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, basically WP:SNOW at this point. bd2412 T 21:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

West Essex[edit]

West Essex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NGEO. West Essex is neither a legal designation nor a name commonly used. A search of reliable sources only shows the name "West Essex" used in reference to the West Essex Regional School District. The existence of the school district does not mean there is a "West Essex", that would be WP:SYNTH. Also, this was deprodded without any explanation at all by User:Andrew Davidson. Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have lots of geographical names based on compass points like this such as Southern California or the West End. There will always be a sensible alternative to deletion in such cases as we always have the option of merging into the full region, of which this is a quadrant. In this case, there seems to be a reasonable level of usage as we have other articles like West Essex Park and West Essex Trail. The clincher is that there's an entire book about the place. Andrew D. (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. (Nominator mentions "legal designation" w/o providing a policy for what that means or why it is relevant. Nominator makes claim "nor a name commonly used", which is an opinion). Djflem (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Names based on compass points are acceptable.TH1980 (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Essex_County,_New_Jersey#Geography could certainly have a bit that says "These towns in the western part of the county are known as West Essex, etc, etc". Reywas92^Talk 19:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whether or not West Essex is a legally recognized place or a place without legal recognition is irrelevant as long as the article can be sourced to meet WP:GNG. I have just added two ((cite book))s, and neither of these two mention West Essex in reference to West Essex Regional School District, quite contrary to the statement in the nomination "reliable sources only shows the name "West Essex" used in reference to the West Essex Regional School District". WP:ATD is policy and should be followed, including a proper WP:BEFORE, prior to starting an AFD discussion. Sam Sailor 08:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really weak sources. The term "West Essex" is used exactly once in each book (not counting references to the school district) and there is no explanation of exactly what it is or which town are included. You can't write an article on something that is undefined unless you're using WP:SYNTH--Rusf10 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew. Also it looks like passes WP:NPLACE. Masum Reza^📞 06:08, 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. bd2412 T 01:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Coccia[edit]

Mike Coccia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable athlete with routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not taking a position at this time, but there is some significant coverage, e.g., this 2-full page article. Other examples include this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment that Boston Globe article looks pretty good--I agree, I want to give this article a chance.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is notable for being a high school athlete who then went on compete for a job in the NFL with a team who took a chance on him. The fact that the subject did not play does not diminish the notability. The subject does not passWP:NGRIDIRON however the subject has more than trivial coverage about his extreme long shot....from the stands to the field. passes WP:GNG WP:NOTPAPER Tonereport (☎)(My Work) 00:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Globe article is interesting, and if there's other coverage of his collegiate career I'd be interested to see it, but this basically otherwise is functionally a WP:BLP1E: a local player who got coverage since he got a tryout with the local team he supported since he was a kid, and then got cut. The Allentown article is about high school coverage of player and doesn't count. Would not have received a similar level of coverage had he not tried out for his local team. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH. SportingFlyer T·C 02:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Barca (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON due to possessing only WP:ROUTINE coverage and not having played in a major league game. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Looks a lot like this one. Masum Reza^📞 06:18, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan DeWalt-Ondijo[edit]

Jordan DeWalt-Ondijo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable athlete with routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Does not pass WP:GRIDIRON and my searches do not reveal significant coverage of the type required to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete agreed, fails notability measures WP:GNG and others.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Masum Reza^📞 06:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, Alex-h (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable athlete. Barca (talk) 18:22, 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 keep. bd2412 T 02:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Smith[edit]

Kip Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable athlete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bio is a stub, and the article lacks any third-party sourcing to establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Prior AfD closed as a unanimous keep per WP:GNG. He was the top-rated kicking prospect in the US in 2010 and played for two top level NCAA programs (UCLA and Oklahoma State). A quick search in 2015 turned up significant coverage in mainstream media outlets, including: (1) this from The Reporter (same also also published here), (2) this from the Los Angeles Times, (3) this from the Los Angeles Times, (4) this, (5) this, (6) this, and (7) this from the Tulsa World, (8) this from America Sport News, (9) this from The Oklahoman, (10) this from The Orange County Register and (11) this from the Los Angeles Daily News. Some of the sources are now deadlinks, but this was and remains sufficient coverage to pass the GNG bar. (Unfortunately, nobody has bothered to improve the article with information from these sources in the 3-1/2 years since the last AfD.) Cbl62 (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notability has already been achieved and cannot be lost. I see no argument to support the idea that the first AFD was incorrect or should be overturned. Plus (at least according to the article and the Field goal article) his high school field goal of 67 yards ties him for the second-longest high school field goal in history. That's significant and speaks to WP:IMPACT. I grant that should be verified... but let's verify it rather than delete the article without checking.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable college football player - the articles above are all routine coverage of a local college football team or routine transactional. I have no idea why this was added to the Politics AfD thread? SportingFlyer T·C 22:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feature articles are not "routine" by any stretch. See both WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources shown above, there are a total of two feature stories, the Reporter article (republished twice, and both of those republishes were linked) and the Tulsa World "Kip Smith needed a second chance." One of those two articles is about the player trying out for an NFL team, published during what looks like the deep offseason, and the other is a story on him intended for a local media market. If a player definitively fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH, I firmly believe they need more than a "were written about trying to make the NFL" story to be notable, since that is as close to a "routine" feature article as you'll find. The other articles are blurbs/transactional from local area newspapers. Case in point, if a player fails WP:NCOLLATH in a different sport and never played professionally, say baseball, they wouldn't likely have an article even if they were substantively written about in their local press over a number of years, unless of course they passed WP:GNG in some other area. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant, non-routine coverage cited above from seven separate reliable sources. This is more than enough to pass GNG. And your comparison of Division I FBS college football to amateur baseball reflects profound misunderstanding of the major role of big-time college football in the United States. Cbl62 (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely disagree with you. The majority of what you've linked is routine local sports coverage. It doesn't matter the sport, players can get written about and not be notable. This appears to be one of those instances. SportingFlyer T·C 03:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I know at this point we're all probably just at the agree-to-disagree point, but I think it's a bit of an oxymoron to use the phrase "'routine' feature article". My understanding of the WP:ROUTINE policy is that box scores and games that happen on a consistent basis are a good example of routine events. A player attempting to make the NFL--whereupon we'd call them inherently notable--is not routine; it's a subset of a subset of a subset of humans in a process that has a ton of eyeballs on it. The type of article written about that group of prospects may be "routine" insofar as they often draw upon similar stats and college accomplishments, but I don't think it is routine in the same way that other "run-of-the-mill events" are (especially when compared to the other examples on WP:N(E)). Nole (chat·edits) 15:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nolelover: There's a certain type of article written by journalists who tend to cover the NFL team during the deep offseason about players who are on trial with the NFL team, even if they don't have much of a chance of making the team at all. They're like clockwork. I have a lot of trouble claiming an athlete "passes WP:GNG" for a sport if they never play a single down of professional football, and they're not otherwise notable as a collegiate player, especially when the coverage is limited to their local/collegiate market of trying to make the NFL team. SportingFlyer T·C 18:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I disagree with SportingFlyer that the sources Cbl found are routine. They tend to be relatively significant, passing GNG, and I also found a source for the high school record. Nole (chat·edits) 14:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs an ambitious editor because WP:NEXIST. The subject notable for his high school record setting 67 yard field goal. He passes GNG: see non-trivial secondary source here and here and LAtimes story here and Foxsports a subject has to pass WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG not both. This subject easily passes GNG Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 20:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, per WP:YOUNGATH, he can't be notable for his high school field goal, and two of the sources you link to are clearly routine. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:SIGCOV There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. The test to see if the sources are proper: they need to be "Reliable", secondary and independent. The notability guidelines for WP:YOUNGATH and WP:NCOLLATH are no matter since non-trivial coverage exists for this person to pass GNG. I listed four sources and two of them are non-trivial. I will work on improving the article when I have time. WP:NEXIST Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 21:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's research and sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the subject meets WP:GNG. Just because the article is a stub doesn't mean that it is not notable. Masum Reza^📞 00:38, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devante Davis[edit]

