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

The result was Speedy keep. I withdrew the submission. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'n Schot in de Roos[edit]

'n Schot in de Roos (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:FILM and has no coverage. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:07, 2 September 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Raaber[edit]

Chris Raaber (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:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I cannot find anything in English sources. The one Japanese one is WP:PRIMARY. I do not know if there are potentially some out there in other languages though based on his time in Japan and Europe. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 01:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It looks like the top 4 Austrian newspapers, between them, have mentioned Raaber a total of 3 times. Two appearances are trivial; he is mentioned in passing as one of several wrestlers in an event lineup (Presse, 6 July 2017 and 24 April 2018). The third appearance is a charity event announcement (SN, 3 March 2017). This guy is clearly not a legitimate celebrity, not even locally. On the other hand, there is an interview with Raaber in a 2009 issue of Profil, a distinguished political magazine, and a short biography of sorts in a 2015 art book (Peternel and Peternell, Who the Fuck is Alice?, Kein & Aber). I guess that means he technically meets GNG, having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Damvile (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The "short biography" is a single paragraph, 120 words long. I think it's a stretch to refer to this as "significant coverage." Even if we accept the paragraph as significant, we currently have significant coverage from a grand total of 2 (two) independent sources, which means we'd be stretching the definition of "multiple" too. Kramler (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding "significant", a mention isn't significant if it's long, it's significant if it's not trivial. A mention is trivial if it's unconscious and/or automatic and/or unavoidable. When Raaber appears on a list of wrestlers appearing in some wrestling event, that's a trivial mention because his inclusion does not prove the author of the list has given Raaber any thought, considers Raaber interesting, or would have remembered Raaber's name the next day. When a writer makes the conscious choice to include Raaber in a book in which his appearance is not obvious, then this is evidence of Raaber having been noted, i.e. being notable. Regarding "multiple", it has always been policy that 2 sources can be enough, especially if the subject is geographically or recentism-istically disadvantaged, which is the case for Raaber. Lastly, Raaber has had a 90-minute movie made about him. Assuming you don't want to argue that a 90-minute movie is insignificant, that brings the number of sources up to 3. Damvile (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2018 (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) KCVelaga (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Amber Swartz–Garcia[edit]

Kidnapping of Amber Swartz–Garcia (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)

Wikipedia is not a directory of crimes or anything else. This is a two sentence article on an event 30 years ago that's unlikely to get any more coverage to permit anything longer. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not news. » Shadowowl | talk 20:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article should not be evaluated on its current two sentence length. The article was kept at an AfD debate in April of this year where the consensus was to keep. That debate brought forward many sources that can be used to expand the article. There has been ongoing coverage of this kidnapping in reliable sources for 30 years. The San Francisco Chronicle, for example, is not Pinole's local newspaper, but is instead the dominant regional newspaper for Northern California. The Chronicle has published at least 66 stories about this case over the past three decades. Consider this story about the impact of the kidnapping on her family and this story about the man who confessed to the kidnapping and murder. Both stories were published many years after the kidnapping. Ongoing coverage is not limited to the Chronicle and a reading of the April AfD debate will lead editors to many other sources that can be used to expand the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was notified on my TP as a former AfD participant (but I would have !voted anyway - I vote on almost all AfDs in the crime delsort). Ahould not have been nominated so close to previous keep. I will just repeat my previous comment : Significant WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. 198919982000200220092009 201320132013 2015 2016. books - [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Seems early coverage is primarily as "Amber Swartz" (and that Garcia was tacked on at some later date - per this rather in-depth piece - her father Bernie Swartz was murdered a few months prior to her birth and her mother lived with Al Garcia but did not marry him due to police pension issues) - and that this was a nationwide photograph item in 1988... We judge NCRIME by coverage, and this specific kidnapping has very wide and continuing coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep – This stub article is notable on its face, and there are many online and offline references to build it out. That being said, it currently passes muster as a stub. Having fun! Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 03:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have expanded the article significantly and added several references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, Well sourced and well worthy of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article appears to be improved, with sufficient amount of reliable sources. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Enough already. BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:HEY, atop the clear KEEP earlier this year. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources are reliable ones that demonstrate notability outside the immediate vicinity of where it happened. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the article is properly sourced. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2018 (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. Although the head count is roughly equal, a clear consensus to delete emerged in the second half of the discussion. – Joe (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Jing (volleyball)[edit]

Zhao Jing (volleyball) (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)

Single secondary source, mostly filled with quotes from the subject. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per Wikipedia:Notability (sports), played in international tournament, with reliable secondary source. Marthadandridge (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned nothing about Notability being an issue. My problem is the sourcing. A single source, which uses many many primary quotes, reduces it's reliability as an independent source. Of course google translate can only go so far... -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single source is a tag, not a rationale for deletion. FIVB is independent of the subject, and is reliable. deletion is not an quality improvement process. Marthadandridge (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: verifiably international player. PamD 18:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of coverage in sources, difficult to argue notability given the paucity of sources. WCM_email 13:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Unfortunately, volleyball isn't covered under WP:NSPORT, but it seems most sports count a player on a national team which has competed at an international level or participated in an international tournament - including the Olympics - as notable. Why not just tag the article with any of these instead of putting it at AfD? originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 14:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:AFD is not cleanup. I agree that the current state of sourcing of the article is bad but she played in an international tournament, with RS. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has played for the national team. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given sourced international competition. Ralbegen (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given evidence presented below. Ralbegen (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer Query - I'm wondering if there are two sourcing issues here. One is that GNG takes precedence over NSPORT (which merely offers quick and ready aids) and that GNG wouldn't seem to be satisfied. The other is that even if that weren't the case, can NSPORT be expanded (albeit reasonably) in such an ad hoc fashion, or does its absence mean GNG is the only notability issue to arise? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep participation in an olympics as verified in this article is usually sufficient for inclusion as it is expected that Olympians receive significant coverage offline if not online, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Atlantic306 Did you verify the source? She never played in the 2004 Olympics, see Volleyball at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Women's team rosters. She was indeed on the 18-player roster (2004_FIVB_World_Grand_Prix_squads), but not on the 12-player Olympic roster. The article says "She participated int the 2004 Summer Olympics qualifying tournament." but China qualified in 2003 and did not participate at all in the 2004 FIVB Women's World Olympic Qualification Tournament. Timmyshin (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case have struck my keep vote!, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:PamD User:Originalmess User:Ralbegen User:Editorofthewiki User:L293D Please back up your statements with facts. Just because her name is on a roster doesn't mean she appeared in any games. If you believe she played for China please tell us which game. Timmyshin (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep as nomination does not specify a valid reason for deletion (Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion). Bakazaka (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't hold up so long as anyone since has posed a deletion reason, which they have. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite being on the 18-person roster for the 2004 FIVB Volleyball World Grand Prix, I don't see evidence she appears in a match; WP:NSPORT is not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment I agree with User:power~enwiki being in a roster doesnt make notable. Just being in the team for Olympic Qualifier isnt notable either. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThis is what a google search in Chinese sources yields on Zhao Jing (volleyball). Haven't had the time to look through the search results to see if she meets WP:BASIC myself, but maybe this will help anyone who is interested. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Suggestions to Keep yet admitting that we have no sources are inexplicable under Wikipedia terms. No major wins reported anywhere. Therefore, subject fails WP:NATHLETE since claims to the contrary are not verifiable. -The Gnome (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Maybe sources exist in Chinese but I don't see that the GNG is met. I also don't see anything to show WP:NSPORTS is met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've searched through many English and Chinese sources and have to conclude that this player does not meet BASIC/NSPORTS. Only substantial coverage is the secondary source already cited in the article (which, as pointed out in the nom, is mainly quotes), with the rest just being routine game coverage. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as well as believing, firmly, that GNG is not satisfied by the absence of sources, and that should be enough to make it insufficient. There is also a lack of clear evidence she actually satisfied WP:ATHLETE - with any doubt on that it make there no functional case to retain at all. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Ramírez (photography)[edit]

