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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio). She clearly passes WP:PROF but that's not relevant for this kind of deletion. SportingFlyer accurately describes the content — despite being short, factual, and packed with long proper nouns, it still contains many longer phrases copied and pasted from https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/renowned-economist-and-berkeley-alumna-ann-harrison-named-new-haas-dean/, and Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives it a 77.4% "violation suspected". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ann E. Harrison[edit]

Ann E. Harrison (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)

Clear WP:COPYVIO. WP:G12 was removed twice, once by original author (who claimed they "didn't copy" on the talk page) and my second WP:G12 was just reverted on the grounds the first one was "denied." Don't mind if someone WP:HEYs this or if it gets recreated. SportingFlyer T·C 23:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-actual the original author didn't remove it, but it was someone saying it wasn't it looks like. Anyway I don't know if it should be deleted or not, just wanted to point that out. Wgolf (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Wgolf: my apologies - it appears to be Xxanthippe (talk · contribs) who removed the WP:G12 (on notability grounds?!?). The original creator responded on the talk page, which is why I was confused. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Please read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G12 for what to do with clear copyright violations and what to do with unclear ones. Neither involves AFD. Also note that Dgoldentyer (talk · contribs) did violate copyright quite unambiguously the first time around, and that content was speedily deleted. This is not that content. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uncle G: As of a few hours ago, the majority of the text in the article has still been cherry-pick copied from [1]. Much of it just lists where she taught, but there are a couple sentences which are still verbatim copied, and even where she taught is mostly presented in the same order as the article on the Haas website. I don't see anything which would make me believe any sort of copyvio has already been speedy deleted, unless it was hist-reverted in such a way I can't see it. Considering I didn't want to get into an edit war over this, Wgolf suggested AfD, so here we are. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You will see it by looking at the log for the page. This is Dgoldentyer's second attempt. And Wgolf was wrong to suggest AFD. The instructions are, as you can see, to use Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where the process is different to AFD. The first two hyperlinks in your own nomination point to pages saying this, notice. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:Prof. Nothing to do with copyright. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was delete. Regretfully, but correctly IMHO, the consensus is that the sources simply are not there to meet WP:NARTIST. Just Chilling (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Campbell Abbott[edit]

Phyllis Campbell Abbott (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)

It appears that this artist just never received the required coverage to clear WP:NARTIST. Web searches are essentially barren; I'm assuming that the old print sources listed at the CWAHI database [2] are the best sourcing that is available, and it's all passing mentions in there (often unceremoniously bunged into vast closing paragraph listings of "other participating artists"). Not good enough for our purposes, I fear. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources just aren't to be found. interestingly, the Concordia source in the article has full-text PDFs of numerous very old articles she is mentioned in. However these articles all seem to be trivial/passing mentions. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I like to support articles on historical painters, but I couldn't find any significant coverage here. I searched newspapers.com, and other than her obituary, which provides no new information, she only appears in lists of art exhibitors for events held in Montreal from 1922 to 1935. Curiocurio (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain I am not even sure if I have the right to vote, since I created the article. When I wrote it I hoped other editors would be able to find more information and sources than I was able to find, but I guess that did not happen. Perhaps one day someone will write a book or article about her, but until then, if Wikipedia does not want to rely on the sources that do exist to support the article, then I am not going to argue the point. It does seem a shame to delete, however, since she did have some recognition when she lived, and if she comes down from Wikipedia, it will be even harder to discover that she ever did exist at all. DaringDonna (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are most certainly entitled to a !vote. Thanks for your comments.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above i could not find any coverage for her works ,does not meet WP:ARTIST, Alex-h (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of copyrighted non-free content by Samvel Karapetyan ("© Samvel Karapetian, 2007") and Afghan Khalilli, janked wholesale by entire paragrahps and copied into Wikipedia. I thought of a possible explanation, and allowed a day for an explanation to be forthcoming. From HulaguKaan's response that possibility clearly is not the case. Böyük Qaramurad Monastery by the same account was copied and pasted wholesale, too. Uncle G (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

İrmaşlı Church[edit]

İrmaşlı Church (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:BUILDING. Sourced mostly from blog posts, no serious sourcing to provide notability for these ruins. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Etzedek24:, not only blogs, but only academic RAA is also used as a source. The fact is that there is a ruin of old temple, but i am aware that there are few sources, as it needs more investigation. So i think we should keep it, may it could be interesting for people who do not speak Armenian or Azerbaijani HulaguKaan (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afghan Khalilli, whoever that is, used it as a source. You just filched that person's writing wholesale, first person voice, grammatical errors, and all. Then you copied Samvel Karapetyan wholesale too. Please explain why I should not delete this on sight for being in blatant violation of our Wikipedia:Copyright policy. Copying and pasting is not writing. Copying and pasting other people's copyrighted non-free writing into Wikipedia is antithetical to the goals of the project. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why the rhetorical question? If it's copyvio then we should push to speedily delete. There would be almost no substance to the article with the offending text removed. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is neither rhetorical, nor indeed coming down on either of you like a tonne of bricks. Think about that. Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That note was specifically referring to the message you left on my talk page, but your wider point is taken. The article should be speedied in any case. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which wasn't coming down on you like a tonne of bricks either. Another thing for you to think about: I am an adminstrator, and could have deleted this on sight. But instead, having done some investigation, I am asking the editor for an explanation, first. Uncle G (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Uncle G:, please calm down, i feel that you wrote whatever you said with some hysteria. If you see grammatical errors you can fix it, it would be more polite and helpful. I have tried to fix errors. if still there are some errors, please help me to fix them too. I think the idea is to share information, not to delete them due the "bureaucratism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulaguKaan (talk • contribs) 2019-07-01T13:39:09 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable historic building which would obviously be heritage listed if it was in a Western country even if it isn't by Azerbaijan. Copyvio is another issue, but is the topic notable? Yes. . -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that the sources now available, not all of which were in place at the time of nomination, mean that the game now meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Racket (video game)[edit]

Sky Racket (video game) (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)

Subject does not meet notability criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NVG. I cannot find multiple reliable sources that discuss it in detail. ... discospinster _talk 20:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• soft delete/draftify - non notable as of yet. Potential it might be with a few reviews after release, so no prejudice for it to be recreated when the game has some reviews Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify This is TOOSOON but it's possible it could be notable after release. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general given how many videogames get preview press and then never are released I am still on the bit too soon bandwagon to change to keep but also recognize that the sources provided below are high quality enough that sticking to draftify isn't quite appropriate at this time either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, as the game received funding (half a million BRL) from Ancine (Brazilian National Film Agency) they would be prosecuted by the federal government if they didn't release the product. [3] Pglomba (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Found sources: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just to be fair to the nominator here, Shacknews coverage happened yesterday, and 4 days after this has started. There is that IGN Brasil WP:SIGCOV coverage as well. USA Today is a press release, which is auto-discounted, and Hardcore Gamer is not WP:SIGCOV ("Let us not forget the less serious shoot-’em ups as well, though. An indie shmup in the vein of Air Zonk or Parodius would have been enough to get me interested in it, sure, but having a tanuki luchador as a boss is the type of gleeful insanity that truly sells me on the game. Works every time."). GameZebo is a a bit mediocre in that, but ShackNews and IGN Brasil are enough for now, and it's very likely it will get some coverage post-release to clinch it past WP:THREE. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pinging Lee Vilenski Barkeep49 and discospinster for the Shack News and IGN sources check. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - meets GNG now. The TOOSOON argument was a good one until now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Bryn, sources helped to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks like time has solved this one. William2001^(talk) 21:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to International Workers' Association#IWA today. This is a tough one. There's a rough consensus that it is TOOSOON for this to have an article. On the other hand, there are strong arguments to PRESERVE the info. I am therefore redirecting this to International Workers' Association#IWA today, as the ICL and its origins are mentioned there. That this is an article about a competing organization seems less relevant to me. Given the article's history, I will also protect the page, any admin can change the redirect or restore the article upon motivated request. Any content worth merging elsewhere will still be available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Confederation of Labor[edit]

International Confederation of Labor (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)

This has twice been turned into a redirect (by User:Czar and User:Elmidae), but then recreated by an anonymous user. It does not contain any independent, reliable sources. I've looked for such sources in attempt to improve the article, but came to the conclusion that there is just one: this article in a Spanish newspaper. That's clearly not enough to establish notability. I'm undecided on whether this should be deleted outright or turned into a redirect (either to International Workers' Association or to syndicalism, as both of those articles briefly describe the ICL). Carabinieri (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Merge to International Workers' Association#IWA today, its most prominent related mention. re: redirect target, as a split from the IWA, I think ICL has a closer relation with that topic than with "syndicalism" as a whole.