Devante Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable college career, non-existent professional career. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. He was one of the most successful receivers ever at Division I UNLV. Had 1,290 receiving yards and 14 TDs in 2013 and received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including (1) this, and (2) this from the Las Vegas Sun, (3) this, (4) this, (5) this, (6) this, and (7) this from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, (8) this from the Houston Chronicle, and (9) this from The Scarlet & Gray Free Press. Cbl62 (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wasn't impressed until I saw CBL's research. Passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's research and sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl62. Masum Reza^📞 —Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you SineBot. I am glad that I've opted in. Masum Reza^📞 06:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets notability guidelines, per above research. Meets WP:GNG Courtc22 (talk) 18:39, 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sloy[edit]

Sloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable indie rock band. No sources & couldn't find anything on Google Anne drew 22:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anne drew 22:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: their albums were produced by Steve Albini and they were invited to do a session on a John Peel show, so they clearly had international appeal. They have a biography on AllMusic [1] and all three of their albums are reviewed there. The best place to look for information on French alternative music is the magazine Les Inrockuptibles, and the magazine has a lengthy article from 1995 when the band was breaking through [2], a review of their final album from 1997 [3], and reviews of the 2012 digital reissues of all three albums in 2012 [4]. It wouldn't surprise me if the alternative music press in the UK like NME and Melody Maker had coverage in print versions in the 1990s. Richard3120 (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Taking on faith the RS credentials of Les Inrockuptibles per Richard3120 (talk), although these sources need added and the article needs expanded by someone who can read French. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: I don't think it's an exaggeration to say it's France's most famous music magazine ever, as well known and respected in France as, say, Rolling Stone in the US or NME in the UK. Richard3120 (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Richard3120 (talk). Being neither French or a speaker of the language, I was unfamiliar with it. It's nice to know some English language wikipedia editors are. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the coverage identified above that shows significant coverage in multiple reliable sources showing the band passes criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) as well as passing WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Atlantic306: Passes WP:GNG? How so? GNG says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Are you sure? Masum Reza^📞 03:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes with Allmusic, bio and reviews in Allmusic, lengthy article in French music magazine detailed above, that is independent and significant so WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The English article has zero reference. Please consider adding those sources here in the English article to establish notability. Masum Reza^📞 19:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Do it yourself Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to. But unfortunately I don't know French. Masum Reza^📞 22:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the refs to the article so it just needs expanding now using those sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I am positive that more reliable sources exist. Masum Reza^📞 06:31, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Thompson and Drake Dawson[edit]

Curtis Thompson and Drake Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notable tag team, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only worked at independent level, with sources being WP:ROUTINE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Masum Reza^📞 06:32, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Sbraccia[edit]

Erich Sbraccia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notable wrestler, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only worked at independent level, with sources being WP:ROUTINE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. Has lots of sources, but they are WP:ROUTINE in nature. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pro wrestlers fall under WP:ENTERTAINER and I don't see anything that shows he meets any of those criteria. Lots of passing mentions and routine reporting, but I don't think WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dukes Dalton[edit]

Dukes Dalton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notable wrestler, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only worked at independent level, with sources being WP:ROUTINE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. There are many sources, but they are just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Routine coverage and passing mentions, but I don't believe WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER are met. Papaursa (talk) 23:43, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Green[edit]

Holly Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable broadcaster with minimal sources and references. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - someone seems to be targeting articles about female meteorologists for deletion - this follows the deletion of Bee Tucker. It is a sad reflection on the sexism of the male-dominated editorship of Wikipedia, while articles about non-notable male meteorologists such as Matt Taylor (meteorologist) remain in place. Peteinterpol (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a target for female meteorologists. It is simply following Wikipedia's rules. There is no significant coverage about this article, and therefore, fails WP:GNG. If you can find anything that will be classed as a reliable sources, maybe the article can stay. I've said before, I will take a look at the Matt Taylor (meteorologist) article in due course. - Funky Snack (Talk) 06:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable broadcaster. Geoffroi (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This looks not to be at a qualified degree of notability --at least to have an independent page-- In the meanwhile, it needs to present more sources to support that, as well. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:02, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mills (entrepreneur)[edit]

Mark Mills (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability claim is primarily regarding a company he founded in 2000 (that doesn't appear to have any notability that I can find). As far as WP:RS coverage, there is a 2004 single article in the The Times as part of their coverage on small businesses. Another source from the BBC has a few statement he made as part of an interview with several people. In short, not enough coverage to satisfy WP:BIO notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. The present sources are just not enough to get this article over any notability bar. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:17, 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. Discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TO THE NEW[edit]

TO THE NEW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

For now a promotional article about a company that fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Previously A7'ed but was removed by an IP. Lapablo (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Press releases and primary sources are insufficient to establish WP:CORP notability here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The best source I can find is this article from Inc42, a site about Indian tech startups, and even that single article extensively quotes the startup itself. Every other source in the article is primary, and I'm not finding anything else that would advance notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article reads like a promotional blurb, not a Wiki entry.TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is notable and has many citations to support from various Business News Websites. Moreover, The seemingly promotional content has been removed and citations from reliable sources have been added.--sheenamalhotra182 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet !vote. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TO THE NEW is not small, it is notable to me. It has international presence and the article uses significant citations from reliable secondary sources to back up everything written. I don't think the article fails WP:GNG or WP:NCORP --Echoes 2009 (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet !vote. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article which does no more than describe a company going about its business, supported by routine announcements of takeovers, consolidations, etc. The July 2017 item from Inc42 item about the company's involvement in a project is probably the most substantial but is not, in my view, sufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and what's up with that page title? Masum Reza^📞 06:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 09:18, 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 keep. Consensus is that the article is a valid spinout. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Dennis Kucinich[edit]

