< 25 August	27 August >

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Balmuth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG as the only articles I could find on this individual are not independent (ie. Colgate). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't find notability through his publications — he seems to have only single-digit citations on Google Scholar and no books. But as the article makes clear, he held an endowed professorship at Colgate, giving him a pass of WP:PROF#C5. And there's plenty of material to expand the article with at [1] although (because published by his employer) it doesn't contribute to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C5 for holding an endowed professorship. XOR'easter (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter and David Eppstein: I considered that arguement in advance. I'll admit that this nomination was made in part due to me forgetting what the word Emeritus meant. However, I will take this time to point out that the named chair was Harry Emerson Fosdick Chair of Philosophy and Religion (which isn't particularly notable) and that this subject still fails WP:GNG. Finally, I submit that Colgate University is not a a major institution of higher education and research as required by WP:PROF#C5. It's just a small liberal arts college (not a major research institution nor prestigious university). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Named professorships don't have to be wiki-notable in their own right in order to qualify an individual per WP:PROF#C5. The idea is that holding any such endowed position is a mark of professional achievement well beyond that of an "average" academic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But it's still has to be from a major institution of higher education and research which Colgate University is just simply not. If this was UCONN or an equivalent Land-grant university, then I'd maybe see your point. Regardless, the purpose of the guideline seems to be intended to include institutions like Yale but disclude establishments like Connecticut College (otherwise it wouldn't use the word major). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"16th-best liberal arts college in the country" sounds pretty significant to me. Or did you think enrollment numbers were the determining factor? If they were, by your criteria, even Caltech wouldn't be major, as it has fewer total students than Colgate. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They don't conduct any noteworthy research. The guideline doesn't use the word or, it says institution of higher education and research [emphasis added]. Also, 16th-best liberal arts college in the country does not mean significant to me. (1) That's just one country [the scope of the guideline is global], (2) it does even make the top ten, (3) by definition of that statement, it discludes all colleges that aren't liberal arts colleges (which is a lot of colleges).
Do know, I already looked to see for myself: the only research the school advertises is student-based. I'm sure they do lovely work, but it's abundantly clear to me that this college is not a serious research institution. It isn't enrollment numbers; it's output of research. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough refs online, but not in the article, to satisfy GNG. Szzuk (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Colgate is an Eastern College Athletic Conference university - the former Ivy League - that grants doctorates. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biospine[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG Could be notable but cannot find a single SICOV source for Biospine or the Open Spine Project. Perhaps a better researcher might have more luck Rogermx (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but promotionalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
delete' per nominator rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable as explained by nominator. Alex-h (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur that it fails WP:NORG.Knox490 (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The project was, it is claimed, awarded to one Alexander Tsouknidas. All of the sources cited have xem as the author. And the author of this article is Alextso1976 (talk · contribs). There seems to be a dearth of independent sources here to show that this has escaped beyond its originator and is no longer original research of just one person. I had a very quick look, and could not find any. Uncle G (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Campagna[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has only just turned professional in the ECHL, playing four games last season so fails #2 and has no preeminent to pass #3 either. USports honours don't qualify for #4 (or in the very least it isn't listed) but All-Rookie Team doesn't pass #4 anyway. Plus, only senior international appearances in the top pool of the World Championship passes #6 so his junior honours don't qualify. Tay87 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY requirements and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG......PK T(alk) 14:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails both WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although there are many assertions of notability here, the benchmark of notability are reliable sources, and no "keep" opinion identifies a reliable source covering this person in depth, despite being asked to do so by "delete" opinions. Arguments based on popularity, page views, subscribers, etc. are immaterial. Sandstein 06:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProJared[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG via WP:ONEEVENT. The article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Knabenbauer and has since been involved in a controversy that has taken place primarily on Twitter. Since the initial accusations that were the cause of the one event of actual coverage, there has since been no follow up and appears to either have been unfounded or retracted due to the likely legal ramifications that should have followed the severity of the accusations. It appears to mostly have been a Twitter feud between the subject and his now-separated wife. Other then the news-hits based around the Twitter feud, which in and of itself appears to be unreliable, the subject still lacks reliable sources with significant coverage, same as when it was deleted in 2016. He gets mentions in regards to the D&D show he was involved with, but that's about it.

If the accusations creates more coverage in the future, I am not opposed to re-creation with reliable sources. Yosemiter (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. As he has since gained more attention after I nominated, it is possible that WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond the typical WP:ONEEVENT guideline can be considered. (Specifically: "a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person".) I'll leave that up to others whether coverage of the subject's rebuttal to the initial allegations is more coverage or just an extension on the same event. However, I still stand by that prior to the allegations, he received only passing mentions. Yosemiter (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I favour delete on this one. His career as a "personality" isn't particularly notable, so it's just some controversy on twitter. If we included every person who's ever made a series of misguided tweets; we'd have thousands more biographies. All of this information seems very much like WP:TABLOID journalism. That being said, he is closer to notability than most for actually having some RSs talking about him. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You say he isn't notable as a personality, but two newspapers cited in the article say he is a personality, one as a children's personality and not one for a narrow topic like Dungeons and Dragons only. I do agree that the controversy section is over the top and should be summarized more clearly and stick to facts, but to remove the whole page over that is over the top given the pre-controversy citations which are easy to find in a periodical search filtering for the date. KitsuneLogic (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did that in my WP:BEFORE, and that is what led to my nomination of the article here. (See here and here.) He gets a couple dozen mentions, no in-depth coverage pre-May 8 accusations, hence failing WP:SIGCOV of GNG in my opinion. (And, yes, under his real name he gets mentioned in D&D article, more so than under the ProJared handle.)
  The "two newspapers cited in the article say he is a personality" I believe you are referring to are this and this, of which his full coverage is "...Jirard Khalil (aka The Completionist) has brought several of his compatriots from the Normal Boots family, including ProJared, DidYouKnowGaming,..." (Indianapolis Star) and "Game Shakers’ premiere episode features cameo appearances from YouTube’s pop culture comedians and gaming entertainers including GloZell, Lasercorn and ProJared." (Business Wire). Both are simple list mentions, again failing significant depth of coverage.
  The closest thing I found to in-depth coverage pre-May 8 accusations is "When Liking And Subscribing To Your Favorite YouTuber Isn't Enough" from Kotaku, where he does get quoted once as he is one of the subjects of an independent video game (Asagao Academy) made featuring NormalBoots members, made by the wife of one of the NormalBoots' members.
  So my logic here is: he was not significantly covered before the accusations, the accusations led to unreliable breaking news reporting without WP:SUSTAINED coverage; he is a subject that may be notable for only a single event of WP:NOTNEWS coverage. Hope this explains my nomination further using more in-depth Wikipedia notability expectations and interpretations. Yosemiter (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not just saying that because I created the page and sank considerable time into it. ProJared was notable, not so much for his own YouTube channel, which did top one million subscribers, but for his work and appearances on other channels such as Game Grumps and NormalBoots in the days when gaming was cementing itself as a genre on YouTube. He was also on televison's Game Shakers. The Dungeons & Dragons series Dice, Camera, Action was tremendously popular streamed on Twitch as well as rebroadcast on YouTube. I have tried to not let the tabloid'ish controversy dominate the page, though that was covered too by Newsweek (but probably not their print edition). I know it's not in policy, but I don't know if pageviews have ever been considered for notability. The page views show a substantial interest from the public to come to Wikipedia to find out, who is this ProJared and what is his background. Anyway, these are my two cents on the matter. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: I totally understand if you feel the controversy is "tabloid trash" and want to remove it entirely. I would be fine with that. The fact remains, ProJared is a part of YouTube history. You can see him mentioned here alongside PewDiePie well before the controversy. This book is published by Routledge which is not a self-publishing house. If you question who the author is, she's a full professor at University of Copenhagen. Bleeding Cool articles such as this also highlight how ProJared (mentioned as Jared Knabenbauer) is important. This, too, is pre-controversy. I have 'no intention to involve myself in what looks like an edit war at ProJared. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: I don't believe I ever implied that the subject is "tabloid trash", only that the only significant coverage he has ever gotten is of the One Event variety, which in this case is somewhat controversial. I am neither a fan nor particularly involved in YouTube subjects. I came across the article via general vandalism cleanup and decided to look into the sourcing due to the subject matter.

In regards to the two sources you point out, in Cultural Journalism and Cultural Critique in the Media, he is mentioned in general that he is a YouTube video game reviewer with 570,000 with no other depth about him personally. The publication is interesting in that he was one of two chosen as an example as general voices on what appears to be on the two ends of spectrum of popularity (specifically comparing the 570,000 to PewDiePie's then 36 million) in the medium. The second article, Acquisitions Inc. and Dice, Camera, Action Announce Crossover Event, has a full depth of coverage on Knabenbauer of "..while on the other side Jared Knabenbauer visited the C-Team as Diath." In other words, I am not seeing what I would consider WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.