Manuel Ramírez (photography) (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)

Photographer fails WP:NBIO. Contains assertions of notability, but none of the awards, festivals, or museums mentioned have their own article. Could not find any reliable sources to add. Bradv 20:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find any mention of him anywhere. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm also not able to find sources from which to build an article. One museum does have an article, which has been added, and another now has an ((ill)) to Portuguese, but I didn't find references for his work being included there. Note that there is coverage of a photographer called José Manuel Ramírez,[12][13], but that's a different person, born in Seville, not Jalisco. › Mortee _talk 16:42, 7 September 2018 (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 rough consensus that the subject meets WP:PROF and possibly also the GNG. A major concern of those editors in favour of deletion, that this is a BLP without reliable sources, has been rectified by David Eppstein. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etzel Cardeña[edit]

Etzel Cardeña (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)

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "No reliable secondary sources tending to show notability. Two of the reference links are dead, but can be seen by their names to be in any case primary sources; one is to the editorial board of a journal that Cardeña is on; one, in Swedish, is an extremely popularly written interview with Cardeña ("Are you more telepathic when you're in love?" "Why are Swedes so rude?") in Salongk.se, via the Wayback Machine; the venue is no longer online. The last one, billed in the article as an article written by Cardeña, is actually an open letter signed by nearly one hundred academics, of whom he is one, and published in the controversial Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (see our article)." The PROD was contested with a claim that the subject meets "multiple WP:PROF criteria" - however, the WP:RSes to write an article from are not only not present, but don't (on a quick WP:BEFORE) appear to exist. Perhaps they do, but we need the actual sources before a WP:BLP can be allowed to exist. David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no notable Ghits, fails WP:NBIO. Since this is a BLP, the fact it has no sources also is a reason for deletion. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Full transparency: I wrote the PROD rationale which David Gerard quotes above. The PROD was removed with the comment that "article makes a clear claim of notability through multiple WP:PROF criteria; prodder appears to be using the wrong notability guideline for this subject".[14] Of the WP:PROF criteria, I believe the remover must be referring to number 5, "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment ... at a major institution of higher education and research". I say that because I can't see any other WP:PROF criterion that Cadeña remotely meets. It is claimed in the article that Cadeña is "the Thorsen Professor of Psychology at Lund University"; so, he holds or held a named chair appointment. Lund University is certainly a major institution of higher education and research, but there is something unusual about the Thorsen chair of psychology. The only mentions of it that Google finds are closely together with Cardeña, in contexts where Cardeña himself has listed his credentials, with one exception: an interesting article from 2015 titled "A decade in the borderland of science", just one and unfortunately in Swedish, in Sydsvenskan, a respectable daily. Apparently the Danish industrialist Poul Thorsen had difficulty in persuading any major university to take his money and create a chair in parapsychology: both Copenhagen and Stockholm declined. I quote an exerpt from the Sydsvenskan article:

What's my point? Well, it seems strange that his type of named chair, obviously not nearly as respectable as a regular Swedish professorship, can on its own make a person notable. I can't believe that is the intention of WP:PROF. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

If this article stays, that's definitely worth discussing in the article. There was also (non-RS) discussion of the Thorsen chair in ScienceBlogs - the chair was empty for decades until Cardena accepted it - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ping David Eppstein, who contested the PROD - do you have any good sources on Cardena? - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF#C5 (named chair at a major university), #C8 (editor in chief of a notable journal) [15], and #C1 (16 publications with over 100 citations each on Google Scholar). Making fun of someone's research specialty is not an adequate reason for deletion, and neither is using the wrong notability criterion (this is a case for PROF, not WP:GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even given prima facie notability - we still need the actual RSes for a BLP, and the article doesn't have them. Do you have them? Then they need to be there in practice, not just hypothetically, for the article to be allowed to exist - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Eppstein: I didn't use WP:GNG to assess notability, I used WP:PROF. You suggest its criterion C1 is satisfied by "16 publications with over 100 citations each on Google Scholar"; I don't agree. C1 goes like this: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". The number of publications with 100 citations does not in itself show that. (100 bare citations isn't much.) I don't so far see any reason to believe his research has had a significant impact. But I'm ready to change my mind if you supply the independent reliable sources that say it has. P.S. Is it my quotes from the interview in Salongk.se, which was offered as a source in our article, that you call "Making fun of someone's research specialty"? The interview was offered as a source, and I tried to describe its character, to assist the non-Swedish-speaking reader, without any intention of making fun. It's actually a better source, being at least secondary, than several of the others.Bishonen | talk 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • To me this objection reads as "I don't believe in our established notability guidelines so I am going to make up different requirements that articles must also satisfy". We have hundreds of published reliable sources discussing his research, some of them likely in-depth. And C1 was only the third of three notability criteria that I cited him as passing; we only need one. In any case, if you pretend that for reasons GNG should take precedence in this case, [16] and [17] look like reliable in-depth independent sources, certainly enough to source the named professorship criterion of WP:PROF. And to respond to previous comments about how "respectable" the chair is: I think the controversy over the chair makes it more notable, not less. And our personal opinions about respectability should be very far from how we decide notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • This may be prima facie notability - or it may not - but please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors. With the sources to hand, and adding the second source you give (no way the first passes WP:RS), this article should be about two paragraphs if it survives - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to what User:David Eppstein writes above, Etzel Cardeña is – for good or bad – a piece of Swedish modern research history. He – and his chair, but he as a person was not irrelevant – it was controversial already in 2005, of course, but wasn't just a piece of news back then. It was the focus of a nation-wide debate in 2012. It started, if I remember correctly, with Pseudovetenskap sprids okritiskt in Svenska Dagbladet and continued in a good number of newspapers. He's been the focus of a number of portraits in respectable newspapers, like the longish "Tio år i gränslandet" in Sydsvenskan (the major newspaper in southern Sweden). I can't find the article online, but it's available through w:sv:Mediearkivet. Another example, a portrait in w:sv:Forskning & Framsteg, one of the major (respectable) Swedish popular science newspapers. /Julle (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can get this stuff into the article, I'll be delighted to change my !vote - sounds like he'd pass WP:FRINGEBLP - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is not for cleanup. And notability is based on the information that can be found about the subject, not on the current state of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if prima facie notability exists - BLPs must have the RSes actually present - you keep pretending you haven't had this pointed out to you - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein and Julle, though I'm not sure if Eppstein is right about Cardena passing WP:PROF#C8, given that the Journal of Parapsychology seems to be considered a fringe publication in most of academia. But this is irrelevant considering the reliable sources noted by Julle, the high citation counts and endowed chair noted by Eppstein, and his status as a fellow of both the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science, [18] all of which allow him to pass WP:PROF easily. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:PROF#C5. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mindless evoking of checklist is no way to run an encyclopedia. The WP:PROF -- like all notability guidelines -- are intended as a shorthand, not religious dogma. --Calton | Talk 15:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. No evidence of RS that demonstrates notability for a large amount of the content in the article, though some of it is mentioned in some fringe publications. However, the individual themselves is apparently notable even though the article does requires further citation. @David Eppstein: To be clear I don't support the concept of " an editor has prove reliable sources don't exist before removing currently unsourced content" per WP:BLPREMOVE. Proving something doesn't exist is an impossible task, insead it is standard practice to remove unsourced content until such a time as RS can be (and has been) provided in text; an admin should know that. Endercase (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You removed content that has been discussed as sourced in this AfD; in particular his named professorship. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2018 (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. postdlf (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wolfe (priest)[edit]