Electoral history of Dennis Kucinich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Dennis Kucinich has his own article on Wikipedia. The only other people from Ohio who have separate articles on electoral history are William Henry Harrison (U.S. President); Robert Taft (well known US Senator with a memorial to him on Capitol Hill) and John Sherman (congressman and cabinet member). The "electoral history of Dennis Kucinich" article also includes pointless statistics like the Minnesota Independent party caucus, and the Green national Convention in which he got less than one percent of the vote. His Presidential campaigns went nowhere. Thus, his electoral history is no more important than any other former Congressman from any other state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chagallophile (talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a valid WP:SPINOUT. The electoral history of the subject is quite long and overwhelms the main article. I think pages of election results should be seen as similar to pages of award nominations (See List of awards and nominations received by Tom Hanks). --Enos733 (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The relevant criterion for an article like this isn't notability but rather WP:SPINOUT and WP:SIZESPLIT. That is to say, because Kucinich is notable, it's reasonable to have articles about other aspects of his life if discussion of those aspects would be too long to include in his article without it becoming too long. In this case the Dennis Kucinich article is just under 81kB and the electoral history article is just under 19kB, so if the electoral history were restored to the main article it would fall into WP:SIZESPLIT's category of "Probably should be divided", right on the cusp of "Almost certainly should be divided". That being said, WP:INDISCRIMINATE may still require that the electoral history article be cut down somewhat — whether a particular statistic is "pointless" or not is not for us to say, but we could certainly trim most or all of the results that aren't cited to a reliable source. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Arms & Hearts. This article is clearly an appropriate WP:SPINOUT. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:24, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One Woman Can[edit]

One Woman Can (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable enough for its own article. Should merge with Americans for UNFPA Rathfelder (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nomination. The article also completely lacks third-party sources.TH1980 (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TH1980 See my vote down below, please. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, @Newshunter12, and so I change my vote to Speedy Delete.TH1980 (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is completely unsourced and is stuck in a time warp from over 10 years and two Presidents ago. Maybe the topic is notable, but this without a doubt needs WP:TNT. I would also note that the creator was a WP:SPA with a COI and was indefed the very same day this article was created, so this article should be swiftly uprooted so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Masum Reza^📞 06:39, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First International Symposium on Chinese Women and Their Network Capital[edit]

First International Symposium on Chinese Women and Their Network Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note of a conference, but no real indication of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to having no sources and no sustained WP:SIGCOV was found in a WP:BEFORE search I did. This event was not notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously. No need to keep this non-notable article. Fails WP:GNG. Masum Reza^📞 06:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Fail passes WP:GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Fails WP:GNG with absolutely no significant coverage to be found Courtc22 (talk) 18:44, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Clark (journalist)[edit]

Geoff Clark (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Fails WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the best you can do is old references (nothing since 2014??) and a link to a BBC profile page that 404s, the page has to go. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is a skimpy stub without enough third-party sources to flesh out Mr. Clark's notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only independent coverage is a local newspaper. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 21 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) 00:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Rogers[edit]

Clinton Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Fails WP:GNG - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't build articles from employer bios.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. May I ask, how is this being re-listed when there is literally nothing on this article other than a few lines with no supporting content? Surely this is now qualified for a WP:SPEEDY delete. - Funky Snack (Talk) 09:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Fails any notability guideline and WP:NOPAGE. We indeed do not build articles from employer bios. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:25, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Deir ez-Zor Protests[edit]

2019 Deir ez-Zor Protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnotable, small-scale, uncoordinated, and sporadic protests (which aren't ongoing, contrary to the infobox) don't warrant an article separate from Eastern Syria insurgency (2017–present). Events are cited with unverified Twitter posts and other unreliable sources and the article takes a strong POV in favour of the protests and against the SDF, contrary to encyclopedic policy.

It's also questionable if the isolated protests in Deir ez-Zor are part of the wider 2018–19 Arab protests, as the article states. It's far from the same level as the Iraqi, Algerian, and Sudanese protests, despite it being placed as such in the Arab protests article.

𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼 (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I Don't think it has reliable sources to have those significance up to noteworthy standards. Sheldybett (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV. The POV-pushing is an additional reason this article should be deleted, since Wikipedia is not the news and it appears this article is trying to create news that doesn't really exist on the ground. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:37, 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. To explain, for Wikipedia to keep an article about a subject it is not enough that they have appeared on a work or YouTube or that they were interviewed; we need reliable sources that are independent from the subject. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Parker (singer)[edit]

Tommy Parker (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No deep RS coverage. No notability established. Article seems like selfpromotion. Request for citing was May 2018 and no updates made. HM Wilburt (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not established. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hello, the page looks good to me, well written. He was on x-factor and i've added some links :-) 🌝Lucas🌞B🌎1991 (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added a YouTube video and an external link to IMDB, neither of which do anything to establish notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR due to not having sustained WP:SIGCOV and not having played major parts in multiple significant works. Sources in the article are quite poor and primarily consist of things like IMDB, Facebook, and YouTube. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, he does not inherit the notability of the famous people he has worked with either. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, i added the youtube link, you can see him interviewing cameron diaz, i think there are also others but of different celebrities :-). 🌝Lucas🌞B🌎1991 (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly doesn't have WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NACTOR. The article cited sources from websites like YouTube and IMdB (those are unreliable). Masum Reza^📞 00:52, 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 delete. Seems like the consensus is that the topic may be notable, but in its current version it is spammy and possibly copyright violating. The deletion policy does allow for deletion in copyvio/spam circumstances so the WP:TNT deletion argument is well taken. No prejudice against recreation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arrernte Council[edit]