As my edit summary went in March, this topic continues to lack significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Right now, secondary source coverage doesn't do more than confirm its existence. Ping me if you find additional offline and non-English sources? (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 23:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Alarichall's added sources do not add enough information to justify a separate article, so their merger to the aforementioned target will suffice. czar 17:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been existence for only a year so is probably WP:TOOSOON. However, the participation of the long established and highly notable IWW, as well as other notable organisations, should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. I think the previous attempts at redirecting to the IWA article were not constructive since that article does not cover the membership of the ICL in any detail. There is an element of WP:PRESERVE that comes into this. SpinningSpark 11:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:SpinningSpark, could you explain how WP:PRESERVE applies? That policy is about information that belongs in the encyclopedia, but is presented poorly. That's not the issue here.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh yes it is, that's exactly the issue. The information that the notable IWW and other notable organisations have joined a newly formed federation is certainly information the belongs on Wikpedia, regardless of whether the said federation is notable enough for its own article. That is precisely what PRESERVE is all about, and precisely what that redirect failed to do. SpinningSpark 18:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and that guideline explicitly discusses merges and redirects. SpinningSpark 18:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that the articles on the member organizations should mention that they joined the ICL? If so, I certainly agree.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should also be collected all in one place as well as scattered across multiple articles. SpinningSpark 20:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources that assert the noteworthiness of the subject or its collection of member organizations? czar 23:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to meet GNG if the information is not on a dedicated page. I raised PRESERVE in connection with redirecting, not in connection with the substantive page. SpinningSpark 18:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinningspark, maybe I'm just a little slow, but I'm still not exactly sure what outcome you're pushing for. Merging? If so, to what article?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pushing for the Wikipedia policy of PRESERVEing encyclopaedic information. Whether that is done as a merge, and to which article, is a secondary issue, but International Workers' Association is a suitable target since that is where they have split from. If the response to that is it would be WP:UNDUE weight in that article, then I am at keep. We can't have good information falling between two stools like that. This would be a classic case of applying WP:IAR in those circumstances. SpinningSpark 14:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in addition to the source found by Carabinieri, I've found a couple of other respectable mentions. They're not very substantial, so I don't think they'd save this article from being merged, but I hope that they can stay with the material as useful references if a merge happens. Alarichall (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Redirecting or merging to the IWA article makes no sense as they're rival organisations, and if the IWC doesn't become notable then it shouldn't have WP:UNDUE weight in the IWA article. If it gets coverage, recreate it, but until then, there's nothing worth saving. Triptothecottage (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seamie O'Boyle[edit]

Seamie O'Boyle (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 local politician CivisHibernius (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as does have significant coverage in multiple Irish national press reliable sources, already in the article. His son's article could be merged into this one. Also how is Mícheál Mac Donncha more notable? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The media coverage referenced in his article was in response to his funeral or his son's co-option. Michael Mac Donncha was Lord Mayor of Dublin. CivisHibernius (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Let's look at the bolded parts of WP:NPOL -- Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This person is a politician who is a member of a legislative body at sub-national level - in this case of a first-level administrative division. Ireland's appearance in List of administrative divisions by country has counties as a first-level administrative division. Therefore, the subject should meet WP:NPOL as a subnational legislator. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• O'Boyle may pass the general notability guideline, but not WP:NPOL. Irish county councils are not legislative bodies. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The counties of Ireland are not the province or state level for the purposes of NPOL #1 — the counties are still just a unit of local government whose councillors have to meet NPOL #2, no different than counties anywhere else, and are not elevated to any special status over and above other non-Irish counties just because the provinces of Ireland aren't a layer of government in their own rights. But the notability test for local politicians is not passed just because you can show one or two extralocal news stories about his death itself, or because you can cherrypick a quote from the local media which includes the word "national" in the same sentence as his name, and then bold and highlight that word inside the ref tags like you think you're dropping the mic. For a county councillor, the notability test you would have to demonstrate is that he was regularly receiving nationalized coverage for his political work on the council while he was still alive, and none of the sources here represent that at all: other than the death reportage itself, every other reference here is purely local coverage which is much more about his son than him. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per Bearcat. Spleodrach (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat. No proof that the subject has met more than the routine coverage that local politicians generally receive. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, non notable local politician. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is an obituary. He fails NPOL and GNG. Szzuk (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:NBOOK pass has been demonstrated (will also add [10] and [11] as other 2 reliable reviews that can be added). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Communion: A Tale of Prince Lestat[edit]

Blood Communion: A Tale of Prince Lestat (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)

WP:NBOOK not met - only trivial mentions and reviews in blogs - No content worth merging - may be WP:TOOSOON ^{[Username Needed]} 18:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Username Needed:*Keep This is the most recent novel in a series of novels (The Vampire Chronicles, by Anne Rice) that have sold over 80 million copies (as of 2008). The Vampire Chronicles series is currently in the early stages of production by Hulu as an online television series, and is scheduled to start shooting in September of this year. Anne Rice as an author is so historically significant that any of her written works may be considered notable, including the most recent entry in her most popular series, The Vampire Chronicles. All of Anne Rice's prior novels, even those outside of The Vampire Chronicles, have their own individual wikipedia pages. Anne Rice and her works have multiple wikipedia pages, including one for Anne Rice as an author, one for The Vampire Chronicles, of which this novel is the most recent volume, and one for Ms. Rice's bibliography. The Hollywood adaptation of Ms. Rice's first volume in The Vampire Chronicles, Interview with the Vampire (1994) earned over 200 million USD at the box office. Later volumes in The Vampire Chronicles were adapted, by Hollywood in 2002 (Queen of the Damned); and in 2006 as a Broadway musical (Lestat), with music by Elton John and Bernie Taupin and book by Linda Woolverton. Ms. Rice's work, especially her Vampire Chronicles, have been the subject of several scholarly publications and popular works of nonfiction. Further, it is not "Too Soon" to create a wikipedia page about this novel, especially since the page does not discuss or speculate regarding any long-term impact of the novel. Percivalfaust (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Percivalfaust (talk)[reply]