Charles Wolfe (priest) (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 apparent notability Kevin McE (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn SnelgroveBashereyre (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one reference to a clerical directory is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Dean of a cathedral is notable by office, not achievementsBashereyre (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that established? Is there a discussion thread or WP:NOTABILITY policy commitment to that effect? The role of dean in some major cathedrals might be, but on what grounds are individual holders of the post? Kevin McE (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if its not been established, let's start one. Would you know where we do this?Bashereyre (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, if it has not been established, why are you asserting it as fact? Because if Wolfe does not meet the expectations at WP:BASIC, then a general principle re the status of dean should preclude creation of the article. WP:CLERGY suggests that it might be assumed that Bishops reach that threshold, but not lower ranks. There have been numerous relevant discussions within Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), and in none of them is it even proposed that deans or archdeacons should be assumed notable. You would need to get a consensus, I would suggest, at wp:Notability (people), but I consider it very unlikely. Kevin McE (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the relistingBashereyre (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom and Johnpacklambert, there doesn't appear to be enough reliable/independent/sigcov sources to suggest that the subject here meets WP:GNG. The suggestion that "a dean is automatically notable" is not supported by any community-defined notability criteria. And, in fact, overtly falls short of WP:CLERGY and WP:POSITION. (The suggestion that "a dean is an important position, therefore this dean is automatically important/notable" does not stack up against WP:POSITION specifically). Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2018 (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. Vanamonde (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Stanley[edit]

Troy Stanley (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)

Failed candidate for Congress whose non politics career isn't notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete that this article has lasted for 9 years is a travesty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect this not-elected candidate to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2010#District 4, where there is already a sourced mention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with no objection to the creation of a redirect afterward (but delete this first, because we don't want to hold on to its edit history.) Non-winning candidates for Congress do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — he would have to win the election and thereby hold the office, not just run and lose, to pass WP:NPOL as a politician, and absent that he has to be able to demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him a Wikipedia article anyway. But the quality of sourcing here is not suggesting that he's got a plausible claim to passing our notability standards for businesspeople as a hot dog stand operator, either. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Bearcat and E.M. Gregory, but prefer the delete then redirect approach. SportingFlyer talk 01:58, 4 September 2018 (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. czar 20:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Passamaneck[edit]

Richard Passamaneck (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 professor (fails WP:NPROF). I could not find any additional sources. Eligible for BLPPROD, except that it had 2 dead external links that I removed. Bradv 18:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Citation counts (in Google scholar) are too low to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - None of the sources about this person are enough for having the article. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2018 (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. czar 20:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fajr 7[edit]

Fajr 7 (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. The whole article is based on a typo/Weasel Word AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no way is the military exercise notable (not a good sign when the creator states it's obscure), and the typo could only be notable in the oddest of circumstances (as in, the typo itself caused news). No significant coverage I could find. No evident redirect target Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Fails WP:DICTDEF and WP:GNG. Fail to see this as a useful disambig, though I guess perhaps there might be merit (depending on just how wide the Fajr-7 mistake was - and I don't see an indication it was wide - though it being a mistake seems to be un-sourced OR at the moment) for a redirect to Fajr 3.Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable military exercise unlikely to be recalled outside Wikipedia. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks notability. -  GravityUp↑✉  14:45, 9 September 2018 (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 and redirect to Gul Ahmed Group. SoWhy 15:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir Ali Mohammad[edit]

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

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

Not notable businessman. Lacks reliable sources. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gul Ahmed Group because the subject is chairman of this popular clothing brand. While the subject is Pakistan's leading textile barons as per this which makes him a prominent Pakistani businessman as per this but in the absence of significant coverage in independent RS, redirection make sense instead of deletion. --Saqib (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even the article Gul Ahmed Group doesn't look notable and has just 2 citations. Knightrises10 (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Guess you need to carry out WP:BEFORE. The company easily passes WP:ORG. Undoubtedly, Pakistan's largest textile manufacturing company.. --Saqib (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a case of WP:Promo, more or less an advert that would have been deleted as G11 if it had not already been at AfD. If it is made a redirect the article should be deleted first as promo, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2018 (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. Sorry, LuckyRacerNP, but "notability is well known in YouTube, Instagram etc." is not enough to meet WP:N; pretty much everybody can easily enlist a song "in internet". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Sherap[edit]

Ming Sherap (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 individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because this article is about the youtuber who has enlisted his song in internet and his notability is well known in YouTube, Instagram etc.LuckyRacerNP (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've redirect the newly created article on his song Swag Kta Moh to Ming Sherap; I don't see how the song can be notable if he isn't. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some trivial coverage, fails WP:GNG, WP:WEB. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested}

• Delete The only source is region-biased and seems to be more of a fluff piece. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:23, 9 September 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chika Nwobi[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)).

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

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

I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and current sources provide nothing but a passing mention and most of them are not reliable. It reads like an advertisement for the subject and his companies. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP "unable to find significant coverage". LOL. Did you even look? A quick google search pulls up plenty of sources. Not to mention the article is well-cited Freetheangels (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny! read my nom above once again. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP I'm very confused. This article is properly cited and the subject has many articles written about him online. He is definitely considered "notable". Leapsandbounds (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Leapsandbounds (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

• Keep After cleanup the article will likely be a stub. Unless there's major rebuilding Judging from a Google search, the subject seems notable enough as a Nigerian tech CEO. However, it will require a large amount of cleanup, as well as additional citations. The style isn't quite there for Wikipedia yet (mainly WP:NPOV), but it has been posted on Wikipedia:Cleanup and does have to potential to be a fair article. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 21:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Delete For sources; mostly unreliable. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 23:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Theoretically as a cleaned-up article, notability (or lack of) aside, it will likely be a stub. It'll either be a weak delete or stub from me, I'll look more into it. Thanks GSS. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 20:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosalina2427: WP:NOTINHERIT applies here. Being a CEO is not, of itself, sufficient to address the WP:BIO criteria. There's no automatic inherited notability as these same policies state the subject must be independently notable, and this article contains clear named mentions, which emphasize its PR bloating. Please reconsider your !vote above. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 02:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I removed some sources that I found unreliable, most of them were blog type websites with no about us page and seems to be run by a single individual (the list can be found here). GSS (talk|c|em) 04:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed more than "some". The article is practically poorly sourced now. You're unfairly making claims like "seems to be run by a single individual". Leapsandbounds (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UGC, user generated content is generally unacceptable, and the deleted sources were blogs. The only deleted source that is relatively verifiable is the first source from Proshare here: https://www.proshareng.com/news/People/Unilever-Nigeria-Plc-Appoints-Mr-Chika-Nwobi-as-Non-Executive-Director/36911. Correct me if I've overlooked anything with that source and it's actually not reliable. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosalina2427: So can www.proshareng.com be used? Also, what if one source contains most of the information in the Wikipedia article, is it allowed to cite one source multiple times? Leapsandbounds 09:52, 6 September 2018

