content is worthless, so there is no point in sending it somewhere else. If someone desires, they can just find those press releases and try to expand that other article on their own. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:12, 25 June 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 move to draft space. The draft can be found at Draft:Cuco (musician). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuco (musician)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a person who does not yet have any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claims here are a viral video on YouTube, and that he just signed to a record label a few weeks ago -- but having views on social media is not a notability criterion in and of itself, and getting signed to a label is not an instant notability pass for a musician who has not yet released any recorded music on said label. And for sourcing, what we have is one short blurb supporting the signing, one Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself rather than being written about in the third person, and just one piece that's actually substantive enough to count as a data point toward NMUSIC #1. No prejudice against recreation in the future when he actually has a hit single for NMUSIC #2 and/or two full-length albums for NMUSIC #5 under his belt, but he's not entitled to already have an article in advance of actually achieving anything that would actually pass NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He's got multiple articles about him in mainstream venues. it's not up to wikipedia to decide whether someone's accomplishments are notable. We just report on whether people have been declared notable by the mainstream press. Cuco clearly has been.NoahB (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are lots more articles about him:

https://www.complex.com/music/2018/04/cuco-who-is https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9k945v/cuco-is-las-new-romantic-and-hes-only-18 https://tealmagazine.com/articles/interview-with-cuco

Again, the press thanks he's worth talking about. It's 2019; releasing recorded music on an official label shouldn't be the bar for notability now, if it ever was. NoahB (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: NoahB (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Releasing music on an official label is not the only way that a musician can become notable enough for a Wikipedia article; there have been artists who released their music independently, but still got over other NMUSIC criteria with it anyway. But for an artist who has signed to a major label, the release of some actual music on that label is still a base requirement, and merely signing does not constitute a free notability pass in and of itself for a musician who has released absolutely nothing under that contract yet. Musical notability for Wikipedia's purposes requires some form of measurable accomplishment, such as having a hit single or releasing a number of albums or touring, and is not automatically extended to every musician who merely exists but has no quantifiable achievements to measure against NMUSIC at all. "It's 2019" is not a valid argument against the existence of notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we've got multiple major mainstream news sites doing extended profiles of him, and the existence of a seven figure record deal is notable in itself. You don't think the person should be notable; mainstream sites like NPR and Rolling Stone and Vice disagree. You think there shouldn't be coverage unless someone has released music on a label; again, major mainstream sites disagree.I still don't see why it's Wikipedia's job to erase artists who have been covered in mainstream outlets because we think they don't deserve the attention or some such.NoahB (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "there is not enough substance to say about him for a Wikipedia article to be warranted yet" is not the same thing as saying that he somehow doesn't "deserve any attention" — TOOSOON does not mean "never", it just means "not yet". The very reason we have notability standards for musicians, which measure quantifiable achievements and not just verification that the musician exists, is precisely that we don't want to just have to keep an article about every single musician who exists on earth — we want to keep articles about musicians who have achieved notable things in their careers, not just everybody who merely aspires to. Even Beyoncé, in fact, was once an aspiring musician who would not have qualified for an article yet if Wikipedia had existed at the time — once she did achieve something noteworthy, obviously that would have changed, but before she had actually achieved anything would have been TOOSOON.
Signing to a record label is not a Wikipedia notability criterion in and of itself: NMUSIC only invokes record labels in the context of releasing music on the label, and does not extend an automatic inclusion freebie on the basis of merely signing a contract. Lots of artists in history have signed major label contracts, but then gotten dropped before they actually accomplished anything on that label: so being on a major label is only relevant to musical notability insofar as it actually results in albums, singles and/or concert tours, and merely signing the contract is not an instant pass to notability all by itself.
And as for the sources: Q&A interviews like your NPR, Complex and Teal Magazine links, in which the subject is speaking about himself in the first person, are not support for notability. They can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources — but to count as support for his basic notability in the first place, a source has to represent other people writing or speaking about him in the third person. Very short blurbs, similarly, are not support for notability: they can, again, be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has been already covered off by stronger sources, but to count as support for his basic notability a source has to be substantive and not just a short blurb. As of right now, the only source we actually have that is both substantive and third person is the Rolling Stone "how a band geek became a heartthrob" — but one substantive source is not enough to claim that a musician passes NMUSIC #1 in lieu of actually achieving anything relevant to NMUSIC #2-12.
I said right from the beginning that there was no prejudice against recreating the article at a later date once he's actually achieved something relevant to our notability criteria for musicians, like touring or having a hit single or releasing two full albums — but merely signing to a major label does not pass NMUSIC all by itself if he hasn't done anything under that contract yet. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lot of words to say you don't think that mainstream venues should be covering him yet. But they are. Rather than trying to erase that, we should be neutral, and just accurately cite what they say.NoahB (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth. "Mainstream venues should not be covering him yet" is not what I said, it's not what I meant, and it's not what I think — but the context of what they're covering him for is not relevant to whether he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article yet. They're covering him solely in the context of being a young musician who aspires to make it in the future, not in the context of having achieved anything yet.
The existence of one or two pieces of media coverage is not always automatic grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — if it were, we would have to keep articles about my mother's neighbour who got into the papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard, unsuccessful candidates in city council elections, winners of high school poetry contests, and me — rather, we also test for the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and defer the creation of an article to a later date if there isn't a noteworthy achievement for our article to document yet. That's not a criticism of Cuco as a person, or of the media for covering him: the guy just hasn't done anything relevant to our notability criteria for musicians yet. Maybe in six months he will — that's great, and that's when a Wikipedia article will become warranted. But one substantive piece about him, paired with Q&A interviews and short blurbs, does not equal "a Wikipedia article needs to already exist today even if he hasn't actually accomplished anything noteworthy yet". Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the NPR piece has a lengthy intro, the Complex piece is not a Q&A. A report on his signing is also substantive. There is plenty of information about him from mainstream sources, which is why there are multiple citations in the article. In the time it's taken you to spin out hundreds of words here, you could have added links, resources and expanded the article. It's super frustrating to try to include information that is quite widely discussed on mainstream sites, only to have a deletion notice put up almost instantly. it really discourages new and infrequent users. NoahB (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Complex piece is a Q&A: the text portion of it is a short prefatory blurb, while the substance of the link is an eight-minute YouTube video which is a Q&A interview featuring him talking about himself. The report on his signing is a blurb. The NPR piece is a Q&A interview, and Q&A interviews always feature short introductions to set up the context before the questions start — so a Q&A interview is not exempted from the problems with Q&A interviews just because a short preface is there, because a short preface is always there in all Q&A interviews. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space The sources rolling Stone shows that the subject is notable. An article should be developed, but for now I agree with the nominator that it is WP:TOOSOON. When the unequivocal GNG of the subject is there - the article will be ready. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify WP:TOOSOON and discussion shows editor needs to review Wikipedia policies on notability. – The Grid (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree in principle with the TOO:SOON arguments (in the unlikely event his much hyped release tanks and we never hear from the guy again) and if Draftifying this while it is improved is a solution, so be it. But GNG is established with mainstream coverage ramping up in anticipation of this release, enough to meet GNG. In addition to those cited already, there are lengthy significant third party write ups in Teen Vogue [3], California Sunday [4], and LA Times, among others. [5] ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Falls under WP:TOOSOON, but can be recreated if he indeed becomes notable down the road. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON. Masum Reza^📞 06:01, 26 June 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)} 16:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noyeem Imtiaz Neamul[edit]