P.S. When I stated "self-published", I was not referring to any of the news sources themselves. I was referring to the news articles that covered the allegations only had self-published statements as their own sources (ie Twitter from the parties involved). Re-publishing self-published statements does not make the statements more reliable. Yosemiter (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: I didn't say you thought ProJared was trash; I was saying we can trash the "Controversy" section of his article. What remains is a nice concise article which I think is well-sourced about a minor but somewhat influential personality (or whatever a YouTuber is). It would be longer than most which are tagged "stubs" and it would be about someone more significant than dozens of other people (not that the latter is a legitimate argument). Also, I just now learned this is all triggered by a new video by ProJared? I was unaware. Well, excessive coverage and even edit-warring over this could be expected for any subject. Did Britney Spears get excessive coverage when she shaved her head? Did it bleed onto Wikipedia? I think both are a yes. The answer isn't delete just because we get an influx of ((WP:UNDUE]]. P.S. I have no idea why you say what you said about the Cultural Journalism source. Where do you see they were selected as "opposite ends"? I see the following quote: "Both have engaged very large audiences and represent new ways of reviewing ..." Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: In regards to "opposite ends" comment, I meant that both have a following, but one is magnitudes greater. It was just an assumption on part to why he was mentioned, possibly an incorrect one. My skim of what is shown had four mentions of him, two in direct relation to PewDiePie as they were deemed similar, one as a note showing the numbers of "large followings", and one as an index to the page number he is referenced. It does not appear to specifically name why he was chosen and not anyone else, I could only assume that those two, and only those two, were chosen due to demographic similarities and how they make content as gamer "professional-amateur" (author's term) critics. From what I can tell, and from when I did watch some of those types of videos years back, in 2015 there were likely dozens to hundreds of YouTube-based comedy-style critics of video games with greater followings. The most it says about him specifically: he is a gamer, he has followers on YouTube, and he critiques games with a comedic yet authoritative style. As I said previously, the publication is interesting but I don't see how it is more than a mention as it is a name drop, even if it is in a non-routine article. Yosemiter (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: An assumption? So, you looked up the statistics around the date of publication and made an assumption about what a professor was writing about and how she selected her subjects? Well, clearly we need to delete ProJared based on your logic and evidence. Why are you shooting yourself in the foot? I have never said ProJared was an automatic pass for general notability, but you lying to prove he is not is an ugly look. Hey, by the way, a video came my way to catch me up on what happened which made you want to delete ProJared. It can be seen here. But it's probably from another non-notable YouTube channel which we should delete from Wikipedia. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra: That is nowhere near what I said. I said the author specified the number of followers for both, I did not look them up, but I am at least aware of some others and those are in the millions. (and when I said "from years back" previously, I mean circa 2011 or so, well before 2015. As far as I am aware, some of those YouTubers are still around.) I then assumed that the author chose those two YouTubers because of the drastic difference in number of followers. That was my assumption, the why is he mentioned in this publication, simply because no other criteria was given by the author. (I'm not watching the video, but I opened it, it was published after I nominated the article. ProJared's rebuttal video was also after I nominated, so I had no way of knowing he would ever come up again. There was no news for months at that point on the subject.) Yosemiter (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of coverage in sources for this article. Especially recently with all of the controversy and his most recent video. Bowling is life (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bowling is life: the recent controversy is the one event I was referring to. A series of WP:TABLOID reports of unreliable sourcing (Twitter from the self-published wife/ex-wife and Conrad, resulting in she said/they said statements, followed by a self-published YouTube rebuttal). Fairly insubstantial in all regards. Yosemiter (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the comment above me said, there's a LOT of coverage for these sources, and he's pretty well-known through his YouTube channel and collaboration with Game Grumps. There are real sources but you've got to find them. He's had significant coverage before the famous event. JoeLollo (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument, so what do you call real sources? (With significant depth of coverage please.) Please go ahead and see my multiple links of news searches from the before the event, they appear to be strictly mentions. Yosemiter (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:1EVENT, the nom, and the prior AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is a notable Youtuber, and was featured on news articles prior to the controversy. He also used to have over 1 million subscribers. There is no shortage of coverage regarding the subject before and after the controversy. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:10YEARTEST. Someone looking back on this controversy would not care, because it's not significant, just recentism overshadowing notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Sk8erprince. Subject is a well-known YouTuber, regardless of the controversy surrounding him. zorbo678(TALK) 12:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a reminder to anyone !voting (also WP:!VOTE) that fame or popularity is not the same as Notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. (From WP:N Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.) So being "well-known" by a specific group or having 1million subscribers is not the same as being significantly covered in independent media sources. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: Notability for entertainers is defined at WP:ENT and the second criterion is: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. But I submit to you, ProJared meets all three criteria. --SVTCobra 13:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the subject used to have 1 million subs on Youtube is very much in line with the second criterion for WP:ENT, which is why my stance is "keep". Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Roxie[edit]

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

The sources currently in this article are a blog[2], things written by the article subject[3][4][5], listicles of lgbt pride flags which name-drop Roxie as creator of a genderqueer one[6][7][8][9][10], a newsblog interview for a local LGBT magazine [11], and articles with background information which don't mention Roxie.[12][13][14][15]. I looked for additional sources and turned up only promotional profiles. I haven't found in-depth coverage of the flag, either, beyond listicles and blogs.

(Please also note that the article was created with an edit summary referencing someone else's "original research"[16]: I am uncertain whether this is sufficient attribution) Cheers, gnu 57 21:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lists of Transformers characters. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage (Transformers)[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. The one reception reference, even if it was a working link, is just a dime a dozen top ten list. TTN (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of Transformers characters. There have been several iterations of this character, but anyone knowledgeable enough about the franchise to search for this specific name will be able to locate the version they want from this list. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of Transformers characters per Argento Surfer. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shefali Rana[edit]

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

An Indian actress. Notability is at best dubious. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails: WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolta99 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete seems to fail WP:NACTOR based on online coverage in English, with only a few minor roles in notable TV and film. There's a three-paragraph quickie about her in the Times of India, but that reads like a PR piece fed to the paper from the TV network. The rest is passing mentions in blogs. I'd be willing to change to "keep" if someone who can read Hindi finds substantial coverage in reliable Hindi sources (not just telly blogs). Tracy Von Doom (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails: WP:GNG Hughesdarren (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RHaworth, Hughesdarren, and CAPTAIN RAJU: there are now two articles cited from national newspapers. Your thoughts? Tracy Von Doom (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Three now. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in the Times of India and Bombay Times that have been added since the original nomination are good enough to justify keeping the article. Rana appears to be a reasonably notable actress who meets the requirements of WP:NACTOR and particularly WP:GNG. Railfan23 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article wouldn't suffer from a cleanup, it passes WP:GNG, and just seems to scrape by on WP:NACTOR. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Cycle Workshop[edit]

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

Prodded by Premeditated Chaos with explanation "I'm not finding any indication of notability outside the Oxford area. The sources cited in the article are either not independent (the OCW's website or blog), or are entirely Oxford-based. On a search, I only found Oxford sources, which per WP:AUD is insufficient. The one national-level source I found mentioning OCW is this Telegraph article, which is about another organization entirely. There's just not enough here to substantiate a whole standalone article." Removed without explanation. Reywas92^Talk 06:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's now a successor organisation, Broken Spoke, which has attracted national coverage. The worst case would be merger under a broader title such as Bicycle cooperative or Cycling in Oxford per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable even if it does still exist, it's nothing but a local store that sells and educates about bikes like the thousands of such around the world; Bicycle cooperative mentions 300+ in one group in the US. One of a series of lifestyle pieces about a traffic education project, a pig-growing collective, and a clothing exchange does not confer notability, and our policies do not grant indefinite inclusion of WP:EVERYTHING that anyone (like the WP:SPA that wrote this) wants to promote about their organization. Nothing more than a sentence would belong in either of those articles but that's welcome. Reywas92^Talk 17:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original PROD rationale, but in the interest of fairness I should point out that there actually was a comment by AlexAndrews on the article's talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original PROD by PMC. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Elle[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. At best, way WP:TOOSOON. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has won multiple national awards and has been covered in multiple reliable sources. Keep. As an aside, I also think you lose accuracy when you cover artists too retrospectively.Lhcollins (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Kathleen Elle doesn't meet the notability criteria for musicians. Additionally, one of the citations used in the article is a press release. The NJ.com source also seems to be covering local news (the singer is from Jersey) [17]. Eliko007 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a teenager won a Seventeen Magazine sponsored songwriting contest with an anti-bullying song, which lead to a spate or "local teen makes good" type coverage, scholarships, and dutiful airplay on an open-submission NPR program. It's a meager accomplish to attempt to confer encyclopedia importence. Otherwise, subsequent self-released music has not gained significant attention. Agree with he assessment that, at best, WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The coverage are mostly local, fails notability, I agree with WP:TOOSOON. Alex-h (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.She has won numerous awards and has received press from multiple mainstream news sources. And since the mainstream press and entertainment establishment leans left politically, her championing identity politics and other leftist causes will insure that she keeps racking up awards, attendant press and expands her audience - regardless if there are more talented artists.Knox490 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Knox490 (talk) This article cited 3 awards, but one was cited in error, per the source. She merely submitted an entry to the contest, but did not win, (I duly removed this content from the article.) The other 2 awards were: a magazine/hygiene product co-sponsored contest (which included an additional "award" of a scholarship from a clothing company) and a cash-prize contest for college students from a multi-media production company's foundation. (See: [18].) Neither are considered major/signficant awards in the music industry or social awareness community. Just pointing it out if you want to consider removing the award rationale as one of the reasons for your i-vote. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ShelbyMarion, thanks for the feedback which I appreciate. But I do think she will keep on getting press. People are starting to be turned off by the leftist political agenda of the mainstream press and trust in media in all countries has taken a dive. And now record amount of newspapers are shutting their doors and left leaning news outlets are losing viewers (CNN, Rachel Madow, etc.). But the process of reforming the press is going to take time. Right-wing populism is growing in Europe/US/world, but I don't think there is a commenerate growth of media outlets growing to meet the demand. Markets take time to develop. In other words, pent up demand eventually creates a supply.Knox490 (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elle Downs[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is non-notable. Barca (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found no coverage in any reliable sources. She's got 47 acting credits, but all appear to be small parts in movies and TV episodes, or in short films. PK T(alk) 14:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bader[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. A PROD did not work due it being previously deleted in 2011 for a different Adam Bader so I am forced to do it this way even though it's painfully obvious this is a slam dunk. Tay87 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cedd Moses[edit]