@Leapsandbounds: No, proshareng.com is not a reliable source, see their about us page. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Okay. I will find a better one. Leapsandbounds 10:10, 6 September 2018

@GSS: What is wrong with WWW.MIPAD.ORG? It's a legitimate award supported by the UN General Assembly. Leapsandbounds 10:14, 6 September 2018

Well at the end of that blog post it says We are proud of his achievement and we name him Most Influential 100 Class of Business and Entrepreneurship category but in the actual list his name is not mentioned so do you have a reliable source for this claim? Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Yeah I was wondering why his name wasn't on the official list. I see how the statement could be problematic, but since their the ones giving the award, isn't it okay for them to approve of his achievements? I will try to find something else. Leapsandbounds 13:54, 6 September 2018

@GSS: How about http://disrupt-africa.com/about/? It's a well-known news site on the continent. I think you deleted it previously. Leapsandbounds 16:00, 6 September 2018

This is a blog type website and I can't see anything about their editorial or fact-checking procedures, editorial staff, etc. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: VERY, Unsourcred, the ones that were delated were from blogs with no way to verify that they are reliable. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article just needs cleaning up. A few minutes searching online turns up lots of usable biographical material. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC) — Lovelylinda1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Lovelylinda1980: Seriously? Are you aware of our WP:BLP policy? GSS (talk|c|em) 08:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The current version of the article has 10 sources:

1. Company directory on Bloomberg: this is outside Bloomberg's editorial control ("Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content") and per past RSN discussions, this is likely SPS by the company. Not significant, reliable, or independent.
2. AIMGroup: trivial mention in an industry publication. Not significant, reliable, or independent.
3. CDNET: Another company directory. Not significant, reliable, or independent.
4. Article in Guardian.ng: doesn't even mention Chika Nwobi. Can't be used to establish notability for someone it doesn't discuss.
5. Executive directory on Bloomberg: again, outside Bloomberg's editorial control and likely SPS. (See previous discussions here and here, for example.) Not significant, reliable, or independent.
6. Executive direcotry on Crunchbase: user-submitted database. See RSN discussion here. Not significant, reliable, or independent.
7. Article on Punch: trivial mention in what's either a press release or transparently based on a press release. Not significant or independent, probably not reliable, either.
8. Article on Leadership.ng: doesn't even mention Chika Nwobi. Can't be used to establish notability for someone it doesn't discuss.
9. Article on Guardian.ng: trivial mention in what's either a press release or transparently based on a press release. Not significant or independent, probably not reliable, either.
10. Article on TribuneOnlineng.com: trivial mention in what's either a press release or transparently based on a press release. Not significant or independent, probably not reliable, either.

WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and none of these sources establish that. Woodroar (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Woodroar's in-depth analysis is solid. There is no cited source that amounts to WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO per review of available sources, which are mostly advertorial in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2M Group[edit]

2M Group (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. No sources. A Google search mainly brings up other companies with the same name and this article. » Shadowowl | talk 16:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 17:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 17:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 17:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & delete: I added a source which verifies the basis of this campaign alliance but is insufficient to demonstrate its notability as an organisation. There is some media coverage triggered by reports issued by this group (e.g. Oct 2015) but not the in-depth coverage of the grouping which is needed for WP:ORG. It would be best to be noted in context at Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport#Opponents_of_expansion (which currently mentions only 1 of the 24 councils). AllyD (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (Mention and refs now added to Expansion_of_Heathrow_Airport removing the need for a merge. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyahu Federman[edit]

Eliyahu Federman (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)

Renominating article for deletion. The article was clearly written by the subject of the article. See, e.g., FN3 (a letter of recommendation for the subject) and FN5 (the result of a Westlaw search by the subject) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1201:854b:f9fe:397f:454c:db0c (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. The IP had attempted the nomination by leaving their rationale at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Eliyahu Federman.[19] I have only provided technical assistance and have not opined on the nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being written by the subject doesn't constitute a reason for deleting the article, just a reason to look at it more closely. K.Bog 06:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article is well cited but should be re-written to establish notability maybe by someone other than the subjectFreetheangels (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO nor WP:AUTHOR. Being "Senior Vice President & Chief Communications Officer" of a nn company does not help. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2018 (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. In the end, the argument that NMUSIC is only an indicator of possible notability and GNG is not met with no significant coverage was more persuasive. SoWhy 15:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Davis[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG . All of the sources are self-published I should have written that the sourced do not discuss the subject in detail. Only passing mentions. I see no source to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources are not self-published. They are from 3rd party, independent magazine reviews, articles and music industry sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. I should have written that the sourced do not discuss the subject in detail. Only passing mentions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • They substantiate the body of compositions as a songwriter whose works are award winning and have sold over 1,000,000 units (WOW Worship Blue) and 500,000 units (Top 25 Praise Songs) which meets the criteria for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's clear, but a large body of works is not a criteria for inclusion. And the albums have sold well, but we need sources to support that your contributions on those compilation albums was the reason they sold well. Since your solo albums have not achieved success or notability, it follows that it's likely the act of being a compilation album that helped them to sell well. So unless you or your works have directly won an award, there is no notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe your reasoning is factual. To say a song on a compilation does not contribute to the sales of the compilation does not make sense. The reason why you include songs is to include the songs that will gain the most sales. WOW Worship is best of compilation selecting from the top 100 songs performed in churches at that time. Holland Davis did win several awards. He was awarded an ASCAP award for most played song in 2006 for Let It Rise. He was awarded one platinum and two gold records for WOW Worship and Top 25 Praise Songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry you don't the simple logic I presented because it does make sense. For instance, in country music in particular, a single hit song will not usually increase sales for an album. There are instances where a musician in that category will have multiple singles and the album itself does not sell. However if those same hit singles are released on a compilation album along with other hits, then the compilation will sell. It's the fact that it's a collection of good songs that make compilation sell, not the presence of any one song. If you can show a source that states that the presence of your song boosted sales by even 1%, you would have a clear point. I suspect that if your song was removed from those compilations and another song from a different worship musician had been included, the album would have not have sold significantly better or worse. I would argue that "Good, Good Father" is a more notable song than "let It Arise" and neither Pat Barrett nor Anthony Brown have articles (althoughg Housefires does, based on the weight of their third album). And I'm curious why you're referring to yourself in the third person. The award was not for most played song in 2006, but one of the most performed Christian songs of the year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You cannot compare Good Good Father with Let It Rise (it is not Let It Arise... maybe that's the issue, you've confused the song with a different song)... Good Good Father is recently released and still building notability. Let It Rise, achieved notability in the 90's as a top 100 CCLI song (which earned the song a place on the multi-platinum selling WOW Worship Blue) which is based on usage in churches and a Top 25 charting position with Big Daddy Weave again in the 2000's as well as a #2 position on the gospel charts by William Murphy. Can you name another worship song that has achieved Top 25 placements on Billboard in 2 different genres at the same time? As well as achieving multi-platinum status on a compilation with notability spanning 2 decades? It appears the song meets the criteria for notariety... inclusion on charts, winning multi-platinum status. It appears the songwriter has been credited as writing the song that has been recorded by notable groups. It appears to meet the notability requirements on several points. All it needs to do is meet one to be deemed notable. You are correct it was the the 25 most performed Christian songs of the year is the official category title. It was for the most plays on radio (which means it charted in the top 25) which again proves the notability of the song and the writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.22.3 (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: About the composition,
  

  Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
  1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
  [...]
  3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.