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

someone can easily argue that this article WP:BIO. failed to meet any criteria regarding an advertisement and notability. These sources are the smallest coverage.-Nahal (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.-Nahal (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Each Source of this article is taken from different actors and actresses. i did not find any bangla source about these article. all of source not related with article. i wanted to use speedy deletion tag for quickly remove this article but due to some of source, so i did not.-Nahal (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as he has not received sustained WP:SIGCOV of himself. Sources in the article are primarily about other people or films, not him. There is also some serious reference dumping at points in the article to make it seem like the subject is more notable then he really is. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:26, 25 June 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. Sourcing obviously is very weak, but nevertheless there is no consensus to delete. If no better sourcing comes about in, say, a month or so, no prejudice against relisting this at AfD. Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PhysicsOverflow[edit]

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

No sourcing at all, in WP:RS. Alexa rank of 1,197,749, and failure to meet WP:NWEB criteria. Störm (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has received coverage from at least two physics journals^[1]^[2] and one independent website.^[3] There are probably more sources like this out there. I don't think that Alexa rank is very relevant in this case: while PhysicsOverflow is quite notable among physicists, it is not used or known by laypeople. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pallavi Sudhir, Abhimanyu; Knöpfel, Rahel (23 October 2015). "PhysicsOverflow: A postgraduate-level physics Q&A site and open peer review system". Asia Pacific Physics Newsletter. 04 (1): 53–55. doi:10.1142/S2251158X15000193. ISSN 2251-158X.
^ https://www.pro-physik.de/restricted-files/86776. Retrieved 5 June 2019. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "A theoretical physics FAQ". www.mat.univie.ac.at. Retrieved 5 June 2019.

Keep; the peer-review aspects alone make this a reliable source, and the notability of its' userbase make it notable. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: It is peer-review; the very fabric of Wikipedia! -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The first of the three references in the list above is a primary source. The second is an interview with one of the site's creators, but that is evidence of the world (or at least the physics community) taking note, so it is a point in favor. The Alexa rank of a specialist website is pretty much an irrelevant datum. Likewise, whether the site itself counts as a "reliable source" is a topic for a different place and doesn't really bear upon the question of keeping this page one way or the other. (After all, we have plenty of articles about publications that we do not consider reliable sources.) There are just enough verifiable items of evidence that physicists use and recommend the site that we can justifiably have a page about it. I might not object to a merge, if a suitable target were proposed, but that is also a discussion for another day and place. XOR'easter (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited above are problematic. As mentioned, the first two are directly from the creators of the WWW site themselves, one being an interview and the other being a newsletter announcement from those creators. The third simply does not provide any information about this subject at all, upon reading it. The sources cited in the article are equally problematic. Supporting citations for several claims are simply pointers to conversations amongst people on the site itself, from which readers are supposed to make original inferences; and the other sourcing in the article is not any better. Looking elsewhere, I cannot find any reliable independent sources from which to make an article properly. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB due to lacking sustained independent WP:SIGCOV. All of the sources in the article and provided here in the AfD have serious deficiencies as outlined by Uncle G above. They just do not in any way get this article off the ground and over any notability guidelines. I would also note this article was created and fostered by a prolific WP:SPA. The likely COI here means this article should be swiftly uprooted from the encyclopedia so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:36, 25 June 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. Consensus is that the held positions is not equivalent to a "statewide office" per NPOL. No evidence that GNG or any other notability criteria has been met, and therefore consensus is "delete." However, it should be noted that it is not at all a "clear attempt to abuse that provision". That is undeserved bad faith. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Masch[edit]