• But is it notable in it's own right? ^{[Username Needed]} 18:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Username Needed:* Yes, it is notable in it's own right, however, as with many other works, its notability derives in part from its association with a historically significant author, character, and franchise. Its association with both an author whose body of work is historically significant, as well as with a character and franchise (with its own wikipedia page) which are both historically significant, makes this particular novel notable in its own right. Just like a new Stephen King book would be notable, or a new Batman graphic novel would be, even if the work itself was a minor one which did not receive a lot of press. In the case of Stephen King, his new work would be notable due to its association with a historically significant author. In the case of Batman, a new work would be notable due to its association with a historically significant character in a historically significant franchise. This book is the 13th volume in a best-selling series which chronicles a very popular fictional vampire who was played by Tom Cruise in the film adaptation. The novel in question implies, though does not explicitly state, that this may be the final book in the series, at least from the perspective of the main character, Lestat. As another example, Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer Abroad (1894), and Tom Sawyer, Detective (1896), though little known, and arguably trite and minor works in Twain's bibliography especially when compared to the classic novels of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn which they are sequels of, both still warrant individual wikipedia entries due to their association with a notable author and notable literary characters.Percivalfaust (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC) @Username Needed:* Additionally, please see revised list of External Links for support of the novel's notability. Percivalfaust (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• They are not notable by their relation to them, other than the fact that multiple, independent sources have reported them. See WP:INHERITED. Published works must be able to prove notability in their own right (by being reported in multiple independent, reliable sources), rather than being by association to another story. Also, you must place asterisks at the beginning (before pings) for wikipedia to pick up on them. ^{[Username Needed]} 19:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, plenty of reviews of this book ie. Kirkus - here, Publishers Weekly - here, The Valdosta Daily Times - here, New York Journal of Books - here, Library Journal, and Booklist - here, British Fantasy Society - here. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a cursory search confirms what has been stated: there is coverage for this book. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable per WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closed early per WP:SNOW. It's clear that at the least there will not be consensus to delete. Sandstein 17:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carola Rackete[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Carola Rackete (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 me no more notable than many other people caught in similar circumstances notable for one event. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - First of all, in my opinion WP:BLP1E does not apply, because per condition #2, the person of the article must be a low-profile individual. In my opinion, Ms. Rackete has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity, because she docked with her ship despite knowing that she would be arrested (which, of course, would be subject to media attention - which I guess was also one of her goals, achieving media attention for her cause). For that reason, WP:BIO1E applies instead of BLP1E. BIO1E says that when an individual plays a major role in a minor event ... it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Because, for as far as I know, no article exists for the event/incident, it is OK to have an article on her as a person. WP:GNG is, by the way, easily met with the refs present in the article. --MrClog (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia:Notability failed, 193.159.13.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is one of a notable persons in a longrunning issue (saving refugees) that is still not resolved. Until her case (and the whole issue) is resolved, it will be worth knowing about her. History will tell whether this still the case ten years from now. IMHO, a delete-request is premature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:2F3E:5D00:343A:494F:CCAA:8028 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If there's an article about Pia Klemp, this has much more reason to stay since the events are more relevant and notable. Beware of the POV people (mainly anonymous IPs) that will probably flood this discussion for political reasons. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Rackete has received significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources with sufficient information about her available to avoid a pseudo biography. And as MrClog points out, WP:BLP1E #2 is not fulfilled here, because even without violating WP:CRYSTAL, it's pretty clear she will receive further significant coverage as her incarceration and prosecution continue. This brings us to WP:BIO1E, which is the only guideline that would argue against her inclusion if the event she was notable for had an article. Which it does not, as far as I can tell. As long as that is the case, this article is allowed under the guidelines. If and when an article about the incident is created, her article should probably be merged there though. Regards SoWhy 20:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She had a profile long before this most recent incident - e.g. July 2018, which, together with coverage for the current incident fulfills our notability requirements. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article on Carola Rackete meets the WP:BASIC requirement of being notable because she has received significant international media coverage from multiple independent and credible sources. Moreover, the international press has portrayed several biographies of her in different languages, including French, Italian, Spanish, English, German, Dutch. The event is expected to have an impact on Italian and European politics both on immigration and on search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. The WP:BASIC is a sufficient condition of being worthy of an article even if she had to remain a low-profile individual in the future. Kind regards, Frankie8 20:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco8868 (talk • contribs)

• I consider this article for relevant. Saving lives is not a crime but obeying international law on seas. This woman is an example for civil courage and therefore deserves an article on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.40.2.144 (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I wont tell what my personal opinion is about this person, her descend, her analytics and so on but this amalgame made her perform an act of singularity to hack current international law to check the validity of national law in context of validity or abuse of human rights by creating a case.

Since years there has been no stronger crash test on international human rights issues. deSLA enAFD is requested by political opinion rather than any applicable filtering issues or wiki homeostasis or overcrowding. It is of utmost importance to keep her in a neutral wikipedia bc. obviously known issues in dewiki.

Ossip Groth (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First of all nobody ever heard of her before this incident. Second if we make this page, where does it stop? Are we going to make a page for every person that is for one time in the news because of the migrant issue? This can create a situation where people are making such pages out of protest, like when Trump got elected and every high school protest wanted to be mentioned in WP. Soon we have a proliferation of pages that will be uninteresting at the moment the person is out of the media focus.--AntonHogervorst (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We do not decide or care why reliable secondary sources commit significant coverage to a subject, we just care whether they do. If they do, we include it, even if some of us disagree with the underlying reasons for the coverage (see this AFD for an example of why to keep an article about someone from the opposite political side despite clear disgust voiced by participants about the subject itself). On a side note, Tagishsimon has pointed out that she was interviewed by a reliable source a year before the incident. Regards SoWhy 07:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but then Keep, but make it neutral, these sort of pages quickly become solely edited by people in favour of her cause. It should not become a protest against Salvini page. A fanpage. --AntonHogervorst (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reconsideration. It is one of the project's goals to have articles which are comprehensive, facts-based with reliable references per WP:RS, and written from a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV. If you think something needs to be improved (and you can't improve it yourself) please leave a note on the article talk page for others to take care of it. However, the current (or even a possible future) quality status of an article (or lack thereof - hopefully not!) is never a valid criterium for deletion - this is explicitly ruled out in our notability guideline at WP:NEXIST and WP:CONTN. That's something for our normal ongoing article improvement processes, not for extra-ordinary processes like AfD.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per media coverage. I think it's a useful entry to have. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a highly relevant topic with international relevance, covered in all kinds of media in many countries. Hundreds of top reliable and independent references can be provided. Notability is clearly given per WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. As of now the German WP article has seen about 87,000 page views in just a couple of days, the English WP is closely following with more than 33,000 hits already. While these numbers will go down again, with a court case coming and the underlying problem unsolved it should be obvious that the topic will remain relevant for many years to come, so it has lasting encyclopedic relevance. Also, this is not the first time Rackete has been in the news, so this is not even a case of WP:BIO1E any more, but even if it would, as an encyclopedia it is our very duty to have articles about topics such as this one (WP:BIO: "remarkable, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"). Please do a better homework WP:BEFORE nominating articles for deletion in order not to unnecessarily bind the precious time and energy of other editors which could otherwise do more useful work in main space than wasting it in avoidable discussions. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - just about meets WP:GNG requirements for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia:Notability failed, she got 15 minutes of fame. A one time event individual. Parts from her article could be moved to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lampedusa_immigrant_reception_center

Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Carola Rackete is a key character in an international event involving several European governments such as Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands, and also EU representaives are participating in the current debate. Further, I think the circumstances of this incident are quite exceptional, considering the legal situation and the fact that the Sea-Watch 3 and the Italian patrol boat have come near to collision. It is likely that this event will be seen as a landmark in the history of migrations. 131.114.58.49 (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Andrea Domenici[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia:Notability is obvious, there are abundant references.--Medol (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia:Notability failed--Lemure Saltante (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, then, I think, it is high time for you to actually read the guideline you refer to, in particular WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if [...] it meets either the general notability guideline [...], or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline [...]" which, in this case, is WP:BIO.

In WP:GNG you might put particular attention to: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

And in WP:BASIC criteria are as follows: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

These criteria are all fulfilled with in-depth media coverage in independent and top reliable sources internationally (hundreds of them!).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tagishsimon. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it might be worth pointing out that out criteria is notability, not worthiness or meritoriousness.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it is always worth to remind us of the criteria of notability, may I remind you of the actual wording in our notability guidelines WP:N and WP:BIO, per which this includes subjects "remarkable, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and "being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary." I consider properties such as "worthiness" (-> "significant"), "meritoriousness" (-> "remarkable") as supporting notability. The actual criteria can be found in WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, already discussed further above. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant coverage, previous noteworthiness, WP:GNG clearly met. Highly noteworthy event, abundant sourcing. Tone needs a little work, but that’s just form, not substance. Montanabw^(talk) 15:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The fact that the nominator of this AfD has now also nominated the similar Pia Klemp article for deletion, instead of first waiting for the outcome of this AfD and possibly learn a few bits from it, is really bad style, if not unconstructive and possibly agenda motivated. At the very least it shows that the nominator does not care about other opinions and constructive collaboration. Very sad. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and commented and changed the Pia Klemp article in German and English. And for both articles (Carole Rackete and Pia Klemp) in both languages I have the same comment: May be it could be relevant but the bias just set my teeth on edge. Okay you are right that it should not matter for deletion. But all those four pages where so fan based, sorry for using such a strong word, I can imagine that someone out of the same irritation puts it on the AfD list.--AntonHogervorst (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this will likely get kept, but it really strikes me as a WP:BLP1E (even after reading #2) and potentially WP:NOTNEWS, especially given a lot of her personal life is now up on the article. No problem on restoring the article if coverage is sustained or if she becomes notable for something else. SportingFlyer T·C 20:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think that this page is a form of journalism and it is not what Wikipedia is; if a person wants to read some news, he can normally buy a newspaper. 2019-07-03T01:45:43‎ TheWorm12 (talk)