  
  ^{— WP:COMPOSER}
  "Let It Rise" does not appear to be notable, though. Per WP:NSONG, emphasis mine:

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label.

Also, from the "subject" footnote of that guideline:

The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.

This does not appear to be the case, no matter how best-selling the album was. The whole "Awards" section might be inadequate praise, as these awards have never been awarded to the article subject themselves. About Holland Davis, I can not find independent, significant coverage that addresses him directly and in detail, per WP:GNG. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCAP Award was awarded to Holland Davis as the writer of Let It Rise which was one of the most performed songs of 2006. it both establishes the notability of the song and the songwriter as ASCAP is a song based PRO. If it helps establish the case, I can list a number of records who have recorded Let It Rise from non-trivial works? It's easy to establish the value of the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as charting... Let It Rise appeared on the Billboard Hot Christian Adult Contemporary Chart 11/6/2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria. Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.

Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)

Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hollanddavis: The ASCAP Award was awarded to Holland Davis, as person? Not just mentioning the song? I can not find that at this link, and the reference link in the "Awards" section is broken. Please provide a reliable source for this statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When quoting guidelines, and when copying text from any page, please mention where you have taken it from, where the quotation begins, and where the quotation ends. Please fix that above. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that a user called User:hollanddavis is posting here, and has been very active and editing the page. Even if the subject is notable, there appears to be a serious conflict of interest which should be addressed. If User:hollanddavis believes the page should stay, then he needs to establish which aspects of WP:NMUSIC are satisfied. Ross-c (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCAP listing the mention of the song and the writer is who the award went to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanddavis (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep definite WP:COI and if this is kept the artist should not directly edit it but instead make suggestions on the talk page. However, he does seem to pass WP:NMUSIC with charting hit singles on billboard, and he has coverage in christian music reliable sources such as CrossRhythmns, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: WP:NMUSIC lists reasons why a musician may be notable. They are not automatically defined, not even necessarily "likely" to be notable if one of the examples listed there applies. Also, could you please specify which part of WP:NMUSIC you are referring to? The "reliable source" at CrossRhythms (link) appears to be an interview where the musician talks about themselves, which is explicitly not included by WP:NMUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, point 1. The "charting" in Christian music does not appear to be the same as appearing on "any country's national music chart" per point 2. The musician also does not appear to have "won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." per point 8. The word "major" is important here. I have not seen anything "major" in that regard yet. Please also note that "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on [...] any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject.", per WP:NMUSIC as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The album reviews at Cross Rythm are reliable intellectually independent sources that count towards WP:GNG, meeting one of the criteria on WP:NMUSIC means exactly that a musician is likely to be notable and the Billboard christian music charts are national charts as opposed to state or local and are widely quoted in christian music reliable sources so criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC is clearly passed,regards Atlantic306 (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a case where WP:MUSICBIO is met (Billboard's "Hot Christian Songs"and "Hot Gospel Songs" charts are sufficient for point #2), but WP:GNG is not (bearing in mind that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", the article has a total of one independent reliable source, and I haven't been able to find any sources not cited in the article). Given that MUSICBIO is a guideline clarifying what "may be notable", and that we can't write an article (especially one about a living person) without reliable sources, GNG has to take priority. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2018 (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. Redirect at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business Morning[edit]

Business Morning (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)

Even on History of CNN (1980–2003), this show doesn't have a single mention except for one bullet point in the "Variety shows" section. It also lacks references and therefore doesn't demonstrate notability. Also, it was created 13 years ago but is only one sentence long. Should it be redirected to there or to another larger article perhaps? – numbermaniac 12:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 12:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 12:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 12:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect (to History of CNN (1980–2003)?...). I've found one incidental mention of this show in LA Times – [20] – and a couple more in Variety – [21], [22]. But this is only enough to establish that the show existed, not enough to show that it was notable in WP:GNG terms. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No point to redirect. We have 'it aired on CNN', and we need much more for even a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 23:05, 2 September 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars[edit]

List of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars (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 list of guest stars on television program. Lists mostly single appearances of characters. Notes list what actor portraying character is later known for, unrelated to appearance on The Andy Griffith Show.

There's no debate that actors with wikilinks meet WP:N and that The Andy Griffith Show was a popular television show. But there are no sources about the topic of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars treated as a whole, and list article fails WP:TVCAST and WP:LISTCRUFT. The more significant guest/recurring stars are listed in List of The Andy Griffith Show characters. AldezD (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. . Vorbee (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The nominator's boilerplate nomination is incorrect about the content; only a mere few entries are unsourced. The rest list specific episodes. postdlf (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Sourcing isn't the core issue. This content fails fails WP:TVCAST and WP:LISTCRUFT. A list of single episode guest stars of a television show is not content that meets criteria guidelines. AldezD (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • LISTCRUFT is essentially an "I don't like this list and want an acronym to cite" essay, so that's really uninteresting to me. If you're using it as a proxy for an actual consensus-supported guideline or policy, you should just cite that policy. And could you be specific regarding what part of WP:TVCAST you are applying, and in what way that MOS guideline establishes relevant inclusion criteria that this list fails? postdlf (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed". "A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a 'recurring' role." These are not recurring characters. They are one-episode characters, and do not belong in a separate article list. A list of guest stars does not meet WP:N. AldezD (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • None of that says "never list guest stars", nor "only main and recurring roles may be listed". Further, this list is limited to guest stars who have their own articles. Editors may ultimately decide that this is an unnecessary level of detail for this particular show, or that having guest starred in this series may not be significant enough as a basis for an index of notable actors, but your legalistic approach, and your copied and pasted rationales (apparently applied based on nothing more than the type of list rather than a case-by-case evaluation of the content per WP:BEFORE) is completely off-base here.

          You claim above that there are "no sources about the topic of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars treated as a whole", but are you basing this purely based on the state of the article, or have you actually consulted any of the many books about this series to see if they discuss and/or list significant guest stars? postdlf (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a fairly prominent TV show, with several books about it. Those books discuss guest stars in the context of episode guides, etc. Articles such as List of The Simpsons guest stars (seasons 1–20) (or others in Category:Lists of guest appearances in television) suggest this is not a WP:NOT violation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "The Andy Griffith Show guest stars" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  
  Sources

  1. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (1996). Aunt Bee's Delightful Desserts. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson. pp. ix–x. ISBN 978-1-55853-402-5. Retrieved 2018-09-07.