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

Bureaucrat that has held multiple positions, but none that pass WP:NPOL. PROD was contested based on the assumption that Masch has held statewide office, but he has not held any statewide elected office or been elected to any office over the course of his career. He serve as the Secretary of Administration under Governor Ed Rendell, but that is an appointed position to run a state government department. GPL93 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Just a business administrator with mainly primary sources, dead links, or mundane news reports or press releases. Otr500 (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wording of WP:NPOL -- Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office -- doesn't explicitly state that one has to be an elected official to meet NPOL. The office he holds - Secretary of Administration - is a technically a state-wide office. Ergo, he is notable under WP:NPOL. That said, the article's quality does not look good right now. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPOL he has held a statewide office.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Department of Administration is a 600-person support office for other statewide government departments and "Secretary" is simply the term used in PA instead of "director". It's not a constitutionally established office and can be dissolved at any time. I don't particularly think the Statewide office criteria of NPOL covers that. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The small Department of Administration is an office director position and can hardly be used as justification to pass the statewide office criteria of WP:NPOL. This is a clear attempt to abuse that provision to keep! this article. If he did pass it, then any random DMV official would need an article as well, since everyone in the state is technically under them so they are more a statewide official then this guy. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This sort of functionary falls below what our rules are intended to allow. bd2412 T 20:50, 26 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim al-Mujab[edit]

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

Searching Google Books and Scholar turned up nothing, could of course me a spelling issue - if he actually is the person who was caretaker of the shrine that might be enough Doug Weller talk 11:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki article gives some ideas of where to look. Note that the dates in the citations are in Solar Hijri. Uncle G (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a notable historical figure who has a shrine in Karbala.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 18 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AirSwap[edit]

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency company. Blumpf (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is notable and lists more than two reliable sources. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 04:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the sourcing is ehh, but a full article in Bloomberg as well as CNBC is surprisingly good - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just build up to their ICO though. They were published in late September and the ICO was on October 10. "A start-up is raising funds for a cryptocurrency exchange — by selling a cryptocurrency" "This 31-Year-Old Is Trying to Revolutionize Cryptocurrency Trading". Blumpf (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, hence "weak" - David Gerard (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 18 June 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 Camilo de Sousa. Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ibo, o sangue do silêncio[edit]

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

Another short film I can't find that much notability for-nor can I find any sources (heck even the IMDB does not even have a page for this, which is pretty telling). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agaïssa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warda (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Season Between Heaven and Hell for similar cases Wgolf (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has entries in Les cinémas d'Afrique: dictionnaire and Le clap but I can't tell from snippet view how in-depth these are. There is also a match in the dissertation Film and politics in the Lusophone world (1960s-1970s) according to ProQuest, but again, I don't have access to the full document. SpinningSpark 17:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we have to be realistic about applying the notability criteria here. Hardly any films at all were made in Mozambique in this period, so we might presume this one notable for that reason alone. It's likely that the film attracted independent coverage in the national press at the time -- but these sources are unlikely to have been digitised and made available to general Internet searches. At the moment, this entry is the fullest summary of the film available on the Net, and valuable for that reason. It's a stub, but hopefully someone with access to the archives can one day improve it. Alarichall (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've now made an entry for the director, Camilo de Sousa, so I suggest that at worst we merge the summary here to that entry. Alarichall (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV. That independent WP:SIGCOV might exist elsewhere and be located at some distant point is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL and should not be used as justification to keep this article. We are evaluating this article on its merits today and it clearly fails notability standards today. It can be recreated at a later point if WP:SIGCOV sources are located and can be added to a new article. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Camilo de Sousa seems like a good resolution, per Alarichall's good work. bd2412 T 20:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Camilo de Sousa - per Alarichall.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Camilo de Sousa as this stub doesn't have enough secondary reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. Masum Reza^📞 00:31, 27 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thordis Loa Thorhallsdottir[edit]