• Keep Obviously this is going towards no concensus, but I will not ehtat the past coverage found by Tagishimon and the current coverage equals basic notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tagishsimon. --NiTen (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Guidelines and policies nonwithstanding, I don't believe there is an objective reason for having a separate article for this person. She's only known for current events involving her vessel, and except for some meager biographical information there'll be nothing in her article that isn't a duplicate of things already covered elsewhere. Doesn't mean she can't get an article if/when she continues to make a name for herself of course. 188.108.118.120 (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just the fact that out of all available media reports I have decided to read the Wikipedia article on Ms. Rackete is telling enough, I think. She has become a person of considerable public interest due to the recent incident but I guess very many people believe she is acting in public interest and thus is not only a professional captain of a ship but also an activist which most often means a public figure. Beside that, I see no reason why different criteria would apply for Ms. Rackete than for the captain of Costa Concordia Francesco Schettino or a convicted British PI Glenn Mulcaire, to name just two examples I consider valid for comparison.89.142.47.61 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the sheer amount of in-depth articles on her and her background go beyond the usual news reporting on such cases. —Nightstallion 08:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with a new page related to the event for which he became famous, as in cases of other notable events. I guess that the person is less relevant at the moment than the episode in which he was involved. BTW, the facts are (probably?) still ongoing. --Marco Ciaramella (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Santiago and All Chile[edit]

Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Santiago and All Chile (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)

This is a two-sentence article on the Chilean diocese of a small offshoot of the Greek Orthodox Church (the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch). It currently has no references except to the diocesan's official website. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books), with checks in both English and Spanish, fails to find any additional WP:RS. There is a corresponding page on the Russian Wikipedia, however, it only contains two references, one of which is the diocesan's official website. The second reference, though I don't read Russian, appears to be a single post on the blog of the Antiochian Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Argentina [12]. For lack of WP:SIGCOV in RS, I think this fails WP:GNG. Further, there's essentially no content to merge into the parent article which isn't already contained there (indeed, the parent article actually contains more information on the Chilean diocese). Chetsford (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Diocese of a major denomination. We keep these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd disagree that the Church of Antioch is a major denomination but, in any case, for my future edification could you point me to the notability guideline by which diocese have inherent notability? I'd been under the impression sub-divisions of religions had to meet the WP:GNG (WP:NCHURCH seems only to apply to church buildings). If there's a guideline I missed, though, it would help me avoid incorrect AfD nominations in the future. Chetsford (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. It's one of the ancient divisions of Orthodoxy. Nothing specifically covers dioceses, but given Orthodox bishops are generally seen as notable I think that logically has to extend to the diocese of which they are head, which it could be argued has far more notability than the person who heads it for a fairly brief period. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I think that logically has to extend to the diocese of which they are head" Per WP:INHERITORG "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." Chetsford (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if we consider the head of the diocese notable by virtue of his office as head of the diocese (as we do) then it's quite clear that the diocese too is notable. That is common sense. I'm not saying the diocese should be considered notable because someone notable was its head. That's a completely different kettle of fish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing the difference. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Chetsford (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bishop is notable because he is a bishop and heads a diocese. His notability is therefore essentially inherited from the diocese, not vice versa. The diocese is not notable because its bishop is notable as an individual (that would be contrary to WP:INHERITORG); the bishop is notable because of his office as head of the diocese. That's the difference. It would be completely illogical to claim that the bishop was notable because he headed the diocese but the diocese itself was not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that's okay, though. Chetsford (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added content from Lebanese christians --E.3 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry from Lebanese Chileans, and also a Russian reference from the Russian page. --E.3 (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question on added sources: It appears you added something called "orthodoxwiki.org" (a Wiki), and the same blog post from the church I mentioned in the nom. Were you able to locate any reliable sources or just those? Chetsford (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Necrothesp noted keeping it would follow the general practice on WP for dealing with middle judicatory bodies of churches.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The national emanation of a significant denomination, though in this case a rather small one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following the reasoning of Necrothesp. Mccapra (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Creeps[edit]

Peppermint Creeps (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)

Article about a band, which is not an improvement in either substance or sourcing over the version that got deleted in 2016. There still isn't any notability claim being made here that would pass WP:NMUSIC, and there still aren't nearly enough reliable sources being cited — six of the seven footnotes here are to primary sources, such as discogs.com and last.fm, that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that's sort of a semi-reliable source is just reporting the drummer's death, not substantive coverage about the band doing band things, so it is not enough to get them over WP:GNG all by itself as the only non-terrible source in play. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because discogs and last.fm technically verify that they existed — to get a Wikipedia article, a band has to show that it has received a GNG-satisfying volume of reliable source coverage in real media, in the context of having achieved something that passes WP:NMUSIC, but there's still nothing here which satisfies either part of that equation at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one of the better-written noms I’ve seen in a long while. Nothing else needs to be said. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails SIGCOV and GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Gebreyesus[edit]

Ruth Gebreyesus (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)

This author has certainly been published, but more outside notice of one's works is required for authors and journalists per WP:AUTHOR. The article is dependent on citations to her own writings, and otherwise little more can be found beyond WP:ROUTINE professional directory listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete has written about many notable subjects, but there is no SIGCOV to establish the subject's notability as a writer.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being theculture editor of a small paper does not make one notable. Even being culture editor at the New York Times is not a default show of notability, but it might be showable that such people have had enough coverage to be notable. The only editorship that default shows notability is being editor-in-chief of an impactful academic journal. Even then it may more be because being given such a position is normally reserved for those who are seen as leading figures in some academic circle, and I guess also because the editor-in-cheif controls the flow of the journal, which since it is impactful has impact. Editors of popular magazines and newspapers may and often are notable, but this does not apply to sub-metro area papers especially when it is not even the top editorship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I respectfully disagree. See Gebreyesus' participation in this event as a moderator: https://womensoundoff.com/panel-day/ as well as her participation in this publishing effort by SFMOMA: https://openspace.sfmoma.org/author/ruthgebreyesus/ --Wil540 art (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an event announcement and a boilerplate bio. IF they do point to notability, it is WP:TOOSOON as the SIGCOV is not there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery Dimitriou[edit]

Jeffery Dimitriou (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)

Advertorialized biography of a dancer and choreographer, not reliably sourced as meeting our notability criteria. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist; the notability test is not the things the article says, but the depth and quality of reliable sourcing that can be shown to support the things it says. But this is completely unreferenced, and is a clear conflict of interest when you compare the creator's username to the name of the production house the subject founded. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN, and is not a place where people are entitled to post their own résumés: we are an encyclopedia, where articles must be written in a neutral writing tone and referenced to reliable source coverage about the subject in real media. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could not locate a single independent source. Good nomination.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also could not find any sources. Curiocurio (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhat People[edit]

Bhat People (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)

Unsourced and full of POV and fantasy Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some googling around, I think this page ought to just redirect to Bhatra. But I'd appreciate it is someone who actually knows about the subject could confirm this! Alarichall (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The only source I can find that describes an ethnic group called Bhat is this: [13], but I do not know if it is reliable. I suspect that the shortage of sources on this apparent group might be due to a spelling or translation error. A previous commenter's suggestion of a connection to Bhatra seems viable to me, but I also am not an expert in this area. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article is strange in my eyes. There is no term for "Bhat People" as distinct group; it refers merely to the specific connotations of a particular caste within Hindu / Sikh traditions. I would suggest deleting this or rewriting such that it is distinct from Brahmin. Michepman (talk) 16:13, 30 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 06:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Kashmir: Burhan[edit]

Son of Kashmir: Burhan (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 indication of notability. No reliable sources confirm that it has been released or is even still in the works. Most Some of the cited sources don't mention the film at all. Prod removed without improvement. Huon (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the majority of the sources that don't mention the film has been removed after the prod, but that doesn't help establish that the film is notable - it only makes more obvious just how poorly sourced the article is. Huon (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Economic Times link is not a valid ref, it doesn't mention anything about the movie. Hip In Pakistan, I'm not sure how reliable it is as a source. Trending Social is definitely not a reliable source. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:18, 23 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) 00:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indy Khabra[edit]

Indy Khabra (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)

The reference/external link does not work, he did not play any games for Port Vale and I cannot find any information on him online EchetusXe 14:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. EchetusXe 14:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Khabra has played for Enfield Rovers but the only valid FPL teams are Port Vale and Club Atlas. I can't find anything to prove he played for Port Vale (in fact he was removed from the 1-25 Port Vale appearances Wikipedia article) or Club Atlas. GNG is also failed.Dougal18 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I do Port Vale articles and have never heard of him. I would have nominated it for deletion when it first appeared but it wasn't in the Port Vale categorises before now. He has not played for Port Vale.--EchetusXe 22:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I know this guy! played against him, he was in the Port Vale reserve team squad when I played against him. Anyway, playing at my level I hardly think he will pass GNG or NFooty. Govvy (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, He has not played in a level to be notable,fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Indian Gaming Association[edit]

National Indian Gaming Association (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:NCOMPANY and WP:GNG. Masum Reza^📞 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the main lobbying group for Native American gaming in Washington, so likely an important group, but not enough information to really be its own article as-is without expansion/rescue. A merge of this content to a section in Native American gaming should be considered, with the title redirected into it. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. You are right. Masum Reza^📞 00:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds reasonable, but I am unsure if it is the best option. Geolodus (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added references in the article, The National Indian Gaming Association is not for profit, so this is not an advertisement in any way. It participates in conventions and cares for the Native American community.