     The book provides a list of guest stars:

     1. Jackie Joseph—Ramona Ankrum
     2. Frank Sutton—Sgt. Carter
     3. Charles P. Thompson—Asa Breeney
     4. Enid Markey—Mrs. Mendelbright
     5. Will Wright, Tol Avery, and Jason Johnson—Ben Weaver
     6. Olan Soule—John Masters
     7. Josie Lloyd—Lydia Crosswaith
     8. Barbara Perry—Flossie, Mary Lee, Lavinia, and Doris Williams
     9. Norman Leavitt (it:Norman Leavitt), Trevor Bardette, and Cliff Norton—Wally
     10. Jane Dulo—Escaped convict Sally
     11. Barbara Eden—Ellen Brown
     12. Mary Grace Canfield—Mary Grace Gossage
     13. Joyce Van Patten—Laura Hollander
     14. Robert Cornthwaite—Inspector Somerset
     15. Alan Oppenheimer—Mr. Ruskin, the Interpreter
     16. R. G. Armstrong—Farmer Flint
     17. Elaine Joyce—Mavis Neff
     18. The Country Boys (Roland White, LeRoy McNees, Clarence White, Eric White, and Billy Ray Latham)—Local musicians
     19. Joel Redlin—Ferdie
     20. Alvy Moore—Kitchenwares salesman
     21. Dave Ketchum—Fred Michaels, Harry Walker
     22. George Spence—Frank the fiancé
     23. Brad (Joe Bolleter) Olson—Esquire Club member John Danby
  2. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (2000) [1985]. The Andy Griffith Show Book. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 149–170. ISBN 0-312-26287-6. Retrieved 2018-09-07.

     The book notes:

     There are 249 episodes (159 in black and white; 90 in color) of "The Andy Griffith Show." The following is a list, with brief plot summaries, of all the episodes. The order in which the episodes are listed is the order in which they were filmed and also the order in which they are most commonly aired in syndication. (The order in which the episodes were originally broadcast is slightly different.) Guest stars and prominent actors are also listed, along with the writers of the episodes.

     The book notes this information about guest stars:
     1. In "Episode 8: A Feud Is a Feud", Arthur Hunnicutt and Chubby Johnson are guest stars.
     2. In "Episode 36: Barney on the Rebound", Jackie Coogan is a guest star.
     3. In "Episode 70: The Cow Thief", Malcolm Atterbury and Ralph Bell are guest stars.
     4. In "Episode 74: Convicts-at-Large", Reta Shaw, Jane Dulo, and Jean Carson are guest stars.
     5. In "Episode 107: Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.", Frank Sutton is the guest star.
     6. In "Episode 144: Goober Takes a Car Apart", Larry Hovis is the guest star.
     7. In "Episode 167: Taylors in Hollywood", Gavin MacLeod and Hayden Rorke are the guest stars.
     8. In "Episode 187: The Foster Lady", Ronnie Schell and Robert Emhardt are the guest stars.
     9. In "Episode 208: The Statue", Dal McKennon is the guest star.
     10. In "Episode 225: Opie Steps Up in Class", Joyce Van Patten is the guest star.
     11. In "Episode 245: Emmett's Anniversary", Ronnie Schell is the guest star.
  3. Robinson, Dale; Fernandes, David (1996). The Definitive Andy Griffith Show Reference: Episode-by-Episode, with Cast and Production Biographies and a Guide to Collectibles. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-7864-2068-5. Retrieved 2018-09-07.

     The book discusses each episode in the series and the cast members (including guest cast) involved in each episode.

  4. Hall, Lee (1999-05-31). "Mayburied: 'Griffith' Is Out at TBS". Electronic Media. Crain Communications.

     The article notes:

     Guest stars included Jackie Coogan (Uncle Fester, "The Addams Family"); Buddy Ebsen ("Beverly Hillbillies" and "Barnaby Jones"); Alan Hale Jr. (the skipper on "Gilligan's Island"); Bill Bixby ("The Incredible Hulk" and "My Favorite Martian"), Don Rickles; Bob Denver ("Gilligan's Island"); Teri Garr; Jamie Farr ("MASH"); Howard Hesseman ("WKRP in Cincinnati"); Rob Reiner ("All in the Family"); and Jack Nicholson.

  5. Butler, Susan (2002-01-18). "Selected titles celebrate all things Mayberry". The Daily Reflector. Archived from the original on 2018-09-08. Retrieved 2018-09-07.

     The article notes:

     The small, fictional town of Mayberry, N.C., lives on in the Verona Joyner Langford North Carolina Collection at Joyner Library. The television series that was set in this picturesque town, "The Andy Griffith Show," debuted on Oct. 3, 1960, and ran for eight seasons. Several books in the collection give detailed summaries of all 249 episodes that aired, along with short biographies of the cast members and various guest stars who passed through Mayberry, including Jack Nicholson, Bill Bixby, and Barbara Eden.

     The article discusses the books The Andy Griffith Show Book by Ken Beck and Jim Clark, The Definitive Andy Griffith Show Reference by Dale Robinson and David Fernandes, and Mayberry 101: Behind The Scenes of a TV Classic by Neal Brower.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the topic of the list has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown above so that it passes WP:NLIST and as the topic is discussed in reliable sources it is not listcruft as Wikipedia determines it, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2018 (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. SoWhy 15:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rok Sako To Rok Lo (TV film)[edit]

Rok Sako To Rok Lo (TV film) (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 tele-film does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:NFILM and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is being one of the popular television films of Eid ul Adha 2018.

Film stars famous actor Shahzad Shaikh who is son of legendary International actor Javed Shaikh.Lillyput4455 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lillyput4455 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Not a policy based argument to keep the page. --Saqib (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not necessary to create an article about a movie only because it is being heard about. Rzvas (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Jame[edit]

Omid Jame (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)

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

Iranian singer who fails WP:MUSICBIO. Nothing found in Persian language. In this ref, the article claims that he was nominated for an award (which is not a very important award in Iran) while this source does not mention his name. Farhikht (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 15:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 15:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to suggest importance. fails WP:MUSICBIO. Freetheangels (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at this stage. I can be convinced even if non-English sources have been provided. Capitals00 (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Brass Mug[edit]

The Brass Mug (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)

While they've had some impressive and notable acts, I see no evidence that this venue is any more notable than the hundreds of thousands of acts that host those same names. The reference to it being the "CBGB of Tampa" is from a small local blog/paper.1 CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a local bar that has ticketed events; no sign of coverage beyond the WP:MILL announcements/promotions of those events. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Nom and power~enwiki as well as the fact that the wording and overall tone seems to violate WP:NOTADVERTISING.Grapefruit17 (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2018 (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. per WP:G5. Feel free to create a redirect. SoWhy 15:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shehrbano Taseer[edit]

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

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

Not satisfying WP:GNG. Lacks details and coverage from independent sources. A large part of the article mentions about her brother and husband, which doesn't make her notable. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin The creator of this page is blocked for being a sockpuppet. A number of other BLPs created by that user were also deleted. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Salman Taseer. WhileBeing daughter of a famous politician (Salman Taseer) or sister of a notable brothers is not in itself grounds for notability because Notability is not inherited. so the question is whether she meets WP:JOURNALIST. Journalists are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:JOURNALIST. But that does not appear to be the case here. She also lacks significant coverage from independent reliable sources so fails to meet basic GNG as well. But she is often in the press (an interview with Newline) and has received a Human Rights Award as per this news story. I would say better redirect than delete. --Saqib (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you immediately changed your vote when you realised that the article has been nominated by the user whose edits you are 'following'. Interesting. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have we had issues in the past? Give me some time to probe. By the way I've stated pretty good reason why we should redirect instead of delete. --Saqib (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, Interesting ! I honestly see no reason to redirect. Saqib is there any justification ? --DBigXrayᗙ 16:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Why LoL? The subject meets borderline WP:N. Other than getting a a Human Rights Award as per this news story. She also among the four Pakistanis who made it to WEF's 2013 Young Global Leaders list as per this story. As per this RS, she is the official spokesperson of her family (Category:Taseer family) and was interviewed by NDTV, Al Jazeera, MSNBC, NPR, BBC Hard Talk, BBC Radio, CNN and Voice of America. In the absence of Wikipedia page on her family, redirection to her father's page make sense. And if that's not sufficient for you, she has assistant-directed a couple of popular TV series as per this IMDb entry. Redirects are cheap! --Saqib (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib LoL was over the cheeky usage of the word 'interesting' nothing more. no offence meant. I can strike if it disturbs you.