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

Résumé-toned WP:BLP of a politician, notable only as deputy mayor of a city. This is not a role that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass on every deputy mayor of every city, so the notability test she would have to pass is the reception of significant press coverage that's substantive enough in depth and volume to make her a special case. But seven of the eight footnotes here are either blogs or self-published primary sources which do not count as support for notability at all, and the only one that's actually a properly reliable source is just a short blurb verifying that she won a non-notable award. So the one blurb is not enough press coverage to get her into Wikipedia all by itself, if all of the rest of the sources are junk -- and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Þórdís readily meets the basic criteria for the notability of people: 'people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject'. (See WP:BASIC). A quick search of the Icelandic newspaper repository timarit.is, for example, produces 218 hits, many of them substantial articles focusing on Þórdis and independent of her. It's worth adding to this that while the entry could be much better referenced, three of the existing references are to proper journalism: this, this, and this. The problem with this entry is not that its subject isn't notable, but that the entry needs to be improved. Alarichall (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:NPOL allows "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" and I think she comes in under that. Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search on Google on Icelandic websites alone turns up several thousand hits with her name with newstories about her political and business career along with her work as the deputy mayor of Reykjavík. Dammit_steve (talk) 23:36, 22 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Beck (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E of a person notable only for a two-day blip of press coverage when he was forced out of a political candidacy. As always, being a non-winning candidate for political office is not an WP:NPOL pass: if he didn't win the seat and thereby serve as an MP, then he qualifies for an article only if either (a) he was already notable enough for other reasons that he would have qualified for an article on those preexisting grounds anyway, or (b) he can be referenced to such an exceptional depth of coverage that his candidacy could be credibly claimed as special (the Christine O'Donnell pass). Receiving a two-day blip of coverage in the moment, and then fading back into obscurity, just makes this a BLP1E of an obscure low-profile figure rather than an encyclopedic biography of a person who has sustained any enduring public interest that would satisfy the ten-year test. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canadian federal election, 1993. Perhaps added under a controversies section. Otherwise, not notable per WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as others. Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete arguments are more compelling here. If the subject is elected in the forthcoming Canadian Federal Election, a request can be made to WP:REFUND the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Fawcett[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only stated or sourced claim of notability is as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election -- but as always, the notability test for people in federal elections is winning the seat, not just being a candidate for it. The only other potential basis for notability here is a court case stemming from a car accident, which just makes her a WP:BLP1E and is not a reason why she would pass the ten-year test as a topic of enduring notability -- and the claims that she's been a para-athlete are not referenced to any evidence that she's achieved anything that would get her over WP:NATHLETE at all (where the notability test is not just "every athlete who exists" either.) As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if she wins -- but Wikipedia is not a free webhost for candidates' campaign brochures, and nothing here is a reason why she would already qualify for an article today. GNG is not just "any subject whose name generates two or more media hits", but rather it tests for additional issues such as the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about her, and the context of what she's getting coverage for. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant enough that her case was all over the news and is the reason that she's running against Bill Blair in the 2019 Canadian Federal Election. Kevinhanit (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her case was "all over the news" in a strictly WP:BLP1E way, not in a way that would already get her over the ten-year test for enduring significance independently of whether she wins the election or not. If she wins the seat, then obviously it will be relevant background on a person who passes WP:NPOL — but if she doesn't win the seat, the court case isn't its own reason why people would still be looking for her anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is about her lawsuit which falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Doesn't meet any SNG. Of course if she's elected to the Canadian Parliament in October, she will be notable as a politician--but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Combination of athlete status in major competition and abundance of secondary sources indicates WP:GNG even if no specific criteria is met. Further reasoning: though her military service would not pass notability per WP:SNG, meets the spirit of "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novabrahm (talk • contribs) 05:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Invictus Games aren't a "major competition" on the level of the Olympics. Participating athletes might be notable if they get press coverage about their accomplishments at the games, but do not get automatic notability freebies just for being there — but none of the sources here are about her accomplishments as an athlete at all, indicating that she's not notable for that. And what the sources are covering her for just makes her a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:TOOSOON. If she wins the seat, then this article can be recreated, but as of now the car accident coverage, being a minor athlete, and a political candidate are not enough to satisfy any notability guidelines. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Clearly notable enough for me. Kevinhanit (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I struck your most recent vote because you can only vote once per AfD. You can comment as often as you want, but only vote once. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason for keeping the article.Sandals1 (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Definitely not notable as an athlete. Her lawsuit was one event and doesn't make her notable. If she wins her election, then the article can be recreated.Sandals1 (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL fail that is currently a WP:BLP1E. If she wins the article can be recreated. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOL. Bondegezou (talk) 15:46, 22 June 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 13:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Batu Akyol[edit]

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

Insufficient independent coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG and does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR due to lacking sustained independent WP:SIGCOV of the subject. None of his movies or book have been major works of film or literature. The creator of the article also had a large number of edits recently scrubbed for copyvio issues and I'm not certain if all of those issues have been resolved or not in the article. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, he also does not inherit the notability of the first Turkish theater actress despite having a very loose tie to her. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:16, 25 June 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. ~~Stating that you're planning to look for sources after the AfD closes isn't useful. More useful would have been to look for sources now and list them here at the AfD so people could evaluate them.~~ -- RoySmith (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my comment; I mis-read User:Hugsyrup's argument and reacted to something he didn't say. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh McDermott (police officer)[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:Notability guidelines. Small town local police office that was involved in shoot out with a gangster. No significant coverage about him, only mentions in articles about the gangster. noq (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I contested the prod and added some additional info and slightly better sources. The problem is that the sources primarily fall into two types: high-quality reliable sources such as published books, but that cover McDermott only in passing, and only in the context of Pretty Boy Floyd. Or lower-quality sources (blogs, the online historical society, etc.) that cover him in considerably more depth and expand to his whole career. I'm just about inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as worth keeping, and I'm planning to spend the time that this AFD is open trying to find better sources and improve the article, but I can certainly understand why it was nominated and wouldn't be particularly surprised by a delete result. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Hugsyrup. If sources can't be found, then mentioning some of the sourceable biographical details in the article on the gangster seems like it would be appropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure what either of the previous two editors are seeing as notable. The story I see is small town police officer is roped in to help FBI search for suspect. I don;t see anything in that that is inherently notable. All the article says is he helped search for Floyd, he was not mentioned as being involved in the shoot out itself. The main sources would appear to be passing mentions and not significant coverage. What makes him stand out from all the other police officers involved in the seatch? noq (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At its best BLP1E, nothing besides the event and his resume. Viztor (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination & Viztor. Geoffroi (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and Viztor. Under WP:NOTINHERITED, notability is not inherited. The criminal he helped take down was notable, not this guy. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not a WP:BLP1E, because it is not a BLP. The subject has been dead for 66 years. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 25 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British-Ukrainian Symposium[edit]