Arrernte Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I've just used Twinkle to tag a whole swag of issues with this article - but the main one is that, apart from some history of registration as a charity (https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/3cd4537d23bb3483ec7295c70806a5cb#history) in 2012, I can't find anything to verify its existence or describe what it does or has done. The article is so muddled as to be worthless at this point, IMO. Some of the info may be usefully added to the Arrernte people, but it's all unsourced and hasn't undergone much substantial editing since 2008. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I just need to read that "The Arrernte Council's board vision is a vibrant and energetic successful business..." to say delete per WP:TNT regardless of whether the subject proves to be notable, which at the moment, it is a long way from demonstrating, being totally unsourced. SpinningSpark 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and this edit says it all about how far we can trust the accuracy of the information. SpinningSpark 17:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a complicated area, the relationship of the peoples (who have been there longer) to the various languages and cultural identities... but as you say, an indicator of the accuracy. I can't see how it's useful to anyone really, in its present form. I've also put a note on the talk page of Arrernte (area), as it too seems a bit useless in its present form - and, apart from some vague references to the traditional tribal lands of the various groups of Arrernte (which definition is in itself problematical!), I can't see this one being usefully grown either. Better nothing than misleading or confusing info, IMO. Anyway I'll await discussion and consensus. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no doubt the article in current format fails Wikipedia policy in multiple areas. As a charity it is possibly the vehicle for handling the native title (ie ownership) rights of the Arrernte people, but that is not clear to me. However, the director Paul Ah Chee is notable (portrait in the Australian National Portrait Gallery, notable indigenous musician from the band Amunda). There is no article for him, but possibly this could be redirected to page about him.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can find quite a lot of sources about it just by googling. I will have to do more research to find the best sources and accurate information, but it's clear that Charles Perkins (Aboriginal activist) either established it [5], and/or was an early chairperson or president - from 1984-1988 and again from 1991-2000 [6], or from 1989 [7], or from 1991-1994 [8]. (The Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia says the Arrernte Council was established in 1986, and has info about its functions as at 1994.) Perkins certainly was chair in 1993, when the Arrernte Council organised the National Indigenous Business Conference [9]. In 1998, the Arrernte Council was incorporating CDEP into business ventures [10]. By 2005, it had gone into administration, realised assets and appointed new councillors [11], in 2006 the Council was found guilty of damage to sacred sites [12], in May 2009 the chair Paul Ah Chee was talking about plans for a housing estate [13], by December 2009 they had no funding and had to lay off staff [14]. A Trove search shows information in more articles [15]. The article in its current form needs major editing, being apparently copied in toto from a website (I can see why an Arrernte Council website would have information about Arrernte history, but a Wikipedia article on the Arrernte Council does not need that - it can just link to Arrernte people (although that could do with improvement too). I think it's highly likely that this will meet WP:ORGCRITE - I'll try to work on the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebecca, given the POV and possible copyvio in this article, don't you think you would be better off starting with a blank page? It's hard to see that you could safely retain much of the current offering, so my TNT delete still stands at the moment. SpinningSpark 15:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it wouldn't really make much difference, there's very little that I would keep anyway. The only useful info really is the companies owned by the council (Arrernte Workforce Solutions; CAL Accredited Construction, Servicing, Recruitment and Event Management) which gives more search terms - and there was other information in earlier versions of the article, that they owned Imparja Television, 8 Kin FM, and CAAMA; again, more to search on. But there was also some COI editing, which seems to be where the copy/pasting and non-neutral wording came from. Not being able to access deleted articles myself (I know I can ask, just not as quick), I do like having access to the history of the article - but having checked it now, I've probably picked up the only useful bits already. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NOPAGE and WP:PROMO as in its current form this article is a complete disaster with likely copyvio violations. Needs WP:TNT. Would not be opposed to being recreated from scratch if notability can be proven, as seems likely according to Rebecca. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:02, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atsitsa[edit]

Atsitsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An advert of "an alternative holiday centre". The sources are self, travelogues, and travel guides, i.e., no really independent refs Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete Per nom; coverege only by promotional stuff, actually. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:PROMO and WP:GNG because the article is just an advert and it lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV. The coverage it does have is all just promotional stuff. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:12, 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. The article obviously needs work. I noted, for example, at least one double entrance in the (too long) list of publications. Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Zamora[edit]

Antonio Zamora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF and WP:BIO by my reckoning. No prominent recognition by third-party sources that I can tell. jps (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-published books, non-notable fringe theories. Obscure consultant with mostly self-references and a few old papers. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I started the article on Dr Zamora, if you look at my contributions I have written and contributed on several historical computing topics. The fact that some articles are old does not make them any less significant; Zamoras contributions in the fields of chemical abstracts, automatic spelling correction and other work related to search engines (of which I consider myself an expert) is significant. I am a professional engineer (MIET) with one patent; Dr Zamora holds over a dozen patents that I am aware of, hardly an obscure person.

When I wrote the article I initially knew of his work on automatic spelling correction, see here for example

The SPEEDCOP project is rated "Highly Influential" on this site:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Automatic-Spelling-Correction-in-Scientific-and-Pollock-Zamora/9267e23dcc108bfc21b949cd0ea95b7181a82570

I had also come across his work on improving the Paice-Husk stemming algorithm. Zamora is referenced in the article on C D Paice the inventor of that significant algorithm.

I believe your attention to this article has been triggered by the heavy handed way in which on the same day that one person voiced the opinion that Dr Zamora's work on the Carolina Bays was fringe, an administrator removed the whole section. I believe it would have been much fairer to have allowed the section to be edited to offer alternative viewpoints. The Wikipedia article on the Carolina Bays, mentions two main theories but gives the impression that one theory is watertight; this is completely false, and the reason why others, including Dr Zamora have tried to look for other explanations. His paper on the subject was published in a peer reviewed journal. The Carolina Bays article even references Zamora.

There are many references online to his work on Spelling correction alone: 14th Information Retrieval Colloquium: Proceedings of the BCS https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=358048&dl=ACM&coll=DL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0306457381900443 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/asi.4630350206 http://www.ijcttjournal.org/Volume4/issue-3/IJCTT-V4I3P134.pdf

His self publishing, apart from his amusing science fiction book, cover his early work investigating the Carolina Bays in his retirement before he wrote the paper for the peer reviewed journal.

I am willing to expand on any of the other sections and put a more balanced section back on his Carolina Bays research, since he is a serious engineer and scientist with a peer reviewed article on that subject. Ray3055 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and OrangeMike. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This looks like one of the cases where a rather elderly subject's recent work is so clearly non-notable (in this case, at least until the work receives a far higher level of recognition than it currently seems to have - or, indeed, may ever receive) that the far more likely claims to notability of their early-career work are being rather too readily discounted. GScholar shows the subject to have some highly cited publications from thirty to fifty years ago - with a strong possibility that these citation counts are themselves understated, as the areas in which the subject was working (most significantly, chemical information science and automated spelling correction) have developed so far since that work that was cutting-edge then is now just of historical significance. But notability is not temporary - if the subject's work was notable then, it is notable now. PWilkinson (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; I have noted the previous Comment and I think that it sums it up accurately. He has several papers with citation counts of 100-300+ with a paper in 2010 citing his work on spelling correction from 30+ years ago. Because his papers were pre-internet it's hard to find the old CompuServe/IBM Forum mentions, but when I get time I will try to flesh the article out. I am going to try to address the original concerns raised which I understand are well founded. (1) I am going to edit the lead section further to more accurately describe the content. (2) I will also remove the Books section since these are all self-published and having a separate section gives undue emphasis to them. (3) I will include his recent work on the Carolina Bays, but append to the bottom of the career section rather than give it a separate section as previously, again to avoid undue emphasis. I will make it clear that the theory is not widely accepted and that many other theories have been proposed. (4) I will add citations to his paper and papers detailing other theories as well as a clear link to the main Carolina bays article. I will also put the books in the refs section, but without links to any site that might sell them. I hope that will make the page more acceptable to all. I have little time (the original article and several others were written in my winter holidays!) but will try to complete this in the next week. Ray3055 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: Based on previous comments in this thread – namely from PWilkinson – it seems like the subject is plausibly notable, but this alone doesn't mean a subject's article should be on the mainspace. If draftified, the article would have time to potentially be shored up to establish notability, perhaps through WP:PROF#C1. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. There is some evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:23, 21 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) 13:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Kishore[edit]