Here are some links to show notability On the last page here you can see the chairman and the treasurer --> http://www.indiangaming.com/istore/Mar18_2018%20London.pdf More links about activities http://www.gamingmeets.com/event/niga-indian-gaming-2019-tradeshow-and-convention/ https://www.indiangamingtradeshow.com/dsn/wwwurbanexposhowscom/Content/Documents/IndianGaming/Indian%20Gaming%202014%20_Culture%20Night%20Reception%20Release.pdf https://www.fantiniresearch.com/conventions/niga-national-indian-gaming-association-2019-trade-show-convention.html Caribianboss (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I added more content to the page and various external sources to support notability of the National Indian Gaming Association Caribianboss (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masumrezarock100 I believe that at this stage the article is very well referenced and consequently i think it would be prudent for the deleteion proposal to be weived. Caribianboss (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have added a handful of ((cite book))s, plenty of more where they came from, 600+ mentions in Scholar, no shortage of news coverage. Meets GNG by a mile. On a side note, this discussion should not have been sorted into "list of India-related deletion discussions". Sam Sailor 21:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I did that because it has "Indian" word in his title. Masum Reza^📞 21:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  "Indian" referes to Native americans (the so-called "red indians" and not to the asiatic people who live in the famous subcontinent. Caribianboss (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh I see. Looks like I have a lot to learn. Masum Reza^📞 05:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It should not have been sorted into Companies either. I have removed the transclusion on both Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies and added the discussion to the two lists below. Sam Sailor 05:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sailor Sailor seems to have added many good sources, so it is a case of HEY.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The refs are OK. Szzuk (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LocalLabs[edit]

LocalLabs (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:COMPANY per reasons on the talk page. The article was deprodded because Aspects thinks that thoroughly posting reasons for deletion on the talk page automatically makes deletion controversial. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've notified the PRODder at User talk:Bernice Mosley#LocalLabs, since she gave a detailed explanation of her PROD reason at Talk:LocalLabs#Proposed deletion of this page, the gist of which is that none of the current sources meet WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Closeapple (talk • contribs) 05:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As User:Northamerica1000 said above, yes I am in support of deleting the page. My full comments and argument can be found on the LocalLabs Talk page. Thanks! Bernice Mosley (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. J. Jones (American football)[edit]

P. J. Jones (American football) (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:NGRIDIRON, as he has neither appeared in a professional game not had a notable college career. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Didn't receive enough national coverage or major awards to meet CFB notability standards and never appeared in an NFL or CFL game. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nominator ignores the WP:GNG standard which is key here. My preliminary search does turn up some significant coverage: (1) this', (2) this, and (3) this two-parter, all from the Clarion-Ledger. However, to pass WP:GNG, such coverage must extend to multiple publications and so far I'm not finding significant coverage in other publications. (I am not counting reports of his arrest like this and this). If someone finds significant coverage in other reliable sources, I am open to changing my mind. Cbl62 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable college football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Defensive linemen generally don't get a lot of press, and that seems to be the case here. Subject does not pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet either WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus that this festival fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cineme[edit]

Cineme (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)

Virtually uncited for over a decade, (a dead link and a press release), searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 01:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are a handful of newspaper references, but mostly in the vein of "here's what's happening in Chicago" as opposed to in-depth coverage: [14] [15].agtx 16:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Bharatiya Khatik Samaj[edit]

Akhil Bharatiya Khatik Samaj (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:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS per this note on Indian sources. ∯WBG^converse 09:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 09:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bulleted list item

Keep Khatik ethnicity is living all over the India as well as in various other countries also. and the Akhil Bharatiya Khatik Samaj is the only organisation that is leading khatik people and raising voice for interest of khatik people. In 2011 Khatik population was 2.3 million in India (not included foreign citizen, NRI)^[1] Currently Khatiks population is almost 6 to 7 crores in whole world, so this organisation is very important for khatik people as organisation of other ethnicity like Yadav (Ahir), Rajput, Gujjar, Jat etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilbutolia (talk • contribs) 07:39, June 27, 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. The article creator's arguments are made in good faith, but are not based in policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bulleted list item

Improve, rather than deletion of this informative page, you all can help improve this social organisation page.Sunilbutolia (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)sunilbutolia[reply]

• Delete per nom. The group simply does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Lacking notability. Barca (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suparatana Bencharongkul[edit]

Suparatana Bencharongkul (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)

Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO. One link is dead, another is Facebook, the rest do not meet the criteria needed for significant coverage in reliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment are there any sources in Thai? Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The reference is not an ordinary Facebook post but the one from Forbes Thailand Magazine. I have replaced this with the corresponding article from its webpage. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Past versions of this article have been deleted due to being created by a COI sockpuppet. An admin should check to make sure that this version isn't a copy of the deleted ones. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Meets the WP:GNG. Profiled in Forbes Thailand[16], Thairath[17] and Praew[18]. Should be kept if unaffected by the sockpuppetry issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now that sources have been found by Paul_012. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets the WP:GNG. I think should be kept if unaffected by the sockpuppetry issue. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The !votes on this one are really all over the board, but there seems a rough consensus that outright deletion is not a good solution. I am closing this therefore as "no consensus". Possible mergers, redirects, or renames can be discussed on the respective articles' talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic Subpluvial[edit]

Neolithic Subpluvial (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)

The topic and most of the information of this article is already covered by African humid period (Some sources), which is a lot more complete and is under a more commonly applied title: few hits for Neolithic Subpluvial, far more African humid period hits. This title probably would make a fine redirect, though.

There was already a merger discussion in January-February, which ended with a "no consensus" result due to lack of participation. Discussion with the closer, I am reproposing this at AFD as one of the suggestions in the merger discussion by the editor who opposed the merger was that NSp be deleted and only very little content be copied over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (veering towards merge). The question is how to deal with and what to call the prehistoric period when the Sahara was not yet a desert. This article and African humid period are covering the same period, but this one from a more humid period than the other. I would question the use of the term "Neolithic", which normally refers to cultures engaging in farming, but the references to human culture refer to hunting and gathering and to fishing, not agriculture. The use of pottery probably implies the people were settled, not nomadic. I am not an expert in this field, but unless there is a widely accepted term, I would suggest merging both to Sahara humid period or some such title. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Second thoughts -- I see that in the merge discussion there was justified criticism of the length of the target article. I would suggest that the answer is to merge some material from that article to this one, leaving African humid period as a general article on the whole continent, with content on the Sahara (and Sahel) much summarised. Unfortunately this requires an the attention of an expert on the subject, which I am not. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem I see with merging to Saharan humid period is that that term is essentially unused unlike "African humid period" or even "Neolithic Subpluvial".