Coming to the topic, Per policy, an article created by WP:SOCK is a candidate for WP:CSDG5 seeWikipedia:Dealing_with_sock_puppets#Deleting_articles_or_article_edits.

Human Rights First NGOs' (is barely or non notable NGO) and award is clearly not a notable award. does not prove notability.

WEF is just an NGO, albeit a notable one, but this YGL is given every year to 199 young leaders from 70 countries, again non notable.

Newsline is neither a reliable source, nor her being the official spokesperson of her family does not make her notable.

She was interviewed by International media de to her fathers killing not for her work. Does not prove notability.

As. director or director of couple of TV serials doesn't provide notability. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LoL. Interesting! You said Newsline is neither a reliable source. It is Pakistan's most influential political monthly as per NYT and it has its own Wikipedia entry Newsline (magazine). I'm also unconvinced with your comments about the Human Rights First and WEF. Both org are notable at least by WP standards and that's enough for us. --Saqib (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I struck off above. Newsline link u gave was not even opening that time. Anyway the debate is the Notability of the subject not the paper, so lets be on the topic. Please read WP:NOTINHERITED awards by any NGO that has an article does not automatically become Notable. each award has to pass its own notability tests. these awards fail that. if you have an argument on how and why these awards are notable, then I would like to see. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I'm not arguing to keep this BLP. I'm just trying to assert that based on the available coverage in RS, the subject meets the WP:N by borderline so a redirect won't hurt. --Saqib (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV WP:NOTINHERITED, no notable action done by the subject so far. Per policy, an article created by WP:SOCK in violation of block is a candidate for Speedy Delete per WP:CSDG5 see here--DBigXrayᗙ 16:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable and the creation of a banned sock so it qualifies as G5 and is also promotional, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Wielsch[edit]

Norman Wielsch (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)

Nil notability outside California.

Extremely local coverage in light of his imprisonment. WP:BLP1E fits precisely.

Also, the concerns of BLP violation (as he is a lesser-known figure and the article is compelled to paint him in an entirely negative light) applies well-enough. ∯WBG^converse 14:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: local coverage with no depth or |persistence. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and especially per BLP Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Redirect to Dirty DUI scandal Chris Butler (private investigator) There is a detailed discussion of the crime in Hamid R. Ekbia (2015). "Heteronomous Humans and Autonomous Agents: Toward Artificial Relational Intelligence". Beyond Artificial Intelligence. Topics in Intelligent Engineering and Informatics. 9. Springer: 66–77. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09668-1_5. ISBN 978-3-319-09667-4., which indicates more than 'local' interest, along with news articles in 2011, 2012 and 2013. There is also considerable of newspaper coverage in various local and regional newspapers, mostly Oakland Tribune and Contra Costa Times but a couple hit the wires as well, which show up in ProQuest. According to one article Karl Fischer (16 February 2012). "Two national TV shows to feature East Bay "Dirty DUI" scandal". Oakland Tribune. the scandal drew enough attention to be featured on two national TV shows, although the shows themselves may not be RS.
  Although there seems to be enough material to support an article it may be preferable from a BLP perspective to create an article which discusses the entirety of the scandal and then redirect this to that article. Regardless, there is enough here for deletion to not be the answer. Jbh ^Talk 16:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 00:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Jbhunley, you have either not read the part of the book, in it's entirety or you are over-exaggerating the coverage.This uses the example of the crime to merely provide an interesting introduction to the broader theme of the chapter.Nothing else of any merit (it again mentions a comment by the author, on the crime at the very ending:-)).I have the book and can email you, per your wish.

  It's obviously expected that the crime will be covered in Californian/Bay-specific version of news-websites or dailies.And, news by transcript-services which regurgitate Press releases by Dept. of Justice??....... ∯WBG^converse 16:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree, I checked the book source and was very unimpressed Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  True. All I could see was the two page introduction although I do think that the plain fact that it was seen as unique/significant enough to server as 'an interesting introduction' shows that the matter has reached beyond the bubble of being merely a local event. Jbh ^Talk 16:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe Merge with Chris_Butler_(private_investigator), where there's ton of information (really, probably too much per NOTNEWS) on the dirty DUI thing, to create an article on the scandal? I'm not comfortable with the article staying like this, howeverGalobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection the creation of Dirty DUI scandal and redirecting this Norman Wielsch to that. Jbh ^Talk 16:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Anecdotal usage in a book or journal source should not qualify as grounds for a BLP. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The coverage in that article was far from trivial or 'in passing'. It consists of ~150-170 words detailing the crime. The point though, as I said above, is that the mere fact that the author of the paper saw this particular crime by this particular person to be significant enough to introduce and illustrate their point makes the material of more than 'local' interest. The topic being of only local interest is one of the reasons given for deletion and the article is presented as refutation of that. Jbh ^Talk 17:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope.I can send you several chapters of multiple books that draws upon completely-non-notable-events (which might be fringe enough), just to give a perfect introduction to the heavy dosage of jargon that will follow....... ∯WBG^converse 17:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - At best, NOTNEWS. At worst, this is nothing but an attack bio. Never should have been created in the first place. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Textbook WP:BLPCRIME / WP:NOTNEWS. Arrests and convictions are routine things to turn up in the news, but I don't think we should write articles about them until we have sustained national news coverage over a significant timeframe. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails any conceivable bar for notability. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Fails Significant coverage over the years. only mentioned for his arrest.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E as well as several other reasons given above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. Coverage is not sufficient to enable us to write an account of this person's life, which is in any case not of encyclopaedic interest. His name could be added to a List of convicted policemen (if we have one). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not sure why this is on the geography list, but fails WP:BLP1E pretty clearly, not easily solved by a redirect. SportingFlyer talk 01:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG ,so it's a delete for me. JC7V-constructive zone 16:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chris Butler (private investigator)#Arrest. Wielsch gets some standalone mentions as a cop gone bad in national outlets, e.g. [23], and he was involved (in a secondary yet significant role) in a series of crimes that meets NCRIME (beyond copious media - local and non-local for the wider Butler operation, see this academic source), that is better covered in the redirect target. The name itself is a plausible search term.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Chris Butler (private investigator). Having fun! Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 03:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chris Butler (private investigator)#Arrest, where it's already covered.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for now. If more info available in the future, recreate.BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per all other delete votes here. Emily Khine (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2018 (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. czar 20:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Marino[edit]

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

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

I'm seeing nothing outside typical trivial coverage in local-news-pieces.Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLPN. ∯WBG^converse 14:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)and WP:NACTOR 10:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 18:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete having a role in a TV show does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2018 (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) KCVelaga (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anasuya Sengupta[edit]

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

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

A trivial case of BLP1E, wherein all mentions in reliable media-units mention her in the context of one of the lines of her poem being recited by Clinton.