Sandeep Kishore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Coverage in RS appears to be limited to WP:ROUTINE business press and interviews. While several interviews have been provided, they have virtually no independent analysis of the subject. Searching online in English, I was unable to find anything more substantial. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mr Sandeep Kishore is very popular business face in India & has achieved a lot & good amount of notable sources available to prove the same.^[1][2] hope the page has got enough citations to prove the same.
  • The Bloomberg database entry does nothing to contribute to notability. However, that Forbes India piece is a significant cut above any of the sources that were previously listed in the article and is making me consider withdrawing the nomination. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: @Rosguill: Please keep in mind that Forbes articles are not always independent. Per the Wikipedia article: "Forbes currently allows advertisers to publish blog posts on its website alongside regular editorial content through a program called BrandVoice, which accounts for more than 10 percent of its digital revenue." WP:ORGCRIT specifically calls out Forbes for this, stating: "The blog post is significant and secondary – but may not be independent (blog posts are often sponsored; thus without evidence otherwise, editors should exercise caution and exclude the source) and not reliable (self-published sources are generally not reliable)." I would not base removing the nomination on a Forbes article for this reason. TheTechnician27 (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • TheTechnician27, I was aware that on non-India Forbes, these are clearly marked as "contributor", and don't see any similar disclaimer on this article, but maybe Forbes India is different. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rosguill I believe you're correct. Upon further inspection, however, it seems most of the coverage Mr. Kishore gets in the Forbes article is in direct quotations – for example "says Kishore" – which I address in my vote below. Ultimately, you seem to know more about this than I do, so your input would be appreciated if something is flawed with my argument. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:But I could find a lot of independent sourceable articles under Google News which are good enough to prove his popularity as a business person in my opinion. He has contributed a lot to Indian IT sector & such people deserved to be on Wikipedia.I personally dont know him but read a lot about his contributions to IT sector in IndiaDeepak HM (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deepakhmwiki, could you provide examples of such coverage? I was able to find a lot of trivial coverage, such as softball interviews, but couldn't find anything significant. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The trouble I'm finding with sources surrounding Mr. Kishore is they all largely focus around quotes from him, are interviews with him, or most notably, with the articles from the PTI (seen in different outlets but written by the agency), use press releases from the company as their only source. Even the Forbes India article, (Forbes is not assumed to be independent per my comment above) largely only mentions quotes from Kishore. Because of this, the subject ostensibly fails WP:ORGCRIT; it passes "significant coverage", passes "in multiple", and passes "secondary sources", but it seems to completely fail "reliable" (per WP:ORGCRIT: "self-published sources are generally not reliable") and "independent". Comment: If the article is kept, its citations undoubtedly need to be cleaned up. TheTechnician27 (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheTechnician27, as this is about Kishore, and not about his company, ORGCRIT is not a relevant guideline. That having been said, the Forbes India piece is not enough to meet WP:GNG on its own, and the rest of the coverage that I've seen is basically worthless for notability purposes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rosguill Interesting. I realize now that I need to more thoroughly examine WP:ORG; I was under the impression that these guidelines also formed the criteria for its personnel. By any chance, do you know if there are any specific guidelines for business personnel outside of WP:BASIC? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • TheTechnician27, regarding the scope of NORG, I think the first two sentences of the lead pretty clearly establish that the guideline is for organizations and their products or services. As for other relevant guidelines, I don't think there are any that cover all businesspeople (other than BASIC as you pointed out), although some businesspeople may have accomplishments that meet WP:NCREATIVE or WP:NACADEMIC. Some of the coverage for this subject in particular seems to mention Kishore's penchant for poetry, although it seems like he's pretty far short of meeting WP:NCREATIVE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rosguill Ah, I see where the confusion stemmed from when I read it last night. WP:ORG reads: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose", which for some reason my dumb, tired brain interpreted as also covering the individuals within that group. Sorry about that; it should've been obvious to me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• paid news in India and User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media might help editors here. Uncle G (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV. The Forbes article is a good start, but is mostly just quotes and does not along with the other trivial sources get this article over any notability bar. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:27, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le Palais Royal[edit]

Le Palais Royal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I previously proposed speedy deletion of this article on Feb 25 2018, which was carried out under G11. The article was subsequently restored but no justification was provided. While the promotional content has since been removed, what remains is...not much, and I am proposing its deletion per Wikipedia:Notability. It seems the only notable aspect of this property was the very high sale value the owner claimed for it; this has since been disproved by the dramatically lower recent sale price (less than a third of the inflated value originally claimed). I would argue the claimed value of this property was only a promotional strategy (as was the entirety of the original content of this article). Absent the promotional language the article is now a poor-quality stub, and there does not seem to be anything else notable one could say about it which would allow it to become a quality article. As such I am again proposing its deletion. Walkersam (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Walkersam (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Walkersam (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge are good option for this Article. I watched the Article, and I think it could not exist like this, but I think merging the Article in Florida or a relevant article is better option for it.Forest90 (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV and the article is realistically no more notable now then when it was deleted the first time. It's just been exposed as a marketing gimmick since then, which further undermines this articles place on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:41, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Green (councillor)[edit]

Sam Green (councillor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Local politician who sits on the town council of a small/med size community (approx. 45k people). Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. And the coverage is of WP:ROUTINE variety which you would expect of a local politician. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Withdrawn by nominator" - had not noticed the !votes below on my watchlist, should have withdrawn two days ago.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TSP (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as article creator) - Notable as, according to sources, apparently the first openly gay person elected to public office in Britain. Coverage includes an entire 30-minute ITV documentary about him, which I'm not sure is routine. TSP (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As already sourced in the article, his election seems to be a notable first, and the cited coverage is specifically because his election was *not* routine. Walkersam (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — subject of a 30 minute documentsry is enough for me deisenbe (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: subject of a highly-regarded documentary. Bondegezou (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article properly sources that his election to the city council represented a significant historic first — and not every local councillor can claim to have been the subject of a full 30-minute documentary broadcast by a national television network and preserved in the national film archive, either. I'd certainly still like to see a few of the primary sources replaced with better ones if possible, but he definitely has some reliable sources that verify a credible claim to being a special case of greater notability than the norm for this level of political office. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 21 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) 00:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Elias[edit]

Steve Elias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a person whose notability claims are not properly referenced. Serving as president of an organization is not an instant notability freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG on the sources -- but right across the board, every last reference present here is a primary source (his own social media, the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, etc.) that does not count as support for notability at all. The notability test for someone like this requires him to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, not just the ability to verify that his own organization has mentioned his name in its own press releases about itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:GNG due to lacking independent sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:51, 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)} 22:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toki Tamaru[edit]