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

I don't see how this person is notable, or indeed what he might be notable for. He appears to run a business, as do many, many other people. Much of our article is about that business and not about him; however, it seems to be thoroughly non-notable by our standards, and notability is in any case WP:NOTINHERITED. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promoting trivia. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhavanam[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT and general rules for notability --Madds212 (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. @Madds212: If you wish to make further AfD nominations in the future, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 17:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. This theme park appears to be notable. A quick search on Google resulted in [19], [20], [21], [22] etc. JimRenge (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quick keep per arguments provided by JimRenge.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Talk:Buddhavanam. JimRenge (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the current article is lacking sources, there are plenty available: the ones JimRenge has found and many more. Hug^syrup 16:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per JimRenge. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Rider and the Cody Nite Rodeo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The World & I Online piece cited in the article is the only reliable source I could find (Google search, books, scholar, and newspaper). That source only mentions this painting in one sentence, so there clearly is no significant coverage. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, one good source is all that visual arts pages need. And it's likely one of the only rodeo or bull riding paintings on Wikipedia, so a keep for its genre too. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One good source does not an article make. WP:GNG says "sources", and I cannot find more. Out of curiosity I also did a search and fond at least three articles on bull-riding paintings, although they are distinctly not rodeo-type works: Bull-Leaping Fresco, The Abduction of Europa (Rembrandt) and Achelous and Hercules. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Achelous and Hercules painting has a bull being wrestled by its horns (never a good idea), and the abduction of Europa is Europa being kidnapped by the bull (bullriding without consent). None are the same as rodeo bullriding, an event which is quite popular and lacking in visual arts coverage. On a related note, where are the paintings of the ever popular Goat tying? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article is a pastel painting by an artist whose entry already summarizes this entire article and makes the claim that the painting is notable because it takes a step beyond his traditional use of Impressionism and reaches toward Expressionism. Anyone who is familiar with Neubert's work knows that he does not use Impressionism traditionally. The claim is nonsense. The entirety of the only source (Audrey Albright writing for worldandischool.com ) is "Blake Neubert takes a step beyond impressionism and reaches expressionism with his Bull Rider at the Cody Night Rodeo. His Kandinsky-like use of color and line emphasizes the emotions and feel of riding a bull, making it possible for the viewer to imagine actually being on the bull." The painting has almost no exhibition history, has not been purchased by a public gallery or museum, and has not been the subject of critical analysis. There is an image of the work, at https://mountaintrailsfineart.com/artpiece/bull-rider-at-the-cody-night-rodeo. Compare Neubert;s work with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassily_Kandinsky#/media/File:Wassily_Kandinsky,_1911,_Reiter_(Lyrishes),_oil_on_canvas,_94_x_130_cm,_Museum_Boijmans_Van_Beuningen.jpg The claim that Neubert makes "Kandinsky-like use of color and line" is absurd. This is not a usable source. If I have identified the author correctly, she is an art teacher, freelance artist and photographer, but not an art historian or critic with a record of writing for reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernando Ari[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Yogwi21 (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bagas Kaffa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Yogwi21 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Alfarid[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Yogwi21 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alfeandra Dewangga[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Yogwi21 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Knox490 (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Easily fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL HawkAussie (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rizky Ridho[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Yogwi21 (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rendy Juliansyah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Yogwi21 (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fajar Fathur Rachman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Yogwi21 (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brylian Aldama[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Yogwi21 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah this player quite easily fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a match in the Liga 1. HawkAussie (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Maulana[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY Yogwi21 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah this player quite easily fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a match in the Liga 1. HawkAussie (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguished Artists[edit]

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

Article is completely Unsourced and there is no information on the internet as such, there is an IMDB page for this TV show but that alone does not qualify it for a Wikipedia page of its own, It helps there is almost no other information about this TV show . Theprussian (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article doesn't cite any sources whatsoever, and seems written in an almost promotional tone. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 16:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the program appears to fail WP:NTELEVISION as it wasn't broadcast "on a network of ... television stations"(at least the article gives no indication of a network that it was broadcast on). PK T(alk) 16:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG and NTELEVISION. As a Canadian, and one who is interested in the arts, I've never heard of the program let alone where this was broadcast. Was it a regional show? Was it only on TVO or maybe local cable access? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be clear, this actually aired on TVOntario despite the article's failure to say that very clearly, so it would pass WP:TVSHOW if it could actually be reliably sourced. But TV shows are not exempted from having to have any sources just because they're technically verifiable as having existed, and I share the nominator's lack of success in finding any new sources that would bolster its notability at all — even on a ProQuest search to locate contemporaneous press coverage that wouldn't Google because this show is 15 years old, literally all I was able to find was a bunch of its own press releases about itself, with no evidence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of journalistic reportage. Yes, we used to have a bad habit of allowing TV shows to have articles as long as their existence was verifiable, while being lax on the sourcing piece — but given the amount of advertorial spam about local public access shows and paid-programming infomercials that left us to contend with, we've tightened up our rules over the past 15 years, and the quality and depth and range and volume of the sources is now much more clearly the controlling factor. Verification of existence is still necessary, obviously, but is no longer sufficient in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Early close per WP:IAR; result is clear. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trial of Mary Fitzpatrick[edit]

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

Nothing in the article indicates anything noteworthy or unusual about this 19th century trial that justifies a stand-alone article, proposed deletion was challenged MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important article drawing attention to the extreme social disparity between the judge and the judged in 19th century industrial areas in England. It is particlularly significant because part of the reason for Mary's harsh sentence was her "common" i.e. low-class quality. The comparison between the homes of those involved should make some of this clear. This article was created as part of the Women in Red movement. Not all notable women have been middle or upper class and not all notable women have achieved worthy aims. Sometimes the lives of poor 19th century women of the lowest class can represent much that was wrong with society in those days, and there is a notability in articles which clearly draw attention to that. I suggest that you read it again, and see what the article is really about. There was plenty of public interest in this case, as you can see by the number of news articles referenced in the article. Storye book (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing unusual about the trial in the article, a look at the contempary sources dont mention the social disparity between the accused and the judge or jury who found her not guilty of murder but guilty of robbery. I couldnt find anything that compares the background or even the size of the houses they lived in, that appears to be original research. Justice Hawkins clearly didnt live in a slum but nobody thought to mention that at the time as it was not unusal. Nothing I can see in the contempary reports indicates she was dealt with any different then hundreds of others. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of contemporary RS coverage - more modern sources would be welcome. The wildly POV treatment, extrapolated from the sources, does the article no favours, but it is right that the subject is "Trial of ..." not a bio. Suggest WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:SYNTHESIS apply. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a murder case would clearly have newspaper coverage at the time, but it would be interesting to known why you think the trial was unusual or noteworthy for the 1880s. We dont as a norm cover every murder case that the accused is found not guilty and no unusual circumstances. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The normal reason we "don't as a norm cover" things is that nobody can be bothered to write them. User:Iridescent has done a couple of Victorian female criminals, whose names I can't remember, who have survived Afd. Links, anyone? Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch (2nd nomination), and its predecessor, may be what you are thinking of. There was a single AFD for three articles. Thincat (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Possible sources are:

Carolyn A. Conley. "No Pedestals: Women and Violence in Late Nineteenth-Century Ireland". Journal of Social History. 28 (4).
L. Williams; B. Godfrey. Criminal Women 1850-1929.