  As for merging material from AHP to NSp - since I am familiar with the topic (and actually wrote the AHP article) - I could actually do it but I am not convinced that it would be the right move; Earlier it was thought that it had started about 9,000 years ago, before it was found that it probably began earlier and was interrupted by the Younger Dryas.[42] Alternatively, wet conditions in the Sahara and Sahel began about 10,900–10,500 years ago.[69] in the AHP article strongly implies (although not explicitly states) that early research did not recognize that the humid period began before the Neolithic and thus incorrectly christened it the "Neolithic subpluvial". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, I don't necessarily disagree that AHP does merit a split (personally I think an unified article is better as this is one coherent broad topic), I just don't think that NSp has a reason to exist separate from AHP for the reasons given in the nomination (a split of AHP would probably be along the lines of Effects of the African humid period in the Sahara and other section-based splits, not one by time period). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a pretty straightforward case of content duplication under a less-common synonym and at lower quality. Based on that, it's an obvious delete (or redirection). Regarding the desirability of splitting African humid period, that's an unrelated issue - if there was to be a split, it very likely should not be to a synonym of the overall topic. (I would also agree with the observation made in the mini merge-discussion that almost half the page size is due to the choice of using short form citation plus bibliography; if you list every source five times, things have a tendency to balloon.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep but with solving of any and all problematic issues (duplication, moving to better title, whatever). In complement to previous User:Elmidae remark: yes, this is a pretty straightforward case, only in protectionism of one's own work - yes, African humid period is promoted to "Good" status while Neolithic subpluvial is at "C", and they look like a duplicates - only there is one glaring problem: Neolithic Subpluvial was created in August 2007, while African humid period was created in December 2018‎ and by the same user who nominated NS for deletion, at that!

This means that 11 years prior to User:Jo-Jo decision to create entire article, another article that already covered exactly the same subject already existed, not the other way around as User:Jo-Jo hurried to point out in his nomination intro.

I am sorry but if esteemed user screwed-up by not checking if Wikipedia already dealt with the subject‎ under some other title, regardless of its accuracy, suitability and relevance, then user should seek to alleviate problem without employing such a drastic measure like deletion of preexisting article. From here all emerging problems could be resolved, one way or another.

I strongly suggest that NS gets some thorough check-up and rewrite, if agreed maybe better title (move), and to be turned into an article covering subject more specific locality-wise. This means I agree with User:Peterkingiron second entry on this - I see answer in merging some of the material from Neolithic subpluvial to African humid period, thus making AHP sort of general article on the whole wider subject, while more specific content dealing with the Sahara and Sahel then summarized under AHP, but extended under Neolithic subpluvial or any title of collective choosing.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I did write AHP but that's because the term is much more commonly used than NS nowadays. Think a case where an old concept gets a new meaning that then becomes much more common. I don't think that "but this page came first" is really a policy/guideline. I am not seeing evidence that NS is used as a Sahara-specific variant of AHP so I'd oppose keeping NS in this form per WP:OR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I arrived at this article while searching for prehistoric cultures that existed in the Sahara desert before its complete desertification, such as the Tenerian culture. I agree that very few people will come to this article by searching the term Neolithic Subpluvial on Google, but some might get here by searching for Green Sahara or Wet Sahara, which are much more commonplace words. Since the article states that "The Neolithic Subpluvial was the most recent of a number of periods of "Wet Sahara" or "Green Sahara", during which the Sahara region was much moister and supported a richer biota and human population than the present-day desert", here's a solution for this article's overlap with the African humid period: Rename this article into either Green Sahara or Wet Sahara and make it about all the periods of time when what we now today as the Sahara was greener and wetter. There's plenty of references that use the term Green Sahara^[2][3][4][5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by PraiseVivec (talk • contribs)

@PraiseVivec: Just to clarify, is "this article" Neolithic Subpluvial or African humid period? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, as I reread my comment, I see how it could have been confusing. I was proposing renaming the Neolithic Subpluvial into Green Sahara, as it would make the article more findable and, by dedicating the article to all the periods that are included in the Green Sahara, not just the most recent (although I suspect that would still make up the lion's share of the article), would also make the overlap with the African humid period less striking. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I was wondering about writing an article about Green Sahara or the better documented stages such as the Eemian African humid period as well, but desisted as African humid period was already a pain to write. I am not sure if Neolithic Subpluvial would make a good starting page though as it's entirely concerned with the Holocene stage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Why is this here at AFD? Does anyone think that an administrator using the deletion tool to remove an edit history is involved in enacting what you want? I don't think that AhmadLX actually really did, but rather that xe was talking of blanking and redirecting. And Elmidae is talking about redirection, too. It's clear that you collectively want something at this title, be it a plain old redirect or a sub-article. The editing tool that we all have can get us there, and the renaming tool that people with accounts have can address the ideas of renaming mooted above, with moving over largely history-free redirects being a simple housekeeping matter should the occasion arise. The closing administrator either does or does not hit that delete button, little more, and certainly isn't a topic restructuring service. To me, it seems that no-one is advocating any Articles for deletion outcome other than the closing administrator not hitting the delete button. Please speak up, if you are, and explain why deleting the edit history here is important. Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...do I gather from the above that you, an administrator, are not aware that a) redirection is a very common outcome of AfD discussions, and b) AfD is also the forum for discussing potentially contentious redirections? You amaze me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that is not what AFD is for. It's in the name: Articles for deletion. Only bring things here if an administrator hitting the delete button and removing an article and its entire edit history is what you actually want. A closing administrator is not an editing service. Redirects can be enacted by anyone who has the ordinary edit tool, and are discussed on talk pages. Contentious article mergers are also discussed on talk pages. And yes, the administrator who originally wrote the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion is telling you this. Uncle G (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That administrator appears to be somewhat out of touch with current usage and outcomes then. If you'd like, I can prepare a breakdown of how many recent AfDs were closed as redirects, and how many were started with the express premise of replacing an article with a redirect. E.g., coming from a NPP perspective, the category of "stuff that keeps getting recreated as articles but fails notability criteria, and requires a documented decision in either direction" at AfD is substantial, and can NOT be sorted out on talk pages (for the simple reason that no one is watching these yet). If the single purpose of AfD was ever "delete editing history y/n", it most certainly has not been for my (shortish) tenure. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • The important thing here is the outcome. Does it really matter where we discuss it? – Joe (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. AFD is a perennially overloaded process; and you needlessly involve and expend the time of the few people who volunteer to close AFD discussions. Please have some consideration for other volunteers. And by discussing things here you tie yourselves to the AFD discussion timetable, which usually this sort of discussion does not need. You've been asked directly, now, whether anyone needs the deletion tool in any way, with things that otherwise can be sorted out by ordinary editors on article talk pages. Unless someone actually steps up and gives a good reason for that, don't be surprised if you soon find yourselves with a closed AFD discussion and back on those very same article talk pages. Because determining that there is no consensus for, or indeed no-one at all wanting, the delete button being hit and that people are quite capable of sorting this out for themselves with non-administrator tools is really all that AFD needs do. The only outcome that you will get from the process is a decision not to delete; you certainly won't get a complex topic restructing enacted, and the work will still be ordinary editing that you will end up discussing on talk pages anyway. AFD is not Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requested mergers, or even Wikipedia:Cleanup; it is for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest, the main reason why I did send the topic here was because a full redundancy between two articles is under WP:DEL-REASON #5 a reason for removing an article and because AFD does get a lot more commentary than a merger discussion (as can be seen by the course of the merger discussion referenced before, where despite some publicizing and waiting only two people commented). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with African humid period or redirect if there's nothing worth merging (seems like there's quite a lot of cited text though). African humid period is clearly the contemporary common name based on Google Scholar results. Deletion is inappropriate per WP:RETAIN, since this good material on a notable topic. – Joe (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as per PraiseVivec.Tamsier (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redierct to AHP. When voting on merge proposal, I hadn't thought of history & contributions of others to Neolithic Subpluvial. Keeping that in view and Uncle G's comment above, blanking and redirecting is the best solution IMO. Keeping this should be no option. It is a tiny fork of AHP, nothing else. With merge, I have the same problem. Now AHP is even bigger: 280 240 kb. But still it is better option than keep. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as per PraiseVivec. Abstrakt (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What is the rationale for renaming? What will it do? The article will still be a low quality duplicate of AHP.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 13:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @AhmadLX: I think that PraiseVivec wants to have an article for the general Green Sahara concept, not limited to its Holocene manifestation. I don't think that there is any useful material for this concept on the NS page; one would have to write such an article entirely from scratch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus:. Yes, it is essentially equivalent to creating a "new" article. We don't need to keep this one for that. There is no guaranty that NS will be expanded and if we keep it for later expansion, it will linger on as a duplicate of AHP for long. If somebody is actually interested in having a broader article, creating new one shouldn't be a problem I think. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be moved to draft via WP:REFUND if somebody wants to work on it. Sandstein 06:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ozioma Akagha[edit]