Toki Tamaru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Was deprodded with the addition of a single non-RS (facebook) source. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete He's a 17 year old kickboxer who doesn't meet any standard listed at WP:NKICK. Sources are only routine sports reporting so the GNG is not met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notableMaskedSinger (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NKICK and WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:25, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harini Iyengar[edit]

Harini Iyengar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Unelected candidates for political office do not meet notability under WP:POLITICIAN. Her legal career is also of limited notability, possibly falling foul of WP:1E. MB190417 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of the RS coverage is about her candidacy and can be covered under the appropriate election article. Bondegezou (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Bondegezou. Geoffroi (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing her a Wikipedia article just because she exists — people do not clear WP:NPOL just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win; people do not clear WP:AUTHOR just because their own writing technically metaverifies its own existence; and on and so forth. Most of the footnotes here are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all — for example, appearing as an interview guest on the news is not a notability claim if your source for that is a video clip of the appearance itself, and people are not notable as lawyers just because they have a staff profile on the self-published websites of their own law firm. And the few sources that actually meet our reliable source requirements aren't enough to get her over WP:GNG either: they're all either routine coverage of the election itself, or glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite in articles whose principal subjects are other things or people. So she's not notable as a politician, but this is not demonstrating that she clears the bar for other reasons either. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iyengar didn't invite herself onto Sky News, BBC's Newsnight and ITV News at Ten and she is not the programme maker or the broadcaster so I don't see how they are primary sources. What is metaverifies? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not get over GNG by speaking about herself or other things in interviews: a person gets over GNG by being the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. It's a primary source because she's the one doing the speaking, and is not the subject being spoken about. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is her media / parliamentary legal consultancy work on high profile gender-related cases (Harini Iyengar#Career) that make Iyengar notable rather than the times that she has stood for election for the Women's Equality Party. I'm not quite sure what the WP:1E is a reference to. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC) — My own note to closing admin: I am the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of the sources in that entire section constitutes notability-supporting coverage. The Guardian is stray verification that a court case involving a woman named Nicola Thorp existed, which completely fails to mention Harini Iyengar's name at all in conjunction with it; transcripts of government procedings are primary sources, not notability-supporting coverage; people's own self-published contributor profiles on the websites of their own employers are not support for notability; and video clips of her speaking as an interview guest are not support for notability for the reason I specified above. A source has to represent other people writing or speaking about her as a subject, not just technically verify facts or represent her speaking about herself, to constitute support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I alleged the WP:1E in reference to the case of Nicola Thorp, which the article calls "high-profile", and which makes up the bulk of the section of the article that you claimed demonstrates the subject's notability. Having now reviewed the paragraph in question, it seems to transpire that Iyengar had no actual involvement in that case except at the hearing, as Bearcat has highlighted above. The most notable part of her career, therefore, seems to be that she once attended a hearing of government committees and has given a few media interviews. MB190417 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for the Nicola Thorp case (other than The Guardian):

• "London receptionist 'sent home for not wearing heels'". BBC News. 11 May 2016.
• Sanghani, Radhika (13 May 2016). "Nicola Thorp high heels row: 'It's sexist to insist that women wear make-up to work'". The Telegraph.
• Bilefsky, Dan (25 January 2017). "Sent home for not wearing heels, she ignited a British rebellion". The New York Times.
• Bilefsky, Dan (6 March 2017). "British woman's revolt against high heels becomes a cause in Parliament". The New York Times.
• Bourne, Dianne (11 June 2017). "Coronation Street newcomer Nicola Thorp is a high heels campaigner trying to change the law". Manchester Evening News.
• Malle, Chloe (8 November 2018). "Why smart, chic women are abandoning high heels (forever)". The Wall Street Journal.

Iyengar did not just "attend" the joint petition hearing between the Petitions Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee into High Heels and Workplace Dress Codes which was set up in the wake of Thorp's case, she gave evidence to it as a legal expert. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those articles contains a single mention of the name "Harini Iyengar" at all. It doesn't matter what her role in the case was or wasn't, she still isn't notable for it until she's been the subject of media coverage about her role in it. Coverage that doesn't mention her name even once is not evidence of her notability — if you want to demonstrate the notability of Harini Iyengar, then you have to show sources that are about Harini Iyengar, not sources that are about Nicola Thorpe while completely failing to even mention the existence of Harini Iyengar. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to MB190417's wider point: ... the case of Nicola Thorp, which the article calls "high-profile"... it seemed to me to imply that the Thorp case was not high-profile. It was just a technical note that the case was indeed high-profile and received both national and international coverage. That is why I prefaced it Refs for the Nicola Thorp case rather than further refs that establish the notability of Harini Iyengar. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:BLP1E over the high heels incident. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Per Bearcat. Clearly fails WP:GNG and any other notability guideline. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:33, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winston James Francis[edit]

Winston James Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR as the roles are all minor. Nothing there in Google searches that can help in demonstrating notability per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 13:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 13:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 13:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV and the fact that all of his film/television roles have been minor. He is not notable in the slightest. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:41, 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)} 22:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Budha Magar[edit]

Anil Budha Magar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:GNG. Non-notable indie-filmmaker. One film once won a few awards in a very non-notable film festival. No other claim to notability. Usedtobecool ^TALK 13:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 13:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 13:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 13:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable indie-filmmaker. Fails GNG. Geoffroi (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Magar seems to have some notability for one of his film. Has directed only one notable film possibly case of WP:TOOSOON.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV and the fact that all of his films have been minor productions. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable indie-filmmaker. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:47, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Usedtobecool ^TALK 16:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal International Indigenous Film Festival[edit]

Nepal International Indigenous Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable event. Existing isn't enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. Usedtobecool ^TALK 13:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 13:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 13:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing: My search seems to have failed to be thorough enough. I am satisfied with the sources Jonathan de Boyne Pollard has uncovered. Withdrawing as Speedy keep. With thanks to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard and apologies to the community. Usedtobecool ^TALK 16:23, 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 speedy keep. Meets WP:SK criterion #1: withdrawn by nominator, no other delete !votes (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Research in Nursing & Health[edit]

Research in Nursing & Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NJOURNALS, with all the sources being taken from the journal except one which does not mention the journal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a good article, but that is not the point here. Journal is in several selective databases and has an impact factor, which is generally taken as satisfying WP:NJournals. This only needs to be sourced (see WP:JWG for helpful suggestions. --Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for these indexings? The only cited ref is for Journal Citation Reports, which appears to be paywalled. DMacks (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources (for the MEDLINE indexing, for example) can easily be found (see JWG) and are not paywalled. The IF is paywalled, but I verified it and it is correct. Scopus can also be verified online without hitting a paywall. I just have no time to do this right now. --Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of being in several selective databases. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am quite happy to withdraw this nomination. It was not my original intention to nominate the article for deletion, I only did so when I was unable to draftify it because of a technical problem. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:NJOURNALS, but since the nominator withdraws it, this should just be closed as withdrawn Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:03, 20 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)} 22:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaybahadur Hitan Magar[edit]