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

no evidence of it being a notable conference series-- DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of any notability, looks like a rather limited local event. The article is also written in a promotional way and we definitely can do without the descriptions of each individual meeting. --Randykitty (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree about lack of notability, and there's no obvious merge target, but disagree that things are promotional (mildly so at best), or that the themes of each conference are irrelevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources do not indicate that this is anything more then a limited local event. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by administrator DGG. (non-admin closure) --MrClog (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picartoongraphy[edit]

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

A Google search gives 213 results, with no reliable sources popping up regarding the topic discussed here. Fails WP:GNG. MrClog (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible speedy delete per A11. If that's not the case then delete anyway. The rotoscope is about a century old now and practically the same thing as this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to agree with John M Wolfson. Rotoscoping and other techniques are old stuff. This neologism replete with inline promotional links is nothing new.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:58, 19 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magomed Magomedkerimov[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO as subject has not fought in a top tier promoter and coverage are routine. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Has never had a top tier fight so fails WP:NMMA. All the references are just fighter listings from various sources. There's no significant coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA since he has never had a top tier fight. All the sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage and not sustained WP:SIGCOV, so the article also fails WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:34, 25 June 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 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 627[edit]

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

notability WP:N, and what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT. Non-notable accident. The aircraft involved was at the end of its life, so the relatively minor damage would cause an Insurance write-off. No casualties, none or very few even minor injuries, no notable persons or objects affected, no lasting effects, the list is endless Petebutt (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hardly noteworthy enough for an article as Petebutt has explained. MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:Aircrash; a runway excursion resulting in no serious injuries nor changes to aviation procedures warrants a paragraph in the "Accidents and Incidents" section of the article for EWR, but not an entire article. Carguychris (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability guidelines for an aircraft incident article. Agree with adding it to the Newark Liberty International Airport page. - Samf4u (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Hard one for me to decide and I think it was a bit premature to nominate this for deletion yet, per the suggestion at WP:RAPID (same applies to whether or not the article should have been created in the first place, but it's here now). On the one hand, the incident was not notable, in the generic sense of the word, it was a hard landing that caused damage and disruption, and that happens all the time. Well, not really, but pretty frequently. No injuries or fatalities. On the other hand, the incident may result in a hull loss based upon the amount of damage it sustained, which raises it above my "keep" threshold, despite Petebutt's probably accurate statement that it could be an insurance write-off due to the age of the craft, there just hasn't been any reporting on the fact yet of whether that is the case. I also haven't seen anything about how many hours the aircraft has flown, which is a more accurate measure of how much life the aircraft has left in it. The incident has received international news coverage, I just don't know whether or not the coverage will remain sustained over time. It's too soon to tell. So, don't delete yet. If the plane is repaired and returns to service and we don't learn anything new from the investigation, it would be an easy delete. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, we do not need to document every single airplane crash, especially not those where no one died or was injured.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability grounds. There were no deaths, no serious injuries, and no fires. The only significant impact was that the passengers had to disembark by airstairs. Professionally handled it seems, but we don’t need a standalone article for every single accident (otherwise, we would be here forever). --Minoa (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Spengouli (talk) 15:32, 22 June 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) 03:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Grillo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

OK, this was created by editors with a clear conflict of interest over the last 8-9 years (with the last AfD less than a year ago). The references, as usual, are totally self-serving and the text is similar (there is nothing about what others say about him, it is all 'In his publication ...', 'Grillo postulates..', 'Grillo is interested in ..', 'Grillo, argues that' (and all self referenced material). I can see the argument that he is possibly notable, but lets re-assess that (again) through an AfD. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello I am the creator of this page. I know of the previous versions of the page and attempted to write something different, with new information on the author that I gathered after attending one his recent presentations. I agree with you that the content is notable, in fact Francesco Grillo, a fairly well-known person here in Italy, is gaining further notoriety. Given Wikipedia's mission (to benefit readers by providing comprehensive, free information on relevant topics of the day) I believe that the article I wrote about Francesco Grillo, especially once sources and style are modified in the ways suggested, deserves to be kept and not deleted. Vincitore99 (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincitore99: That the person is notable in Italy does not necessarily mean they are also notable worldwide. Currently literally ALL references are from sources that are 'controlled' by the subject. You would really have to find significant, reliable sources that are totally independent from the source (i.e. what others have written about him). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep I have made changes as suggested and I think now the page is even better and as objective as possible. Therefore, I would encourage you to keep page as is, unless you have further constructive suggestions. Thanks Vincitore99 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the reference to Grillo's work is by a co-author of said work. Can you please provide truly independent citations? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: You are right, but there are other two references (13 and 15) that are completely independent from the author. Furthermore, the reference you mentioned is related to another work written by Nanetti (who has written books with Grillo) and a different co-author (Holguin). :@GPL93: As I said previously, there are independent sources that prove Francesco Grillo's notability. I am not in WP:COI. As stated in my last message, I went to a conference where Grillo spoke. I found his work interesting, so I decided to write about him. Not as a promo, but as a voluntary contribution to Wikipedia, which - as its mission states - intends to spread knowledge of important topics in all fields in an effort to make knowledge accessible to all. It would be against the mission and the spirit with which I wrote this page to delete it. Thanks, however, for being diligent. Vincitore99 (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Citing someone else's work does help, but it is very thin for notability (almost everyone who ever has published something has people citing said article, that alone does not make them notable). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks enough independent coverage and sourcing to establish WP:GNG. Also a likely WP:PROMO that has been contributed to routinely by someone with a WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and GLP93. Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained independent WP:SIGCOV. The subject is also only modestly more notable then when this article was deleted before; not enough to justify its return. The COI issue noted above also means this article should be swiftly uprooted so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:47, 25 June 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. Consensus is clearly that per WP:BLP1E, this does not merit coverage as a biography. If people need the material to discuss the event in a separate article - or a non-biography one - they can ask at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pranesh Gautam[edit]