Not sure how much coverage but they should get the topic past the "lasting coverage" hurdle of WP:NEVENT. That said, the 'theme' which has been presented appears to be WP:OR without some modern scholarship (which sources like the above may address) is presented to substantiate the claim rather than the simple juxtaposition (which might raise some WP:NPOV issues in the article as written) used in the article and is not a policy based reason to keep the article. Jbh ^Talk 17:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A historical event of lasting interest to historians, per the sources noted in the !vote just above. NPOV/OR concerns can be smoothed out through ordinary editing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to remark on the Williams and Godfrey book but Jbh has beaten me to it. (It has a picture too.) I agree the article needs considerble rewriting but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Thincat (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I have removed all or most of what may be construed as POV or synthesis material. Thank you for the above recommendation of books. The first Irish one is not useful because, although Mary Fitzpatrick's family was of Irish descent, the book is about Irish law, and Mary was tried under English law in England. However the second book is extremely useful. I have added it at the bottom of the article and am in the process of preparing material from it to add to the article. This may take me a day, please be patient. Please let me know if there are any more problems. Thank you everyone for your help so far. Storye book (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ITSINTERESTING and it's premature to prod and AfD an article on the same day it's created, particularly in the absence of any discussion on Talk: about how to resolve any problems. But otherwise I just don't have an answer to the nomination here: I can't point to anything "noteworthy or unusual about this 19th century trial" which would otherwise justify it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2 I have now added all available information that can be had via Google Books (the online version being incomplete). I have also used the same source as an extra citation throughout the article where appropriate. The book had extra information about Fitzpatrick's post-trial life, which I added in. The contemporary 1882 published sources and the Williams 2018 book contain conflicting information about Fitzpartrick's real married name, and I can only check that by purchasing both marriage certificates. This process takes a couple of weeks, so please bear with me on that detail. Meanwhile I have favoured Williams' version in the article. I am going to have to purchase the book too, because the missing bit at the beginning of the section about Fitzpatrick will make a difference. Please let me know if there is more I can do to resolve this matter. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

snowball keep. Very well structured and written article which gives a good insight into a relatively sensational event of ~137 years ago. I err strongly on the side of retaining this since a couple of lines of notability can be argued (widespread coverage contemporaneous with the event, and later inclusion in Williams and Godfrey), and because such an article improves wikipedia, which is the main point of us being here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "relatively sensational event" ? - Woman gets let of murder but is done for robbery, hardly sensational. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the above; there is an abundance of RS on this. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne. The sensation of 1882 relates to the fate of the victim, the mystery of how he lost his life, and ultimately the sadness of it all. He lived in circumstances of poverty and very hard work, and somehow at the young age of 24, acquired a little wealth which he wore publicly as gold ornament to show his success. Glass blowing is a skill which would certainly have needed the standard apprenticeship of seven years, and his family would have had to support him in that - funded perhaps by his elder brother William who had kept an eye on James' movements a little that day, and knew where his notebook was. So Richardson appears to have been a youngest son who was well cared-for, and who had justified that care by saving up to buy a watch and chain. Look up the value of a solid gold (not plated or rolled gold) Victorian Albert chain today (e.g. here). The trial had a high court judge because of the loss of a valued son of the community. A sensational event can be about loss and doesn't have to be about what happens to the perpetrator. This is why the article is about the trial, and not a biography. (I should add that Fitzpatrick's biography could have been worth writing separately as well if we had known more about her). Storye book (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anaqut. Tone 19:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanakert[edit]

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

There are no sources listed to verify the existence of this place, quick google search returns no results when searched in plain English and in native languages, this place may also not meed notability guidelines due to its insignificance. Theprussian (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per User:Theprussian. Some places are so small and insignicant that covering them all is not practical. No coverage from reliable sources as well.Knox490 (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anaqut for which this is a transliteration of a previous Armenian name according to the article on Armenian Wikipedia.--Pontificalibus 16:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pontificalibus. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just restored content into the article, ALL OF WHICH HAD BEEN DELETED by the deletion nominator. Hey, User:Theprussian, you are not allowed to do that, or in other words it is highly unproductive for everyone if you do something like that. You can't trash an article, just before or during an AFD. The multiple other editors who you have effectively invited to come evaluate the article would then have nothing to see. You're not allowed to "win" by trashing it. Instead, let others see what is the dealio (technical term). Otherwise it looks like you are trashing it in order to "win" by preventing others from seeing the content. --Doncram (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An absolutely incorrect move, but the content was removed after my !vote, and no intervening !votes were made, so fortunately no ill effect. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew nomination. (non-admin closure) Adam9007 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Charache[edit]

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

While her husband has some degree of notability due to his treatment-altering research on sickle cell, I'm not convinced she rises to the level of having an encyclopedia article. Any career professor at a medical school will have hundreds of scholarly journals published; research and publication are part of the job. What makes her stand apart from them? I'm submitting request for deletion because I don't see it. thanks MartinezMD (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MartinezMD (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She meets WP:NACADEMIC, criterion 5, because she was a Distinguished Professor (in three departments no less) at Hopkins. She has the added recognition of a meeting room at Hopkins named for her. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beyond #C5 above she meets WP:PROF#C1 with 22 papers listed on Google scholar as having more than 100 citations each. And why is it at all relevant to the nomination that she had a notable partner? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow overlooked her distinguished status. My apologies to all involved and would request to withdraw this nomination. MartinezMD (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Frye[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a member of a county school board who was an unsuccessful candidate for State Education Superintendent. As with most articles created by User:Billy Hathorn, Sources are either primary, from the local newspaper, or obituaries. GPL93 (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither members of school boards nor unsuccessful candidates for higher office are presumed notable per WP:NPOL, but this article makes no other claim of preexisting notability and is not referenced anywhere near well enough to make him a special case. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable failed candidate. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This article can't spend forever at AfD. Detailed policy-based reasoning has been presented both for deleting and for keeping. At the end of the day we need consensus to delete and we don't have that here. Haukur (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raji Arasu[edit]

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

Not independently notable outside of her company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, another corporate spam. Meeanaya (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in sources like Forbes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Forbes is not a reliable source here, as it written by a contributor and not staff, it is not a RS in this situation. Meeanaya (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is written by a sports writer, named Mark J. Burns. What makes you think that Mark J. Burns has a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy? What makes you think that the article has bypassed any of Forbes' editorial processes for the same? Uncle G (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uncle G, contributors' content on Forbes.com doesn't count towards notability, and is considered generally unrelaible: for details, see WP:ORGCRIT and check the entry of Forbes.com at WP:RSP#Sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @NitinMlk: and @Meeanaya: Burns is a sports and technology writer and as such is a subject-matter expert so despite being a contributor this article could be used to show notability as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes.com. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        More than reliability, the main problem is that these type of sources are generally not considered independent, per WP:ORGCRIT. Anyway, let's say this is a third-party source. But even then this is just a single source. Are there other reliable, independent, in-depth sources about her? - NitinMlk (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        When the claim that Forbes is unreliable is shown to be wrong by the very thing that you point to, you switch tack to independence. But that with the passive voice weasel wording "are generally considered". Why is Mark J. Burns, writing in Forbes not independent of an Indian businessperson? For reference, this press release is the sort of source that the Primary Notability Criterion discounts as not independent: advertising and autobiography. Uncle G (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, when did I claim that the Forbes is unreliable? Forbes.com is listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP#Sources. And that's what I mentioned here. Also, WP:ORGCRIT is a notability guideline, and it mentions that the Forbes blogs by non-staff contributors are not considered independent. Still, I used "passive voice weasel wording" to give it the benefit of the doubt. If you want explanation for them being non-independent, then you should ask at the talk page of the relevant guideline, i.e. at Wikipedia talk:CORP. You also totally ignored the remaining part of my previous comment.

Second, I didn't "switch tack" to anything. In my very first comment here, I stated that "contributors' content on Forbes.com doesn't count towards notability", along with pointing to the relevant guideline, as I thought you would read the relevant details (regarding non-independent nature of these blogs) from that page.