Jaybahadur Hitan Magar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:GNG. Frankly, this article should qualify as a hoax. The article is written like a hero's journey and portrays the subject at the center of Nepal's history while in fact, he was one of the hundreds of thousands of party cadres of major political parties. The article is a story of how the subject felt about what was happening in Nepal while it was happening. This is a second nomination. The contributors to first nom seem utterly confused. It appears not many actually bothered to read the article closely because it is so long. The article under close inspection, doesn't even establish the notability of the subject. In addition, the article isn't sourced. There is no trace of the subject in secondary sources, except in wikipedia mirror sites. In the talk page of the article, the son of the subject confesses that he used meat-puppets to create this article, a verbatim translation of a biography on his father, that he wrote himself, but assures us it's not copyright violation because he owns the content and he's freely uploaded it here to wikipedia. The only source to this article is said biography. I couldn't find any secondary sources at all. This is a simple case of the subjects relatives, friends and colleagues promoting him. Usedtobecool ^TALK 12:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 12:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 12:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 12:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 12:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only cited reference is a book written and published by his own son, which is not an independent source for the purposes of establishing his notability — and in my 15+ years of contributing to Wikipedia, this is a definite candidate for the longest article I've ever seen with so little referencing to actually support any of it. And, indeed, it's written in a very hagiographized way that very likely includes some original research ("When not out on political business or other official work, Hitan liked to lead a simple lifestyle: rising early, drinking much tea, and meeting up with friends to drink more tea."), making it extremely unsurprising that there was a confessed conflict of interest. The first nomination did not end as a keep because there was any consensus that his notability had been properly established or referenced, but rather it was kept solely because it was nominated as "probably a copyright violation" (which is generally weak grounds for an AFD discussion in and of itself, because copyright problems can be easily fixed with rewrites) while not actually taking notability or sourcing issues into account at all.
  So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write a more neutral and encyclopedic version than this, and reference it to much more reliable source coverage than just one book published by his own son and self-cited by him in his capacity as the article's author — but nothing here is properly written or properly sourced for the purposes of establishing that he's genuinely notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:GNG and is arguably a WP:HOAX. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Nom and BEarcat. fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 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)} 23:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dezmond Meeks[edit]

Dezmond Meeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotion for non notable individual. Claims to have a top ten in South Korea but that was Ghostkick and it appears not to have made it that high. Claims to have worked with Mystery Skulls for the release of 'Forever' but the only source used does not verify that. Appears he did some background voacals but nothing that would make him notable. Claims Forever broke into the top 40 but it only made it to 141. Claims award nominations but Los Angeles Music Awards are a scam and Independent Music Awards aren't much better. No major awards. Claims he received critical acclaim but gives no evidence of it. Went on reality TV but did't come close to winning. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR due to lacking any independent sustained WP:SIGCOV and the serious WP:V issues described by the nominator. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oxwall[edit]

Oxwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Still Not Notable. Clnreee (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete All of the references are from Oxwall! How is this even a discussion? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The most significant reference I can find to this software from a reliable, independent source is this passing mention in a post on the ICIJ's website. Seems to completely fail WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. Comment: The article Wall.fm about a service from the same developers should probably be looked into as well. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:25, 20 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)} 22:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony L. Haynes[edit]

Ebony L. Haynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can find passing mentions but very little in the form of in-depth coverage. GNG Fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A lot of puff here... but no substance. Trillfendi (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft space this is a case of not yet. There is only trivial coverage based on the appointment of the subject as curator of a chinatown gallery. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:CREATIVE (ie. exhibitions are not wikisignificant), a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE due to no sustained WP:SIGCOV and the fact that these exhibitions are not significant on Wikipedia. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, notability is also not inherited either. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:04, 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.

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 walls of text here, with lots of irrelevant links to YouTube or IMDb didn't make this an easy close. However, in the end, the "delete" !votes have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent van Ommen[edit]

Vincent van Ommen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very minor actor without important roles. fails WP:NACTOR. Suspicion of (self-)promo. Look for example here Where the article states "De volslagen onbekende Nederlandse acteur Vincent van Ommen heeft persberichten doen uitgaan waarin hij meldt dat hij wederom zal schitteren tijdens het Cannes International Film Festival 'samen met bloedmooie tegenspeelster, Tomb Raidermodel Alison Carroll.' (The completely unknown Dutch actor Vincent van Ommen has released press releases in which he announces that he will shine again at the Cannes International Film Festival "together with stunning counterpart, Tomb Raidermodel Alison Carroll.") The Banner talk 10:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 10:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Every actor/producer/filmmaker sends out pressreleases. They have publicists for that. It is commonpractice in the enterainment industry. Not a reason for deletion. Turns out the blogger that nominator quotes was rejected entry at one of the Cannes film screenings of a movie Vincent van Ommen was part of (source [16]). The blogger wrote more snarky comments about the subject and his movies. One disgruntled blogger isn't enough to delete a well RS sourced article. Actor is even currently in news, see Dutch papers here, and here. Which say "Actor Vincent van Ommen will voice new Nintendo game". He's even on MSN.com, and also news on all these other websites [17], [18], [19], [20]. Subject meets all requirements, has indication of importance, and has deep RS coverage. Thus, keep. HM Wilburt (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ow, nice. A journalist from a long standing national newspaper is suddenly a disgruntled blogger, just because he was critical in his newspaper about Van Ommen? The Banner talk 12:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yes, you have found seven sources for the same upcoming voice job, and not one of the sources states the significance of that role. The Banner talk 12:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are not reasoning your point. You cite a one negative comment from a filmblogger as a reason for deletion. Obviously, that's not enough for deletion. You should know this. Especially when it turns out when that same filmblogger wrote more negative comments because he was rejected at the filmpremiere of one of subject's movies[21]. Actor was literally in the national newspaper yesterday and even on www.msn.com so the significance is apparent. The article even says he is voicing 5 playable characters. Still keep. HM Wilburt (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are attacking a journalist to discredit him. Clear case of WP:IDONLIKETHAT. The Banner talk 16:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Investigation on the Dutch Wikipedia revealed that the article contains a lot of unsourced nonsense. The article here was created by User:MovieMayhem and later updated by the sock puppet User:Jenjenxd who also created the article on the Dutch Wikipedia. I would be surprised if these different accounts and the subject of the article are all the same person. Multichill (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the history of accounts. But i just spend the past evening rewriting the Dutch article. I've vetted all the sources and rewrote it based on the complains about puffery and NPOV. The article is fully sourced. So please read my rewrite and revise or confirm your vote. HM Wilburt (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Our team has been doing some extensive research. Regardless of the very debatable sources that have been discussed extensively on the Dutch Wikipedia (this is supposed to be a legit award ceremony:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z3GHHkRA0k&t=4s , while in fact it is just a group of friends making amateur games), this is supposed to be listed as a movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj3KPvZWn1Q&t=4s, in another no-budget film he was in 1 shooting scene, said in this interview that the press was expecting him but that the film was never released, why would anyone interview him for that film? There seems to be a lot of talk about red carpets, name-dropping and interviews in general, in this article: Actor claims that due to a terrorist attack, he only did 1 interview for Batman? Otherwise it would have been more? We found out he only did a scream in a song (part of a competition) that never made the film. Why would the press interview him for that?