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

A PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY about a non-notable person involved in a SINGLE EVENT. The event is developing and will probably warrant an article soon but this biography is totally unwarranted and way way TOO SOON for the subject. No biographical coverage in WP:RS to write an encyclopedic biography with. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is a notable person who was involved with Mic Drop before being arrested.[6] after his arrest he has gained much attention including from the human rights watch [7]. In WP:TOOSOON, it says "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" yes he has done that.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to interpret the line you quoted. So, I'll leave that judgement to more seasoned editors here. My other point still stands though, right? There is no actual RS that has covered his biography, so anything biographical has to be OR. That's why the article is a pseudobiography, it only talks about one event. Maybe, if the article were titled to reflect that, like Arrest of Pranesh Gautam or something, the GNG fulfilment of the article would still be questionable, but at least it wouldn't be misleading. Usedtobecool ^TALK 20:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, ok lets changes the title and talk only about the arrest. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the event has enough coverage to write an article with. It has still to play out and if nothing else happens of long-lasting impact, I'm worried we might look silly putting out chips in before all the cards are laid out. But, in view of the amount of notice that was taken, especially in the context of PM's visit to Europe (noted for his continuous reaffirmation of democratic values while there), I'll give a weak support to moving the event content into an event article and redirecting Pranesh Gautam and Milan Chams (which is also up for deletion) both to that article. I suggested Arrest of Pranesh Gautam off the top of my head. Probably a good idea to check how similar events are titled in wikipedia before settling into a title. However, please note that I can't withdraw this nomination because the discussion is ongoing, with participants taking both sides. Perhaps, the deleters can be convinced to let it stay as a redirect.Usedtobecool ^TALK 06:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed one delete-vote and comment by a new single-purpose account. Soapboxing and unwarranted attack on the article contributor/s.
Yes, it should be deleted, or at least balanced with opinions from the other side. The article had been clearly written with the intention to defame Pranesh Gautam and is a form of personal revenge, while the young student was just released from jail on Sunday and is psychically still broken. It is easy to find on English language Nepali media that Pranesh Gautam is a comedian who had been hired by Meme Nepal Youtube Channel and after his sarcastic film review of a Kollywood (K for Kathmandu) big-budget movie by Milan Chams Bir Bikram 2 had been aired, the film producer arranged that police took him without warning and arrested him for 9 days. The move had been just one of the series of recent arbitrary arrests of journalists, artists and human rights activists in Nepal, after new free speech blocking laws had been implemented by the current government, and was widely criticized by the media and public, for example Disparaging Film Review Can Mean Jail Time in Nepal. He had been released only after thousands of people petitioned the Government for example on Change.org (Release Pranesh Gautam (Meme Nepal)) and freepraneshgautam Twitter hashtag. So I think the original entry was written by those who got him to jail, and it is one-sided. Pranesh had been also supported by some comedians outside of Nepal. He had recorded quite a few stand up comedies on Youtube, especially as a member of young Nepalese comedians of the Comedy Circle. He seems to be talented and his comedy is sophisticated, spontaneous and intelligent and has apparently thousands of fans in Nepal. Unfortunately I think that he might be too young to have a long biography for Wikipedia, but he became recently famous mainly as a symbol of the government's crackdown on free speech and misuse of police power by the rich and influential. The general view is that even if his comedy film criticism was slightly offending, it was not a strong enough reason to arrest him as if he was some murderer and put to jail without investigation or court. Currently there are numerous examples on curtailing freedom of speech and expression and press freedom in Nepal, and Pranesh's case should be viewed in this context. AriyaG (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)AriyaGAriyaG (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)— AriyaG (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Collapsed one delete-vote and comment by a new single-purpose account. Soapboxing and unwarranted attack on the article contributor/s.