What else?! (Random interviews don't add any to notability.)

I see that the creator does seem to possess an extreme adulation for wikimedia-personalities.∯WBG^converse 14:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Winged Blades of Godric. I take umbrage at your scurrilous comment about "extreme adulation" – and it is a cheap shot to link to an ANI. Please redact this off-topic comment. I consider it to be a personal attack. Thank you. Having fun! Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 08:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well referenced article about a person and a poem which had an effect on international relations and a book by Hillary Clinton. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Randy Kryn, WP:BLP1E? And, we're meeting after a long time:-) ∯WBG^converse 15:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you are a memorable editor. The one event is a pretty good one, and she has done other things, including a stint as a Wikimedia official. Wikipedia is now set-in-stone enough in society that people who've worked there, or made major accomplishments here, should be as notable as any other participants of a unique knowledge force. The sources and references are strong. I don't get the reasoning of one-event guidelines, although I haven't memorized it. Seems many people are justifiably notable for one event, and then we have major league baseball, where if a person under a major-league contract walks on the field for one inning and then is never heard of or never does anything notable again they are automatically considered notable and article-worthy. Being the catalyst for Hillary Clinton, in events aimed to shift the public's perception and actions towards women in society, "ain't nuttin to sneeze at". Randy Kryn (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough coverage and beyond BLP1E too. The subject has received International media including BBC^[1] and NYT coverage for her Poem used and recited by Clinton.^[2] Other than that, Coverage in BBC for her work in Wikimedia^[3] she has been covered for her social work in support of women and her NGO.^[4][5] Has been a speaker at summits Mozilla and MIT.^[6][7][8]--DBigXrayᗙ 20:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I struggled to find good sources, but I've identified a few and expanded the article a bit. I'm confident that improvement, not deletion, is the answer here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is a case of borderline-notability for a person affiliated with the Foundation. It is definitely not a WP:BLP1E. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no strong claim to notability and the article itself with mentions of Wikipedia connections adds up to navel gazing on Wikipedia's part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of coverage in this article dealing with Wikipedia amounts to one small sentence. Most of the article has nothing to do with it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once you negate that, it shifts to a BLP1E case or so I believe.I'll try to provide a detailed analysis of available sourcing, though... ∯WBG^converse 11:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Good sourcing and I've found reviews of more of her work. Passes GNG and probably CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject has received significant coverage in recent years and thus meets the criteria set forth in WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning 06:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets WP:CREATIVE per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Sources mentioned in RS are reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 07:57, 7 September 2018 (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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed YouTube channels[edit]

List of most-viewed YouTube channels (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 list of top channels fails WP:LISTN. The "Historical progression" section may be merged to YouTube. wumbolo ^^^ 13:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has enough sources discussing the most-viewed YouTube channels to establish the notability of the topic. The "Historical progression" section parallels the "Historical progression" sections on List of most-subscribed YouTube channels and List of most-viewed YouTube videos. Also, the YouTube article makes no mention of the most-subscribed channels or most-viewed videos either. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But these "sources" are unreliable. wumbolo ^^^ 13:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination is proposing merger and that's not done by deletioon -- see WP:MAD. Andrew D. (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not seriously propose a merger. This article is very poorly written and the topic would only deserve a couple of sentences of mention on YouTube, which would be written anew. wumbolo ^^^ 06:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I think it's notable enough to have it's own article. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 22:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Several sources are listed that discuss the most-viewed YouTube channels as a subject, which covers WP:LISTN. The main article YouTube is plenty long enough that I think this should be kept stand-alone rather than merging. › Mortee _talk 17:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  These listed sources aren't reliable. Which ones are you referring to specifically? wumbolo ^^^ 18:00, 7 September 2018 (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. postdlf (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Oaks Country Club[edit]

Seven Oaks Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable golf course. Hosting a second-tier pro event isn't enough. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:58, 26 August 2018 (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? 14:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable golf course.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete was hoping to save this one based on the WP:GNG with sources, considering it once hosted a professional event, but I can't find any that aren't routine golf directory/wedding/real estate listings. SportingFlyer talk 01:48, 4 September 2018 (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 argument that notability is somehow restricted to certain countries is not based in policy and nobody disputed that such coverage exists. SoWhy 15:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2NB[edit]

2NB (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:NMUSIC. Referenced chart does not show the songs of this band. » Shadowowl | talk 16:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just a look at the Korean WP article and there is in-depth coverage of this band showing passing WP:NMUSIC. [24][25]--Oakshade (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article fails to show any notability. Even if this artist has notability in Korea, I don't think it has any place in the English-language WP.Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Tuzapicabit.Grapefruit17 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Oakshade. In-depth coverage in reliable sources does exist, enough to pass WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Sources don't need to be in English in order to help establish notability.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:16, 10 September 2018 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FETO Records[edit]

FETO Records (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 lacking notability. ~SML • TP 16:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 19 August 2018 (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) KCVelaga (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaf Kanwal[edit]

Sadaf Kanwal (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 BLP was a redirection before User:RidaJunejo (now blocked for socking) recreated it. Fails WP:NACTOR. Only one film role which is not significant and received only one award which is not in itself grounds for WP:N. Actress lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources so fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This can be now safely deleted under G5. --Saqib (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Article is well-sourced, actress won an award in 2017 and has a significant role in a new TV series this year. Previously-redirected version from 2016 was indeed weak.[26] Current article is miles above that. — JFG ^talk 14:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JFG. I'd say this scrapes through GNG. Also, I'm not sure if G5 would apply here - it was originally created by User:Artchino, who didn't created it in violation of a block or ban, and at the time it actually wasn't a redirect. Special:PermaLink/674696816--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - she passes WP:Notability_(people)#Entertainers for her role in Balu Mahi and her modeling career where she won a 2017 Hum Style Award. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:57, 5 September 2018 (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 I've ended this a bit early due to issues with undisclosed paid editors, but fundamentally the issue came down to two arguments. On the one side it was argued that there was coverage of the subject in multiple sources (JC7V, Cr@Z Kit-Kat Lover), while on the other it was argued that none of the sources met the requirements for GNG (Papaursa, Sandals1, K.e.coffman, SportingFlyer). In the end, I felt that the concerns raised on the delete side, that the article failed to pass the bar of GNG, were stronger. - Bilby (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Steinfort[edit]

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

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

Notability of this person is not inherited by working for notable organisations. The level of independent coverage about him is insufficient to meet WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what a terrible article. Former AFL first round draft pick for Richmond, but was a total draft bust and never played an AFL game. Possible coverage including here, which is WP:ROUTINE, but exists: [27] The Athletic article is good for WP:GNG but the rest appears to be non-NPOV fluff. Watching this but if I don't respond again, read this as a delete vote. SportingFlyer talk 12:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per my comment above, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 11:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bit weak but passes WP:GNG and scrapes WP:NAUTHOR, per cite 19, and contribution to additional collective works. Govvy (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The page doesn't clearly meet the notability guidelines for persons WP:GNG. I checked the available sources before speedy deletion. The creator of the article also appears to be a Spam/advertising-only account, likely covert advertising and failure to disclose paid contributions. Bradgd (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]