Ozioma Akagha (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:NACTOR. Insignificant coverage in reliable secondary sources. No major roles in any motion pictures. Comatmebro (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:A7. Just regular Delete now that the article no longer meets A7. Still can't find sources that advance notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. in addition to her film and TV work, she has done some significant work in videogames and cartoons. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple appearances in Runaways and Teen Titans Go! qualify (just) under WP:NACTOR. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural note The article was created by a  Confirmed sock who repeatedly recreates article on non-notable bit actors and shows. I've removed the links in the article that in no way meet WP:RS.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realise Ponyo didn't suggest such, but just clarifying that obviously there's been substantive edits since Nosebagbear (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft pending addition of reliable sources demonstrating notability. bd2412 T 23:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - unclear if sources exist, so the article should be draftified to allow the addition of RS. --MrClog (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify as there is a claim to pass WP:NACTOR but reliable sources references to significant coverage are needed for mainspace, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not an IMDb mirror. IMDb is a non-reliable source that seeks to cover everyone with no regard to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus to keep and I see no policy reason not to have a disamb page. In any case, the purpose of disamb pages is to assist the reader and since some people think it will be useful, and at worst it is harmless I see no grounds to delete. I will also move the page as suggested and remove the sports captains since there is no need to create extra work by having a separate move discussion. Just Chilling (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. Price[edit]

Capt. Price (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:PTM, "a disambiguation page is not a search index" and there is no need to list all captains with the name of "Price". _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to be an ordinary regular disambiguation page, such as Wikipedia has thousands of. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't really answer the question of why it is needed. Disambiguation pages prevent confusion between article names, not job titles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Captain Price and add a hatnote there ... No I'll do myself in a moment ... We don't have dab pages for "Professor Smith" or "Doctor Wong", and don't need this one. If we did need it, then Captain Smith (disambiguation) would be a better title. PamD 15:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's already a hatnote pointing to this dab page. I suggest it should point instead to Price (surname). PamD 15:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an ordinary regular disambig page between several people who all may on occasion be referred to as "Captain Price". "Redirect to Captain Price and add a hatnote there": No; that would be a very overloaded bulky hatlink. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Again, if we kept this, we may as well have a page for "Doctor John" or "Farmer Joe". However, disambiguations are not a search index. They are only meant to sort similar article names regardless of their content._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are also Justice Smith (disambiguation), Justice Brown (disambiguation), etc. lists floating around too. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one wanted to search by name, they merely need to type "Justice Brown" into the search box on Wikipedia and it will come up with those. They are not how disambiguation pages are supposed to work, as far as I can tell._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, I want those deleted too. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was an excellent reply. I learned something.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, it doesn't work, however. bd2412 T 02:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the content, possibly move to Captain Price (disambiguation) (and redirect the undisambiguated title to Captain Price). It would be an error to delete useful titles and count on our problematic search function, which will return every article containing the words "Captain" and "Price" with badly jumbled results burying those most relevant to a search for people who might actually be called "Captain Price". This is even more significant with respect to the "Justice" disambiguation pages, because Justice is actually an occasional given name, rather than a title. See, for example, Justice Smith, Justice Howard, Justice Hill, Justice Chambers, Justice John Erhenede, Justice Samuel Adjei, Justice Dipeba, Justice Leak, and even the stage names Justice Pain and Justice Yeldham.

Even setting those aside, it is common practice in the real world for court opinions and other sources to references justices by their title and surname. These references have frequently made their way into articles, complete with links. Prior to the existence of these disambiguation pages, bad links proliferated, and no one knew they were bad. Eliminating them will lead to more bad links, but they will be much harder to find and fix.

There is also a danger of inconsistency. Are we going to delete existing redirects also, such as Justice Scalia, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice Brandeis? If we keep those redirects, do we also keep Justice Kennedy - and if so, do we stick the other four State Supreme Court Justices, plus one Chief Justice of Ireland, all named Kennedy, in a hatnote? And while we're at it, what about the rest of the 1,000+ pages in Category:Title and name disambiguation pages? Are we going to delete Admiral Halsey, Emperor Xuan, Baron Grey, General Chang, King Edward, Lord Baltimore, Saint Lucius, President Johnson, Queen Elizabeth, and Pope Benedict? This is a discussion that requires substantially more consideration than has been offered thus far. bd2412 T 10:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but remove the sports team captains, since theirs is not a rank, and they are much less often going to be referred to or searched for this way. For people who hold a rank or office where they are addressed by their title, this is the best way to prevent confusion between them. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 19:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The question to ask here is not whether this is listing pages of similar names, and hence qualifies as a dab page. Rather, the question should be whether it is likely that "Captain Price" might be all the information on the name that the reader has. For instance, I can remember that the Titanic was captained by Captain Smith, but I have no idea (at least till I followed that link) what his given name was. Why make it harder for me to find that page? There have been many, many examples in my WP career where I have needed to find a person by surname only. Finding the captain of the Titanic through Smith (surname) takes forever. SpinningSpark 15:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this may qualify as a WP:set index rather than a dab. SpinningSpark 15:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the odd status of SIAs, my preference would be to keep these as disambiguation pages. Incoming links to these pages do need to be flagged and fixed, since there will typically only be one correct "Captain Smith" or "Captain Price" referenced. I would also prefer that their contents be required to conform with the policies for inclusion in disambiguation page. bd2412 T 02:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a perfectly useful disambiguation page. Additionally, strong support for the above suggestions to move to Captain Price (disambiguation) and remove sports team captains as they would never be known by the term 'Captain Price'. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with the removal of team captains, and I note, in fact, that our article at Team captain is itself very short and underdeveloped. We have nothing in the way of a freestanding list of people who have been the team captains of the various professional sports teams. That sort of thing might be a better place to house any kind of list of people who have been captain of a team. bd2412 T 01:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with removing team captains. but I don't agree with adding to Team captain. That would be, potentially, a long and sprawling list of no use to anyone. That kind of information belongs with the team in question. A list of England football captains at England national football team is fine (but even that is broken out into a separate list), a list of all captains is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpinningSpark 00:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a useful disambig page Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Captain Price (disambiguation) as suggested by bd2412 and Hugsyrup. Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion is split as to whether the sources meet WP:GNG. I don't find the arguments on either side sufficiently persuasive to override the lack of a clear consensus. Having regard to WP:RELIST, a third relist would not be justified. Just Chilling (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kody Bliss[edit]

Kody Bliss (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)

Outside of run-of-the-mill local coverage I'm not seeing significant coverage of this player, fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fairly typical sports coverage of a college punter. Nothing to show that the GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON is met. If he'd won the Ray Guy award I'd say a case for notability could be made, but being one of 31 on a preseason watch list doesn't do it.Sandals1 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Overall a non-notable punter that never had much of a career beyond college. He made all SEC a few times but that’s not enough to warrant an article.--Rockchalk717 18:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG based on extensive regional coverage he received as the leading punter in the SEC while playing at Auburn. Over 1,000 hits on Newspapers.com. A few examples of the coverage include: (1) this from Gannett News Service, (2) this from The Decatur Daily, (3) this and (4) this from The Tennessean, (5) this and (6) this from The Anniston Star, (7) this from The Montgomery Advertiser. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see a clear pass of WP:GNG from the coverage of his college career.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the sources presented and the awards that Bliss won in his time at AU. I think it's pretty reasonable to say he passes the GNG. Nole (chat·edits) 14:31, 23 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]
• Comment I'm not seeing that he won any notable awards and most of the coverage is typical of what a starter at any SEC school would receive. He was never even first team all-conference so I don't believe the above comment "as the leading punter in the SEC". Papaursa (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was first team in 2005 and second team in 2006. Nole (chat·edits) 06:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Routine coverage for a college punter and most of the in-depth coverage is from team-centric blogs or local coverage. Also I wouldn't consider being named all-conference a major award, if it were the Ray Guy Award or a consensus All-American it would be a much different story. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG - Tim D. Williamson ^yak-yak

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. Michig (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gus G. Widmayer[edit]

Gus G. Widmayer (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)