Yes, it should be deleted, or at least balanced with opinions from the other side. The article had been clearly written with the intention to defame Pranesh Gautam and is a form of personal revenge, while the young student was just released from jail on Sunday and is psychically still broken. It is easy to find on English language Nepali media that Pranesh Gautam is a comedian who had been hired by Meme Nepal Youtube Channel and after his sarcastic film review of a Kollywood (K for Kathmandu) big-budget movie by Milan Chams Bir Bikram 2 had been aired, the film producer arranged that police took him without warning and arrested him for 9 days. The move had been just one of the series of recent arbitrary arrests of journalists, artists and human rights activists in Nepal, after new free speech blocking laws had been implemented by the current government, and was widely criticized by the media and public, for example Disparaging Film Review Can Mean Jail Time in Nepal. He had been released only after thousands of people petitioned the Government for example on Change.org (Release Pranesh Gautam (Meme Nepal)) and freepraneshgautam Twitter hashtag. So I think the original entry was written by those who got him to jail, and it is one-sided. Pranesh had been also supported by some comedians outside of Nepal. He had recorded quite a few stand up comedies on Youtube, especially as a member of young Nepalese comedians of the Comedy Circle. He seems to be talented and his comedy is sophisticated, spontaneous and intelligent and has apparently thousands of fans in Nepal. Unfortunately I think that he might be too young to have a long biography for Wikipedia, but he became recently famous mainly as a symbol of the government's crackdown on free speech and misuse of police power by the rich and influential. The general view is that even if his comedy film criticism was slightly offending, it was not a strong enough reason to arrest him as if he was some murderer and put to jail without investigation or court. Currently there are numerous examples on curtailing freedom of speech and expression and press freedom in Nepal, and Pranesh's case should be viewed in this context. AriyaG (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)AriyaGAriyaG (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)— AriyaG (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am unconvinced that there exists in-depth, third party coverage of this man apart from the one event that many of the sources present revolve around. As such, I am leaning towards delete. Killiondude (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right and it should be deleted as WP: BLP1E.Owlf 08:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The guy is widely covered in news media cause of just an single event (Nepal police took him into custody for making reviewing video of Nepali movie Bir Bikram 2 and charge him for cyber crime) so, it directly follows WP: BLP1E. Owlf 08:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. The event itself appears to be notable and well-documented (an arrest for reviewing a movie?!?) and is probably worth discussion in an appropriate article, but not in a biography. ST47 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saheem Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted back in 2016. Speedy was declined due to the CIFF award, which was subsequent to the AfD. However, not sure that award is even for the same individual. This Saheem is an actor, and that award was for directing, imdb has them as two separate folks. The only two citations which mention this minor award seem to be the same press release printed in different sources. Award is a very minor award, and that being the only difference, if indeed it is even speaking about the same person, doesn't elevate him to reach WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- It was a "best actor" award that the subject won at the Canada International Film Festival, so I would imagine that it was for acting. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Cant seem to find any in-depth coverage on the subject in question to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 07:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This actor is no more meaningfully notable then when this article was deleted the first time. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gold level imdb-pro contributor with over 10k accepted contributions here to help. I have researched the imdbpages. Saheem Khan has a total of 6 imdbpages, 3 of them have credits listed. If these are the same person a merge request should be submitted merging all the credits. Having seperate imdbpages is not an argument for deletion. However, if the pages would be merged it would only add 2 credits to his filmography. Some of his roles are listed as Various, usually this indicates ensemble roles or minor roles. If there are any more imdb related questions at all please talkpage me. SimonRichter1337 (talk) 12:48, 25 June 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 Send to CSD. upon author's request (non-admin closure) Viztor (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SH AB[edit]

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

Redirect created in error Skalinek (talk) 02:23, 18 June 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 June 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 --94rain ^Talk 03:12, 18 June 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 Henry Avery. all parties agree to merge, afd should not be proposed. (non-admin closure) Viztor (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Pirates[edit]

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

I recommend MERGE into Henry Avery article. Subject is not notable on its own. Article has numerous contradictory issues that make it not notable, starting with the language that it's an "obscure fictional book". Nomopbs (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation: I recommend MERGE this article into the Henry Avery article.

The first sentence in this article ("The King of Pirates is a fictional adventure by Daniel Defoe") contradicts the Daniel Defoe article under the heading "Some contested works attributed to Defoe" which notes "The King of Pirates - purporting to be an account of the pirate Henry Avery."
"Obscure fictional book" contradicts your idea of "notable", Deanyewest. See WP:N. Also, adding 10 more citations doesn't change the article or its notability. See WP:OVERCITE.
"... thought to be an autobiography of Henry Avery ..." — If it's an autobiography, then it wasn't written by Daniel Defoe.
"... thought to be a ... biography of Henry Avery many historians view the book as an embellished and highly romanized version of his life." — Tells me that even the historians can't agree on (a) who wrote it, and (b) who it is about.
The book is already mentioned on the Daniel Defoe article biography, and is mentioned several times in the Henry Avery article. The book itself isn't notable if it's "obscure".

I recommend MERGE this article into the Henry Avery article. Nomopbs (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Henry Avery. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close - WP:AfD should not be used if you want to merge the article as nom. Even if you think it fails notability, conventional merging should be the first port of call. For a nicer phrasing than me, take a look at WP:IGNORINGATD. Close the AfD, start a merge discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:26, 18 June 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. Consensus is that there are not enough available sources at this time. If anyone wants the article userfied while more sources become available, let me know. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonifacio Global City station[edit]

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

Too early, proposed station should be included in the construction plan, not as an individual article. We don't know if anything will change before it is actually built, there is also very little to add while it is only planned. Viztor (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 11:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All proposed stations of Line 9 have individual station articles as the definite route has been announced by the Philippine government and its project has already broken ground. Since it has been announced that construction of the project will start next year[8] and the announced final route definitely includes the station[9],it would be prudent to save the article and add more relevant details down the line instead. The same should be said with all other Line 9 station articles.