Finally, I am familiar with WP:WOMRED, and if the subject has received some decent coverage in a couple of other independent sources, then I am fine with it. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable. FitIndia ^{✉ बात} 06:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On what evidence do you base this comment, please? 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources cited do not meet WP:BIO. However, in addition, there is much that is not encyclopaedic in the page. It states "Arasu is noted for her work towards educating, mentoring and empowering women to be successful in the male-dominated computer and technology industry." A big claim requires a big source but this claim is unsourced. Which women has she mentored to success in these industries? She has worked for eBay but eBay is cited as a source for another big claim "eBay described her as a "role model for women", given her work as a technology executive,". This eBay source is used five times and is clearly a puff piece based on an interview she gave to The Daily Muse which as the Wikipedia article on The Muse (website) states: "creates in-depth profiles of companies seeking top talent, showcasing their brand" and as is as far away from a RS you can get. And so on, I could parse most of the article similarly. Essentially this is a promotional piece for a worthy, successful person but not one who meets our notability standards. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This looks pretty borderline to me. There are many non-independent sources in the article, which don't help in showing notability. The independent ones seem to be The Daily Muse and Forbes. I can't see the Boston Globe source, so I don't know how much it has about her. Computerworld includes her in some articles where IT leaders give advice and opinions - March 2009 and August 2016, and in 2016 included her in 100 Premier Technology Leaders. (I'm not including links as I access them through the NLA.) Business Insider in 2017 had her as #28 on a list of "43 most powerful female engineers of 2017" [23], and in 2014 had her as one of "5 Successful Women In Technology From India" [24]. So that coverage extends from 2009-2017. It's not substantial, but neither is it trivial, and I think it just meets WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Some reasonable suggestions have been made on other ways to cover this material, possibly with an article on Meyrich. There is also clearly scope to improve the present article, which might succeed in assuaging some concerns. But in any case it's hard to envisage a result where we don't have at least a redirect here. Haukur (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sew Fast Sew Easy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A web search indicates that Sew Fast Sew Easy was a small neighborhood business that failed WP:NCORP. The only references to it are old consumer review and business listing sites. It appears to have had a loyal following but there is no inherent nobility by calling it a "Stitch N'Bitch" cafe. It lacks corporate depth and independent coverage. Blue Riband► 15:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 15:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure. If it started the 21st century Stitch’n Bitch movement it may be notable for that reason, if not otherwise as a small business. Mccapra (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Before entering the afd I wasn't aware that this article had been through afd previously. After reading through the comments and reviewing the revision history this company certainly did not start the 21st century Stitch n'Bitch movement. According to Wikipedia Stitch 'n Bitch was a term in use since at least WWII. What it did do was start a trademark dispute with established knitting groups who had used the term for years. The UK Telegraph citation makes a mention of the company in the context of the owner's legal actions. It doesn't mention the merits of Sew Fast Sew Easy as a company.

There is also a serious WP:COI with the main editor User:Ggarvin who appears to be a business partner and opened this as a single-purpose account. A lot of talk page and 1st round afd commentary seems to be coming from editors with COI who feel very supportive and grasp at anything that might prop it up. As an example one mentioned that a sewing pattern produced by the company was used in an exhibit at the NY Historical Society. But that doesn't grant the pattern company notability. If "Ajax Horsewhip Company" has a riding crop included in a museum display that alone fails to give Ajax notability.

The main problem here is its failing WP:VERIFY as there are but two other citations - one is a permanent dead link to a list of craft stores and another to a primary source which is the government trademark file. If a company existed for 20 years and had notability it should not be hard to find reliable secondary references that support WP:CORP. This article was created in 2007 so something substantial would have been found by now. Blue Riband► 13:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like this article has been deleted a couple of times - the last time was on 18 October 2007 by @DGG:. Perhaps some kind admin who can look at the previously deleted version(s) can see if the comments above relate to the confusion. Toddst1 (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:Blue Riband wrote: "A web search indicates that Sew Fast Sew Easy was a small neighborhood business that failed". I realize it it had a loyal following among some consumers, nevertheless it ultimately failed. The icing on the cake as it appears to have been created by a single purpose account and we haven't found substantial sources in over a decade. It's time to mercy kill this article.Knox490 (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What was deleted in AfD1 back in 2007 was a much more promotional version of the article; it was replaced with a protected redirect to Stich n' Bitch, and what I deleted was that redirect, which I removed to permit a new article to be written. I moved fin that new article from a userspace draft at [25]--it's in the edit history. I considered the draft of that article acceptable, and said so in the edit summary. There's been a good deal of rather contentious editing since then, mainly about the status and rights to the various terms. I don't think the current version is particularly clear about that , but that's an editing question. That the firm is no longer in existence is not a reason to delete an article: WP is an encycopedia, not a directory of current businesses, and an encycopedia is a permanent record. I consider the sourcing just sufficient to document the material--I think it's quite important to keep the history of such controversies, and it seems to have been prominent in its day. There's an alternative: Elissa K. Meyrich's book, Sew Fast Sew Easy: was published in a new edition as late as 2013, & both it and the previous edition are in several hundred libraries. There should be reviews. (the title of the various catalog records varies--contrary to what's currently in the article, the 2008 publication was not a separate title, but a reprint. . Myrick's book Rip it also mentioned in this article, is a separatep ublication, also in hundreds of librries. Both are by major trade publishers, not specialist hobbist publishers as is often the case with titles like these. We could well have an article on her. If the conclusion is that we shouldn't have this one, please move it to my user space and I'll revise it into one on the author--possibly with some help from someone who knows something about the subject. (WM-NYC has had relevant editathons) and the WIR project should also be interested. I have always supported extensive coverage for fields in which women predominate despite the apparent difficulty in sourcing--it's the better way to redress the balance, rather than try to write on sub-notable people.. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article contains a lot of unsourced material, and if that is deleted (as it should be, and I am happy to do it if other editors agree), the resulting page would be a stub. I think the article should remain up, but marked as a stub, to give editors time to improve it. (I've looked around for more sources, and they are rather thin on the ground, but this could change in the future.) The majority of reliable sources about Sew Fast Sew Easy are related to the Stitch 'n Bitch controversy/lawsuit with Debbie Stoller, which is described in the Stitch 'n Bitch article. I've just added a section to this page that describes the trademark controversy--I would argue that this dispute is an important case for a number of issues that are of current and growing concern about copyright in craft and textile disciplines, most prominently in the work of scholars like Kirsty Roberts (whose work on this issue I have added to the citations) and Janis Jeffries, and which has reemerged this year in the disputes over codes of behavior and politics on ravelry.com. Dilettante Army (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect? Good points because if the sewing books put out by the proprietor have gained significant coverage and attention then it may be argued that the author - Elissa Meyrich - has enough notability to merit her own page per WP:AUTHOR. The article as it currently stands is about the store and that's what is lacking verifiable references. (Carolina Herrera is a designer with her own page but her NY boutique store does not.) The recently edited version contains material from the user page of User:Ggarvin who was a partner in the business. The news articles cited either have no links or they are behind a paywall so it is difficult to establish if Sew Fast Sew Easy was featured or just mentioned in passing. Past comments called the timeline unencyclopedic. Regarding codes of behavior and politics within other knitting/sewing groups, see WP:INHERITORG. I'm not unsympathetic to seeing more articles of women entrepreneurs but do we really want to go down the road of compromising Notability standards just for "balance"? Blue Riband► 02:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chiori Daniel Cole[edit]

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

Non-notable actor who fails WP:NACTOR. The award listed is for a film they appeared in, not for the actor themselves. Declined through AfC twice and then moved to mainspace by creator saying that it should be published. Disagree with notability so now we're here. CNMall41 (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability exist for filmmaker. The award listed is for a film they produced, the subject Chiori Daniel Cole is a filmmaker and not an actor. The film which has the awards mentioned was produced by him.^[1] . You can check this source to find out when he was into production for the film, the film "The Island" was formerly named Death Island citing the press release tagged here.^[2]

This page shouldn't be deleted rather it should be notified on places where errors should be corrected. The subject Chiori Daniel Cole is one of the youngest filmmakers in the Nollywood industry who has been on the scene since 2014. His family company (Achievas Entertainment Limited) where he is serving as a director produced of the biggest films from Nollywood which was one of Netflix's first content acquired from Nollywood as at 2015 from iroko tv. He played a major role as the project manager for the job. His personal work which he produced featured the likes of TBOSS, FEMI ADEBAYO, SEGUN ARINZE and SAMBA NZERIBE. ^[3]

I feel this deletion should be retracted Shellwood and CNMall41 should kindly go through these sources to verify my claim. I don't think it is allowed to cite social media pages on this platform, I would’ve added it as a source of verification for you to go through. Theundagroundng (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)struck sock comments. Praxidicae (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Chiori Daniel Cole IMDB Biography". Imdb.Com. Retrieved 2019-08-27.
^ "Chiori Daniel Cole discussed about his career". Dailytimes.Ng. Retrieved 2017-09-22.
^ "The Island Movie Released August 2018". Connectnigeria.Com. Retrieved 2018-08-06.