Most of this is an potential unsourced BLP, looks like he self-published several book but I can't find anything which gets him remotely close to WP:GNG, and even if he is notable this is written so promotionally it needs WP:TNT. SportingFlyer T·C 05:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 05:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with fire and storm: Seriously? This is an exercise in vanity if one exists on Wikipedia, and fails the GNG and any notability standard by a country mile. Maintaining this article seems to have dominated the article creator's Wiki activity over the last decade, a similar turgid mess being Indian Hill House (whaddaya know, Mr. Widmayer's residence), Kilbourn Place (whaddaya know, Mr. Widmayer's offices), and Blackman House (of which the entire article is "Blackman House, designed in 1992–93 by Maurice K. Smith, former professor at the MIT School of Architecture and Planning. The house is set on a bluff overlooking the Atlantic Ocean."), the latter two which have been prodded and all created by the same editor. Ravenswing 08:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia makes no demand for solely biographical content to the exclusion of autobiographical. IndianRidge uses fully-sourced material from books that appear in the Library of Congress which -- as with Wikipedia -- has no restriction on self-published versus commercially published works. Yesterday's simultaneous request by Ravenswing and SportingFlyer for deletion of IndianRidge contributions at Blackman House, Groton Historical Society, Asgard House, The Collector's Library, Kilbourn Place, Groton, Massachusetts and Ravenswing's wholesale rewrite at Indian Hill House amount to a denial of service attack against me, IndianRidge.
• Delete. Essentially a resume and I suspect an autobiography of an individual who has not attracted anything like the required independent coverage to meet WP:BASIC or WP:BIO. I'm sure there's no need for the sort of comment above though - if maintaining this article really has dominated the user's wikipedia article for the last decade then the least we can do is try to be kind and polite while we remove it. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hogwash and rubbish. This is a total and complete violation of the Wikipedia terms of use. It needs to be removed with haste and fire. Self-centered narcissists who misuse a public open edit encyclopedia that explicitly says do not create an article on yourself, should not be coddled. We live in a horrid time because of too much coddling and too little laying down the law. This is the type of article that makes Wikipedia worse. Wikipedia explicitly bans autobiographical articles. This needs to stop. The really, really sad thing is this horrid misuse of Wikipedia has survived for so long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Widmayer was elected to the Groton, Massachusetts Planning Board in May 2019 with 61% of the town-wide vote, and is serving a 3-year term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianRidge (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The mayor of Groton wouldn't even be presumptively notable for a wikipedia article per WP:NPOL. No one is presumptively notable anywhere for being on a town's planning board. SportingFlyer T·C 01:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to say I highly suspect the person who created this article personally knows Widmayer. The only "sources" here are book adds for his books, and the election returns. Adds for products are inherently not indepdent, reliable sources, and in the case of the Barnes and Noble Page advertising his Falmouth Plain Revisited it does not even provide much information. Election returns are never reliable. No planning comissioner anywhere is notable, in Groton not even the mayor is even close to being anywhere near inherently notable. Not every author is notable. I've seen articles on professional trained historians with at least one academically published book and a few articles get deleted. This is so, so far from being a notable person it is an insult and a misuse of Wikipedia to keep it up. Wikipedia is not meant for people to engage in self aggrandisment by holding themselves out as notable when they are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The fact that this article has existed since 2010 is a total and complete travesty. The fact that it was openly created as a change for a user page is such a blatant violation of the rule against creating an article on yourself, I think banning the account that did it is fully in order. This guy is a very small time property developer, he has "written" books that maybe some people have bothered reading, although his second book involves misuse of the term written, since he glomed together a bunch of old newspaper articles and pretended this was the same as writing a book. Shoddy, sub-standard books more about the narcissism of a writer and their self-created large role in the world are common, but Wikipedia absolutely should have 0 autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, Okay, I get it! You are referring to a real person with feelings. I am right here! Posting to Wikipedia has been very enjoyable over the past ten years. The Internet started out as a place for open, free-expression. I embraced that whole-heartedly. But, I understand there are very strenuous rules that have been violated. I am sorry. I learned a little about coding wiki articles and expanded my horizons. I found it to be tremendously motivating to first outline my biography, think how to improve it (and myself), and then take steps to go there. A local high school teacher e-mailed me recently to say that a young man read my Wikipedia page, and wondered if I would come in to speak with the students about how to self-publish their diaries. It's a break from the 9 to 5 and I am looking forward to it. How does this delete process work? Will this page simply vanish in a few days? Be well guys! Thank you for your instruction. IndianRidge (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)IndianRidgeIndianRidge (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

For what it's worth, while I'm afraid I agree that this article should be deleted, I vehemently disagree with the way that some editors have chosen to express that. There's no call for that sort of behavior towards someone whose only crime was to create a page that didn't meet WP policy. I'm glad you've enjoyed editing your article and I hope you'd consider taking on some other articles instead. Editing Wikipedia is (or can be) hugely motivating, like you say, and there are countless articles out there that need someone to carefully whip them into better shape. You might find you enjoy that just as much. Best of luck. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To answer your question - around 7 days after this discussion was opened, an administrator will review it and if they find that there was a consensus to delete then yes - the page will simply vanish. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources used in the article are not good. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Chase Lapine[edit]

Missy Chase Lapine (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:BIO. Most of the sources are about a defamation suit against Jerry Seinfeld, not Lapine, and I can't find significant reviews of her books, so WP:AUTHOR isn't satisfied either. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. The article focuses more on the lawsuit than biographical facts. This seems more like a WP:COATRACK to showcase the lawsuits. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete making a frivolous lawsuit of plagirism against a mildly notable person does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC, & WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Choa Chu Kang Mega Playground[edit]

Choa Chu Kang Mega Playground (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:GNG. Unreferenced, and tagged as such for 10 years. It appears to be just a WP:MILL playground. Satellite image shows a couple of courts and some grass. Very routine. MB 02:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MB 02:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion or evidence of notability for routine green area, certainly doesn't appear "mega". Reywas92^Talk 05:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article, the subject is not notable really and also it fails GNG.Forest90 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Lonn[edit]

David Lonn (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 significant coverage of this person can be found in reliable sources. A "Producer" is not inherently notable. Independent coverage is required. Fails ANYBIO, BASIC, and GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A producer might be treated as notable under WP:CREATIVE if they have enough sufficiently notable productions, even if specific coverage of them is limited. In Lonn's case, however, he coproduced one minor broadway production in 1974[19], and there appears to be extremely limited coverage of him elsewhere (eg [20]), mostly as a spokesperson for/about the theatre and its productions. FWIW, there's probably enough out there to stitch together an article with information that's out there (birthname, college, wife, actors worked with...) from the background material of such articles, but that'd suffer from the sources being probably reliable but the material being mostly non-independent, and WP:OR. 02:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article about David Lonn. I can assure you that the information is 100% accurate, and is easily verifiable with PLAYBILL, STAGEBILL, etc., programs from 50 theatrical productions in four countries. In addition to advertising, publicity and promotional material for 134 concerts and/or concert tours, along with all ownership and management contracts for legitimate theatres. Also, there are many featured articles in major newspapers. The Registry of the films listed can be easily verified with Stephen Schwartz, Vice President and Director of the Title Registration Bureau of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA). By way of example, please see copies of a sampling of the above. Kbaz21 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. From all of the above, I can see that the existence of this person is probably verifiable. But in order to merit a stand alone article it must meet the standards for notability (please see the notability criteria for a Wikipedia article). Also, because this is a biography of a living person it must also meet that standard as well (please see WP:BLP).

Advertising, publicity materials, and promotional materials are not suitable references for a Wikipedia article (please see how Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion). PLAYBILL, STAGEBILL, ownership and management contracts only qualify as primary sources which do not demonstrate the notability of a given subject on Wikipedia.

Secondary or third hand sources are required - please see reliable sources. If you know of links to featured articles in major newspapers that cover this topic then please post them in the reference section of this article.

If you need to create sections for this article then the easiest route is to take a look at other articles for examples. Also you can refer to the Wikipedia Manual of Style for organizing sections and section headings. Thanks and Good Luck. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The PLAYBILLS and STAGE BILLS on the left look very nice. They appear to be good quality. However, please keep in mind reliable sources are required for a stand alone article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete The formatting of the article is all wrong. This reads like a CV not an encyclopedia article. Not every producer is notable, and there is nothing here suggesting notability on the part of Lonn. I am not even sure that any production that Lonn did was notable, and clearly just having a notable production does not make the producer notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kbaz21 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Kbaz21 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Kbaz21 (talk)

Kbaz21 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Kbaz21 (talk)

21:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Kbaz21 (talk)

Kbaz21 (talk) 21:24, 30 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.