https://www.ingridspelt.nl/cms-assets/documents/100151-341615.vincen-van-ommen.pdf

There are many other peculiar interviews online: https://www.flickr.com/photos/132017777@N08/19813627185/in/dateposted/ Where he talks about dinners with Colin Farrell, red carpets and using his "fame" to get girls, and how glad he is that nobody in Holland knows him, so he can walk around freely in his sweatpants. But of course, how famous he's supposed to be abroad. We could argue what this has to do with the discussion, but his gives a certain insight about the subject.

Most so called "sources" for filmfestivals are dead links http://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/article2767573.ece/Nederlandse_acteur_in_film_met_Tomb_Raider-model.html and the sites of the filmfestivals either do not mention these no-budget shorts or they were not in the final selection. Other projects look like cosplay and are listed as no or low-budget projects on their respective websites, actor appeared in a few low-budget crowdfunding shorts of no more than 10 minutes. All movies are either amateur shorts or no-budget student productions. A big portion of them doesn't even seem to exist at all and are nothing more than a 10 second phone clip or microsoft paint picture.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3156628/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_25

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5476716/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_31

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5197368/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_34

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5350166/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_38

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6474054/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_39

His IMDB is full of "games" like this, nothing more than a title. Some of them are even listed as tv series, it's one big mess. Actor paid an American press company to interview him and he lists those interviews as acting credits. It goes on and on. Actor makes lists of 10 famous Dutch Actors in Hollywood and adds himself. To explain where he's known from some vague untraceable videogame comes up: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls070316665/?ref_=otl_2

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls043542320/?ref_=otl_1

Actor has been unmasked by Dutch national newspaper “Het Parool” (see nominator’s post). Actor sends out press releases for Nintendo game, but when you Google this game and Nintendo have no link at all. Also, it seems to be some sort of crowdfunding action: http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/10/kickstarter_for_switch_twin-stick_shooter_hyperparasite_launches_next_week

With no follow-up, confirmation or release date whatsoever. The developer's games do not look professional.

Also, 2 other accounts here (the only accounts making edits to the page Vincent van Ommen) have been blocked because of vandalism, and have been unmasked as sockpuppets and user HM Wilburt has been unmasked as subject by Wikipedia moderators and our research.

But, like I said, even if all of these questionable companies and projects were true, they are still not encyclopedic, professional projects. In the entertainment industry there is a big separation between paid, legit projects professionally produced, distributed and cast, and the amateur, student, low-budget circuit. In other words, then the necessary credits for a personal page for this actor would still be missing. It looks like the actor is creating a whole media circus online, it's just that the real credits are missing. The credits of this actor would be a perfectly fine addition to a relevant actor's article as side jobs had the actor himself been relevant. Now it's only this.

None of the projects have been in the cinema or on tv. It’s clear that this actor has not worked on any major or professional mainstream projects and is not relevant for Wikipedia. Most of the pages created by HM Wilburt about the low-budget, 10 minute student shorts in question are neither.

Contributor HM Wilburt must learn that adding 6 sources to the article claiming that it would make something like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z3GHHkRA0k&t=4s legit, doesn't quite understand how it works. You can add 50 more, but it does not make an amateur circuit professional.

Our investigation was much more elaborate than what we can describe here but we wanted to keep it brief. We also only used some examples that are already openly online. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Thank you, on behalf of Tom, Vera, Jonas, Artie, Sjoerd, Frank, Rachita, Bruno, The Dutch filmindustry, the international filmindustry, the video game industry and Wikipedia. Verabo (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, where to begin. First the personal accusations. I created my account via my campus-housing (i was student back then). I never vandalized articles and i'm not aware of others abusing my account. Then i'm supposed to be "unmasked" by moderators? I didn't receive a message or anything about unmasking or anything related. But for the sake of transparency I do have a vested interest via my time spend editing the article but not more or less than other articles I've edited.

 Before i comment on the rest it should be pointed out that the above account was literally created to post only the above message on the English and Dutch wiki and has only this edit. The account seems to be a Single-purpose account. Creating a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear to be neutral. Suspicious to say the least. [22]. 

Apart from the huge reaches and drama the above user makes in their amateur sleuthing attempt, i'll instead stick to what applies to Wiki.

Above user claims that hyperparasite won't be released on Nintendo Switch. However a 10 second google search shows the opposite. Here is the official Nintendo trailer [23], and here the game is actually being played on the Switch itself, more here HyperParasite will release on the Nintendo eShop for Nintendo Switch worldwide in 2019. It's even on IGN's upcoming Nintendo Switch 2019 games list here. Subject seems to be the main actor for the game.

Above user makes claims that other video games are untracable and are listed as tv series on IMDB and it is "one big mess". Because of the above users lack knowledge about IMDB, the users doesn't know that animations are labeled series/tv-series on IMDB. IMDB doesn't have a tag for digital content (youtube/vimeo/streaminservices alike). I could easily find all of them on youtube. This further acknowledges that the above user is reaching to fill the holes in their "research".

Most of his other games are easily found on Steam [24], [25], [26].

Above user claims that Subject's projects haven't been on TV but they have, eg. Verloren Jaren (aka Lost Years) was on TV [27], screened at the major festival Film by the Sea and was released on dvd. Stop! was also shown on TV in DWDD and EditieNL (just like the article says) and was screened at the IFFR, and Amsterdam Heavy was released all over the world (America, UK, asia, russia, europe).

Also the above account mentions the same filmblogger as user before that. Claiming the subject was "unmasked" for sending out press releases. I'll just repeat my previous response: sending out press releases is commonpractice in the entertainment industry. They have publicists that do that. Also that same blogger was rejected at the Cannes screening of one of subject's movies and then made similar negative remarks on his own personal filmblog [28].

The above user mostly comes with subjective drama as reason for deletion. Maybe they don't like what the subjects says in his interviews but the fact is that subject gets interviews (not what he says in them) and therefor passes SIGCOV. Other working actors don't get interviews or media coverage. Subject does, so notability seems apparent. And the interviews (2 page spread, front page, cover photo, etc) are deep enough to pass RS coverage.

Then all these weird claims that Subject created accounts on lists and paid for press-junkets? Really? Writing that is just sad and reeks of Truthiness. Looks like the above person is writing this to support some amateur sleuthing attempt. HM Wilburt (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]