Delete. Not notable. Szzuk (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's a producer of films, not primarily an actor, and producers are run of the mill, and such articles commonly are deleted. I see no independent notability. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Chibiko Offorma[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, " avoid any possible systematic bias for any of the 3 possible factors (Africa, woman, education studies) or the intersection of all 3, should be a decision at afd." Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and her position and citations don't appear to show she passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS and searching turns up little. GS does not show strong citation record for someone claimed to have "over 100 publications, including textbooks, articles". Agricola44 (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:Prof. She has published stuff but not enough notice of it has been taken yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
weak Keep if article is improved. Offorma has an h-index of 8, she was the former President of The World Council on Curriculum and Instruction (WCCI)[26] Since 2016, a fellow at The Nigerian Academy of Education.[27] Three editor-in-chief and three other editor positions on journals and Dean of the Faculty of Education (2008 -2010).[28] University faculty pages are not generally a WP:RS, but we could probably do some digging to find them. Given these, I think she qualifies for requirements 1,3,6,8 as per WP:PROF.Fred (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep partly based on what Frederika Eilers has found, partly on the fact I see her name in a lot of Google book hits with no preview so I can’t be sure notability isn’t established. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving it some more time to find further sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The membership in the Nigerian Academy of Education appears to be enough for WP:PROF#C3. The academy doesn't have an article here but it appears to be well-established and respected. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the evidence that it is "well established and respected"? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I am not sure the journals for which she is/has been editor-in-chief are "major" enough to qualify for WP:PROF#C8, but she passes WP:PROF#C3 as argued above. Her field is one in which I would expect Google Scholar counts to be mostly uninformative. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Frederika Eilers and XOR'easter. As a project, we are still in the early stages of filling in gaps on African topics, so it is not surprising that we don't have an article about the academy or the journals, and that shouldn't be held against the article subject. Risker (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yusof Mutahar[edit]

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

Another "social media influencer" article where the references are blogs, articles on growing your following, and other promotional vehicles. Google search for "Yusof Mutahar" results in fewer than 100 results, none of which are significant discussions in reliable sources (and none at all in the News tab). Article creator follows the standard paid-editing procedure – make some edits adding references to existing articles to become confirmed, then advertise away. ... discospinster _talk 14:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Almost all these references are blogs or WP:PRIMARY sources, such as this person's marketing website. Many of the sources don't even mention him at all. --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bordering on advertising but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for a speedy deletion. The article fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia notability criteria for martial artists. Bookscale (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per non. Teraplane (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am new at this platform and still learning. I'm not sure how standard paid-editing procedure is done but I'm not advertising away. Would you kindly move this article to userspace so that I can continue working on it KrunchyNapkin (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Based on the most detailed source analysis, it seems like the sources offered here do not establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Hummel[edit]

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

I am unable to find substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources, as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I think this page should not be deleted. The information can be found on websites of famous publishers (Heyne Publishers, part of Penguin Randomhouse; ProSiebenSat.1, one of Germany's biggest Media Conglomerate; sources in four languages).

Keep this article. As can be seen here^[1], he is invited to huge panels, being recognised as business person. His viral web videos see a continuous viewership, reaching millions official views and dozens of illegal re-uploads. ProSiebenSat.1 (again), one large Media Conglomerate & investor, funded his business.

Other sources showing his relevance: - Being a TV personality: ^[2]
- Being covered in Media Business Magazines: ^[3]
- Speaking on largest German Content Marketing Conference ^[4]
- Being featured in Ecommerce Startups news after being selected to one of the most innovative companies: ^[5]
- News Coverage in important nishe news: ^[6]
- Being one of the first confiremed speakers of the Influencer Conference ^[7]
-This ^[8]
- Entrepreneurial & law podcasts: ^[9] ^[10]

- Seven One Media (by ProSiebenSat.1) showcases his company in their portfolio ^[11]
- Pilot Agency covering IDEAS FOR BRANDs ^[12]
- MEEDIA coverage: ^[13]
- being speaker on another relevant conference: ^[14]
- being speaker on another relevant conference ^[15]
- large business conference for Hidden Champions and important medium-sized companies showcases him as Digitization Expert ^[16]

Plus, he got featured for his Viral Videos on a huge amount of Web Pages. THOMAS (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. Looks Paid or COI. The article describes him fairly but he just doesn't pass GNG. Szzuk (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There does seem to be a fair amount of coverage, so it's likely that he does meet WP:GNG. The references are not clearly named, though - I'll add authors, dates and publication names, plus some other references included above or that I find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: GNG and BIO are explicit about what is required to merit inclusion and simply being mentioned on lots of websites is not enough. I've looked over those and only the first one comes close but doesn't really tell us anything other than he is an "influencer". Which of those sources do you think means GNG is met? SmartSE (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per biographies of living persons. Everybody can be an Internet influencer - it's meaningless when a hausfrau can have 200,000 followers on Twitter. I see not a single reliable source in the article nor listed above as found on the Internet. 15:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete per biographies of living persons. The article is a mess but, putting that to one side, he simply fails to pass our notability standards. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Savita Oil Technologies Limited[edit]

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

Fairly promotional article about a company, sourced exclusively to company profile and ROUTINE announcements, press releases and similar. ~~I'm not able to find anything that approaches WP:CORPDEPTH, so believe it fails NCORP.~~ GirthSummit _(blether) 13:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative oppose as I've seen very similar, short company stub articles for banks and credit unions that haven't been deleted. I say leave it and prioritize for improvement. Also opposed as no rationale provided in the proposal. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Hi. It is not about the size. It is is about notability. In this case, it has to do with WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:NCORP. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - sorry if the shorthand is a little opaque - what it means is that the sourcing in this article does not meet the requirements outlined at WP:CORPDEPTH, and I was not able to find any sourcing about the company that does meet the criteria. I believe the article should be deleted because I fear this is a non-notable according to our notability guideline for companies and organisations. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Savita Oil Technologies is India's one of the largest manufacturers of petroleum specialties, founded in 1961. The company has been listed on Nation Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange since 1994 and has earned an ISO certification.AdiyaanSK89 (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment: AdiyaanSK89 is creator of the article, with a very few edits outside the topic. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed the promotional content and company's profile that was cited as a reference from the article. I believe that the topic meets the notability requirements (WP:GNG) as the company has been covered in various leading publications such as DNA, India Today, Fortune 500.AdiyaanSK89 (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AdiyaanSK89 As a company, it needs to meet NCORP rather than GNG, and that requires sourcing as described at CORPDEPTH. I haven't seen sourcing of that quality, but maybe I've missed something - would you be willing to point out anything that you've found? If there is quality sourcing out there I'd be willing to withdraw the nomination. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 11:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete: AfD's related to companies is not my area, so I took a few days. First of all, the subject fails general notability criteria, as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Press releases, or brief mentions, or brief coverage caused by something else is not notability. The subject fails NCORP, and CORPDEPTH. Regarding listings in stock exchange(s), it doesn't establish notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

striking my vote above. Not my field after-all. Better abstaining than making a wrong decision. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Usually, if a company has been floated on a sizable stock exchange, there will be analysts covering the company and ss per NCORP guidelines, analyst reports are explicitly stated to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Firstcall Research published this report in 2016. FRR Shares issued this report in 2011. Easy to find once you know what to look for. Girth Summit, perhaps you should consider withdrawing the nomination. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per HighKing's sources, which upon inspection appear to satisfy NCORP. Thanks for this Highking, those were good finds - just for future reference, could you let me know how you discovered them? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete until WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 11[edit]