Jpg0813 21:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Unless there is significant coverage of the construction for this station in particular, I don't think we should have any articles about a project whose scheduled completion date is six years away. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I agree with the observations of Viztor and Rosguill. Stricnina (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The station is no longer a proposed or theoretical location, but rather a definite stop of the line. Government anmouncements, news articles, JICA reports, and procurement documents for its construction attest to this, albeit the last one is difficult to use as a source for obvious reasons.

In addition, a lot of future stations from different ongoing or approved projects are documented here, some also nowhere near the construction phase. Notably, the articles of the other 13 stations of this subway line seem to have passed the test. Therefore, what makes this particular station different from the others?

Jpg0813 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpg0813: You cannot vote twice to create the illusion of popularity, and please format your comment next time.Viztor (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor: Apologies.I'm not trying to vote twice. I'm still new to these parts so please pardon my innocence.Jpg0813 19:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should only preface your comments with a vote (i.e "keep", "delete", "weak keep", "redirect", etc.) once per discussion. Otherwise you can preface your statement with "Comment", or let it stand on its own. It's also usually good form to start new threads of argumentation with a bullet point so that it's easier to follow discussion the page. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. These articles are definitely verifiable and passes WP:GNG criteria being parts of ongoing multi-billion public transport infrastructure projects. The proposed location and other specifications are definitely noteworthy to the riding public, and merit their own separate articles more than any Category:Proposed skyscrapers which only benefit the select few who utilizes them or owns/developed them. Korean Rail Fan 01:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Korean See my comment below, please. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Rosguill. This article plainly fails WP:CRYSTAL. It's also not Wikipedia's job to be a public service announcement about this proposed station and projects, even large expensive ones, die all the time before coming to fruition. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, if a plan is notable enough it might merit an article, however, the detailed stations in the plan do not have independent notability outside of the proposal do not deserve an article on its own, also Korean Rail Fan. Viztor (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Unless there is significant coverage of the construction for an old project. --MA Javadi (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it seems a bit funny to have an article about a station that will not be opened for another six years. Vorbee (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Since there are other proposed stations from the plan, if the result of this discussion is to delete, should we just PROD other related articles? Of course, if there is no suggestion of independent notability for any other reason. Viztor (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Viztor: why are you relisting your own AfD? Please leave this stuff to the admins. At any rate, delete per above. – bradv🍁 13:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I just learned. Viztor (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Example: The Wikipedia article for the Singapore Metro's Canberra MRT Station was published on June 2014. By that point, it was still a conceptual station via the mentioned Master Plan in the article. Construction was not announced until mid-2015, and completion is slated for later this year. Hence, the article was first made a little more than a year before its construction, and 5 years before its actual completion and utilization.

The difference with the above case and that of the BGC and other Line 9 stations is that

A. These stations are officially under construction now, as is the case with the entire line, and therefore past the planning phase.

B. These stations are already announced and right-of-way acquisition is underway, hence we know where the stations will be located, coupled by the JICA papers which serve a similar purpose to the master plan in the Singaporean example.

C. These stations are well documented in media reports of its groundbreaking, officially announced as such by those in charge of its construction as well as bidding documents, and are therefore more than conceptual plans that may never be built since they have the necessary announcement, study and paperwork as backup.

This is our argument as to why these articles are to be maintained. It is not as if these locations are pure fabrications. There is enough evidence to support the notion that these locations are on their way to be realized. If other articles elsewhere started with mere master plans, why can't an article whose construction is already underway in every sense of the word could not? Jpg0813 14:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpg0813: In the case you referred to, the station is in its own plan. However, in this case, there are multiple stations in a single plan. I fail to see how these stations are independent notable besides the plan, most of the things about the plan are the same. Viztor (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Viztor: First of all, a plan is something that is still conceptual, without appropriate backing, funding or implenting paperwork. As I have said, these stations are beyond this stage, since the funding, backing, and implementing rules for their realization are already laid down and these are well documented. It is only therefore right to document the parts of the whole that is being realized since without these parts, the whole is nothing. What I fail to see is how is this not the right time document these since we have enough evidence for their eventual existence.User:Jpg0813 04:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A mere existence of something is not the criteria of inclusion, not to mention eventual existence. Like a said, even if it is a finalized plan, there is just nothing to write about, as least for now, until it's actually built. Viztor (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But as the original example of the Canberra station illustrates, it doesn't prevent future stations from being included as long as there is sufficient evidence of those in charge are on their way to have it built. The original Canberra article merely stated the history of its planning and the statement that it will be built. On the other hand, our station is already tagged under construction via the line being officially under construction, not to mention its initial projected completion. I would argue that in these beta version articles, Our station has a higher likelihood of completion than Canberra was. It is therefore only prudent to start its documentation so as to be accurate of its history as it builds.Jpg0813 17:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have significant coverage in sources yet. ST47 (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Viztor (talk). -MA Javadi (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and it's WP:CRYSTALBALL. Masum Reza^📞 06:04, 26 June 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.