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

Blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL—Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. The entire article uses uncertain language and is largely composed of speculative material and unverifiable information. There is no confirmation whatsoever that the next iPhone is called “iPhone 11”, we don’t even know for sure if there’s an iPhone coming this year for that matter. Hayman30 (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article meets WP:GNG and a quick google search reveals many WP:RS that confirms the rumors. Taewangkorea (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- However, After reading through policy (WP:CRYSTAL) it appears that draftifying the article or otherwise allowing for article text to be kept until the product announcement is the best choice. Taewangkorea (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The only COI I have for this article is that I am the creator, but I would take the consensus of the discussion as is. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete per WP:CRYSTAL: "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged ...if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." ----Pontificalibus 15:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until it's officially announced. Remember that the page on the original iPhone was once deleted. There's some good info here, but it's all just conjecture right now. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify until announced as it's speculative. Apple can change naming conventions as seen at iPod. Blue Riband► 16:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not Macrumors.com. Until this alleged product is actually announced with details there is no need for it. Trillfendi (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Under which category for speedy deletion WP:CSD Taewangkorea (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A7 of course. Trillfendi (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CSD: This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about products, etc. Nope, A7 doesn't apply, and there's an indication of notability anyway. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A7 would not apply in this case, which can be seen as there is notability for the subject. Taewangkorea (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, just Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Especially for articles where unannounced products are described as rumored, twice! Trillfendi (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I've just added two additional sources (The Independent and What Hi Fi? Magazine - and there are many more available) to show that this soon-to-be-launched product range is currently being talked about by a number of mainstream WP:RS. I started this !vote with a clear 'Keep', providing that the article sticks to reporting forecasted features reported within those reliable sources. However, I re-read WP:CRYSTAL in the expectation I could quote from it to show that it didn't apply. Damn! - it does: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Very reluctantly, I have to follow that policy, yet urge against full deletion (as it's inevitably going to become notable unless Apple goes bankrupt in the next few weeks), but urge for draftifying for the time being. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we should wait 10 days. --Panam2014 (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, it’s the other way round—we should’ve waited for the actual announcement before creating an article. The current article is nothing but a collection of unverifiable information, which shouldn’t exist on Wikipedia as an encyclopedic article. Hayman30 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See this article from The Independent: "Apple confirms when the new iPhone will come out". The Independent. 2019-08-29. Retrieved 2019-08-30. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what the article says, I don't see where Apple confirmed that it's going to unveil the "iPhone 11" on that event. I only see one embedded tweet with an invitation saying "By innovation only" and that's it. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 19:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify We don't even know the actual name for sure. And as other users mentioned, WP:NOTRUMOR. And really can't you wait 10 days? —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 19:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Have no problem with draftifying as long as the article is out of the mainspace. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 17:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the AfD took place for 15 days or 1 month. So the iPhone will be unvelled on 10 September. It has no interest to delete the history. We could only remove the unconfirmed information. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is unconfirmed information. Just because the phone will be announced in 10 days (that itself is a speculation) doesn’t mean we should keep this crappy article alive. The article is clearly not up to par with Wikipedia standards in its current form, and we can do nothing to improve it because there is no concrete information available besides rumors. Draftify is the best option as numerous users have suggested, there is no point in keeping the article in mainspace. Hayman30 (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD have no interest because the phone will be unvelled before the closure of the AfD. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD closes about a week after creation, as far as I know and according to WP:CLOSEAFD, which means tomorrow. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 16:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no consensus for deletion. So the request would be relisted. For the rest, we don't need official confirmation that a new phone will be unvelled. Apple's POV and false suspense is a primary source. Secondary reliable sources say that new iPhone will be unvelled. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on that "There are no consensus for deletion. So the request would be relisted." ? You weren't clear. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 17:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please see the others voters opinions, there are no consensus for deletion after one week. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them suggest draftifying the article as I can see, which I don't have a problem with. So as I can see it's only you who doesn't agree with draftifying. And draftifying can be a decision. (And they/we are not voters; it's a consensus). —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 17:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against it, I am only against deletion. But for me, there are no interest to rename an article for 9 days. Others people are for deletion but they have not asked for drafting. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You "rename" it so people can't find it. If they want to see rumors, and more detailed ones than those in the article, they should go to 9to5Mac or Macrumors. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 22:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not rumors. Reliables sources said that a new iPhone will be unvelled. But you could remove the others information who are not confirmed. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources which you are referring to provide as evidence the invitation which doesn't say anything. And if I remove what are rumors, only 3 sentences will remain. And then it would be better to make a section in the iPhone article. And finally, WE DON'T KNOW if it's going to be called the "iPhone 11". —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 13:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, you could change the name of the article. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the name, I suggest if the article remains in mainspace, to move it to iPhone (13th generation) or iPhone (2019) until announcement, as we don't know if it's going to be called "iPhone 11". —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 13:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is not to delete. A merge is possible, though. Default keep. Tone 19:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming sword (effect)[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:DICDEF and a search for such a thing only came up with how to make a flaming sword in After Effects. Does not seem to be independently notable as an article or pass WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is an interesting article, I added in popular culture as a section for expansion, with game of thrones as a example and ref. It is used as the google featured snippet and is encyclopaedia content. --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some adjustment of the theatrical property article, now I think that theatrical property#Prop weapons is an adequate place where things such as flaming swords can be described. It certainly still doesn't require its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing particularly exceptional about this special effect, vs. for example Stunt man on fire or Gun with unlimited ammo, GoT nothwithstanding. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't delete things because they don't subjectively seem exceptional to individual editors. That way lies chaos; we tried it years ago. And as pointed out, the nomination's use of an initialism is belied by the actual policy that the initialism redirects to, one of the errors that these shorthand redirects lead to. We delete things for being unexpandable beyond a permastub. What did you do to check that that was the case, if anything? Uncle G (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The nomination's claim that this is a dictionary definition seems to be the classic error of misreading a stub -- see WP:DICDEF for an explanation. There are plenty of sources which cover the theatrical effect including Pyrotechnics ; The Development of the Theatre; Secrets of the Sideshows; The Making of Theatre History;Theatre of Fire: special effects in early English and Scottish theatre; &c. It might be sensible to combine this with the article Flaming sword (mythology) as the effect will usually be used to simulate the myths and legends. But adding sources and developing the content are done by ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Andrew - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge Per above and Andrew Taewangkorea (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A case where a stub is mistaken for a dictionary definition. See WP:DICDEF Taewangkorea (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or can be merged into flaming sword (mythology) Taewangkorea (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since so many people are voting "per Andrew", I feel I should probably point out in his sources, all the mentions of a flaming sword are trivial, if not completely unrelated to the article. To the closing admin, these should be invalidated unless he comes forward with proof of significant mentions in reliable sources rather than just throwing out names._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Future Engineers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

article has mutiple issues withit, as shown on the article mainpage.Theprussian (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Music, absolutely no references from reliable sources --Cactus.man ✍ 13:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and above. This article was started in 2005 yet has zero references. If the group met WP:BAND a search for "Future Engineers +music" would have turned up multiple reports of their recordings and industry awards. Not notable. Blue Riband► 16:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of anything like sufficient notability to justify having an article. On top of this the article is mainly just an A-Z of releases (with nothing to suggest any of them are notable) with very little of what could be called encyclopedic content and as noted above no reliable sources are provided. Dunarc (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close as a malformed nomination. No prejudice against a properly formed nomination if the currently active PROD is contested. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 15:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mark Boguski[edit]

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

this is a non notable article, and clearly paid for Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, procedurally, as a severely malformatted nomination. The nominator apparently does not know how to properly list an article for an AfD. At the moment, neither the article nor its talk page are tagged with an AfD tag. There is still a PROD tag, placed by the nominator, at the article itself. If the nominator wishes to list the article (rather than its talk page) for an AfD, this needs to be re-done from sctratch by following the instructions at WP:AFD. If the nominator only wishes to have the talk page of the article deleted, the appropriate nomination needs to be listed at WP:MFD. Regarding the article itself. There is a disclosure note at the talk page by the article's creator confirming that the article is indeed a product of paid editing. However, the subject is certainly notable per WP:PROF. The lead paragraph mentions that he is an elected member of the U.S. National Academy of Medicine. Although no reference is provided, this fact easily checks out[29]. That alone already makes the subject pass WP:PROF#C3. The article is very underlinked and in general poorly written in terms of complying with our sourcing and notability requirements. The sources cited do not provide publication details (so that it is unclear which ones are published by the subject and which ones are third-party references). No references are given for the National Academy of Medicine membersip, and there are no mentions of awards, journal editorships etc (which the subject does have, according to his CV[30]). The CV also mentions that he is a former editor-in-chief of Genomics (journal), which would make him qualify under WP:PROF#C8. GoogleScholar shows h-index above 60. Whomever let this article through at AfC in its current form did a pretty sloppy job, and the paid editor apparently does not really know what they are doing either. The article needs substantial clean-up, not deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Postbiological evolution[edit]

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

This entire article looks like an original research essay with WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE claims. There does not seem like there is much content that belongs in Wikipedia in the article, and it does not seem salvageable by normal editing means. jps (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the validly sourcable material here is already covered at Transhumanism and related pages; it is telling that virtually every reference is located in the "Ethics" section, for which the little "see also: Transhumanism" seems to have been repurposed as "duplicating". What should be the meat of the article - all the sweeping claims above that - is pure, unsourced OR and synthesis. This is blog material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the references were inserted badly in 2010 and other editors erroneously turned them into further reading. The entire section that you object to was in fact added later by one person. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ćirković 2018, §3.8 Postbiological Evolution is about this in relation to the Fermi paradox, and it isn't about the evolution of humans at all. The original article (Special:PermaLink/356793374#Implications of PBCs in Astrobiology) was mainly about that. Ćirković mentions Steven J. Dick and the article originally cited Dick 2008 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDick2008 (help) and an early paper by Ćirković as two of its several references.
The problem is that the article has since gone through an evolution of its own, at the hands of other editors, and been badly transformed from what was actually not an atrocious start on explaining the ideas of Dick and Ćirković. It needs some of the rubbish tacked-on sections to be removed, but with them gone seems not to be original research by a Wikipedia editor, but an encyclopaedia article about an astrobiological subject documented by experts in the field in need of ((more footnotes)) some rewriting in light of the newer sources than existed in 2010 and cleanup.
Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ćirković, Milan M. (2018). "Speaking Prose". The Great Silence: Science and Philosophy of Fermi's Paradox. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199646302. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
- Dick, Steven J. (April 2008). "The postbiological universe". Acta Astronautica. 62 (8–9): 499–504. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.01.025. ((cite journal)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Delete Nothing suggests that this kind of speculation merits more than a mention in some other article, like Fermi paradox, and the text is so OR-ful and essay-like that merging, even selectively, would be a bad idea. The original article referred to above is still bad, taking a third-hand understanding of Landauer's principle as deep cosmological truth. (It also kicks off with The dictionary definition of Evolution is any process of formation, growth or development. This isn't an encyclopedia article; it's a school report that somebody put off until the last minute.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nevertheless. I am aware that much of the article has been cut down; I see nothing worth saving in the remainder, per XOR'easter. Cultural evolution and astrobiology are both real and quite separate fields, but neither of them really discuss this seriously. The article is just transhumanist fantasy with some science terms sprinkled on it. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is completely a WP:OR essay with WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE claims. I realize the editor put a lot of work into the article, but it cannot be salvaged because is pseudoscience. I don't see any experimental science supporting the material contained in the article. It is an ideologically driven article and not a science article. Frankly, it reads like science fiction and not an encyclopedia article.Knox490 (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubify (keep the lead). The concept is likely notable, but the article has only two inline references, both to books and not citing page numbers, so effectively nothing it in can be easily verified. As such, it may well be WP:OR, hence, given the concerns raised, WP:TNT applies - but the lead could be kept, I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The player may become notable in the future and then the article can be recreated. Perhaps even quite soon. Haukur (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Max Mata[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - already had this discussion in a PROD post. Has played in fully professional games between two fully professional teams; very likely he will also gain his first international caps in November so suggest leaving discussion until then Mrsmiis (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Players have to play in a competitive match between two teams from a fully professional league. Kalju aren't in a FPL. Claiming he is likely to play for in November violates WP:CRYSTAL.Dougal18 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – can't find sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Closest I'm finding in English [31] [32] and Estonian [33] [34] [35] are routine game and transfer reports. – Levivich 17:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can you explain why you think GNG is not met? As an Estonian I can say that Postimees and Soccernet.ee are both reliable and independent sources. Together with NZ sources there are much more than just regular match reports. one more. Example of footbller passing GNG: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben George. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the "in-depth" part of GNG is met. Postimees is a game report with a brief mention that the player will be joining the team. Soccernet July is the same thing: a routine transfer report with a couple of quotes from the player about how excited he is to contribute to the new team, etc. Soccernet August is a game report that he made a hat trick in his debut, with a couple quotes from the player. The RNZ link you provided is the best one I've seen so far, but I still think its depth is marginal; if we count it for GNG purposes, that's still only one IMO, and we'd need multiple to meet GNG. – Levivich 02:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GWT Highcharts[edit]

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

Vacuous stub; notability not established. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Refs provided are to developer and github, in no way contributing to notability, and a search turned up forum posts and a one sentence mention in the book https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/learning-highcharts/9781849519083/ch11s02.html, (google books search of that book) but this brief mention is not significant coverage, and I found no other relevant WP:RS. Dialectric (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This could have been legitimately speedy-keeped, as no legitimate grounds for deletion was raised. As said, en-wiki uses English. Only 1 editor suggested a grammatical rename, so I've not implemented it as part of my close. Anyone is free to BRD as they wish (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bahasa Rojak[edit]

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

Rencana ini ditulis dalam bahasa Inggeris yang merupakan bahasa perantaraan utama dunia menyebabkan rencana ini dapat dicapai oleh ramai orang dari seluruh dunia.Perkara ini membimbangkan kerana rencana ini mendedahkan kelemahan dan menjatuhkan maruah bahasa dan bangsa Melayu serta negara Malaysia.Cukuplah hal ini setakat diketahui oleh orang dalam sahaja dan kita perlulah cuba menyelesaikan masalah ini. Hrs Hzr (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Bahasa Rojak[reply]

Google translation Bahasa Malaysia to English of the above message by User:Hrs Hz - see below

"The plan is written in English which is the leading language of the world making it accessible to many people around the world. This is worrying because it exposes the weaknesses and degrades the Malay language and the nation and Malaysia. and we should try to solve this problem."

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Hrs Hzr: This is English Wikipedia, thus please use English for any communication. Secondly for the same topic, there is an existing page in Malay Wikipedia page - see here and you can use Malaysia language there. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Wikipedia is not censored and the article is well-sourced with independent, reliable sources, thus pass WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick look around, this appears to be a well-documented subject. The nomination has no basis in Wikipedia:deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the deletion rationale is invalid. Also, move to Bahasa rojak, as per Malay wikipedia ([36]), because it is not a proper noun. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 13:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Clark[edit]

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

Stub article for non-notable reality tv participant, article repeats and reads more as an advertisement. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable television personallity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the deletion rationale is misguided. It is irrelevant that it is a stub - Wikipedia has no problem with stubs. If it reads like an advert, fix it or tag it. Why have you not suggested an WP:ATD? Why do you feel that he doesn't meet WP:ENT #1: Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He was a runner-up on one major show (Love Island) and was a cast member for years on another very well-known show, TOWIE. It needs improvement, absolutely, but meet the guidelines for inclusion. From this long list of nominations, I've seen zero evidence of any WP:BEFORE or any attempt to improve the articles - this is disruptive, Jamesbuc. Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jamesbuc is correct. Notability is met per WP:ENT. While excessive promotionalism is actually a potential deletion basis (and not just through G11), that level is not met here. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 13:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Wright[edit]

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

Stub article for non-notable reality tv participant. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable television personallity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep neither comment above actually gives clear reasons for why they are questioning notability, or whether there has been any WP:BEFORE, or why they are not suggesting any of the clear WP:ATDs. WP:ENT #1 states: Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. As someone with a significant role in 2 notable shows, and who had his own ITV reality show based mainly around him, he meets this. Boleyn (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is established per WP:ENT. I'm concerned he's being held to higher levels of requirement than he should be. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Senzu Collective[edit]

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

Procedural nom on behalf of an IP editor. Their rationale is:

Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:NCORP. Additionally, there are some serious COI issues. On the user page, User:Alexauclair01, who created the article, wrote, "i run a collective with some friends called senzu collective, i am also a active musician in los angeles."

I have no personal opinion on the matter. Reyk _YO! 09:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notabiliy, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Geography of Melbourne. Tone 13:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South-East Melbourne[edit]

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

This seems like a slightly arbitrarily-chosen region of the state to have an article about. It's basically just a list of councils, plus a hint of advertising near the bottom. – numbermaniac 09:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 09:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are certainly references to South East Melbourne, but whether they all refer to the same area is another question. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, for example, has a "Statistical Area Level 4 Melbourne - South East" which does not include the Mornington Peninsula or Frankston (and per WP:GEOLAND, census tracts are not presumed notable anyway). There is a basketball team called South East Melbourne Phoenix, but quite why it's called that, I don't know - its headquarters are the State Basketball Centre which is in the City of Knox, not one of the municipalities listed in this article. Per WP:GEOLAND, I think this would count as a "Populated place without legal recognition", eg "informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods", and so would need to meet WP:GNG, and while I've seen plenty of mentions, I haven't yet seen SIGCOV. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a South East Melbourne plan (link here) - made up of a number of Council areas. If coverage is not significant enough, article can be redirected to Geography of Melbourne. Bookscale (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "South-East Melbourne" is a term that is used in various contexts but how to define it? ie. some publications: Baluk Wurrung: Stories from Aboriginal People in South East Melbourne, Future of Manufacturing in South East Melbourne: Summary of Report, Youth Access to Justice in South East Melbourne: A Discussion Paper, Sites of zoological significance of South East Melbourne and the Mornington Peninsula: A Compendium of Information Collected Between 1987 and 1991, and (mainly) government organisations: Melbourne - South East (SA4) (212) - ABS Statistical Region, South East Metropolitan - Vic Justice and Community Justice region ("The region covers 17 local government areas..."), "The South East Melbourne Group of Councils (SEM) includes the shires of Bass Coast, Cardinia and Mornington Peninsula and the cities of Casey, Frankston, Greater Dandenong and Kingston.", Victorian Electoral Commission - South Eastern Metropolitan Region profile, SEMMA - "SEMMA is a peak industry group representing more than 200 leading manufacturers located in Melbourne’s South East region.", unless more is found none of these would be wikidefinitive. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete much like other areas not clearly defined, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Central Minnesota, this fails GNG. --10:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Geography of Melbourne to enable any relevant content above (given there are reliable sources, although they all have slightly different definitions) to be inserted in that page if necessary. Bookscale (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naimal Khawar[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:NACTOR. She made debut in Verna but her role was not a major one. So far worked in only 1 film. Made debut in TV drama serial Anaa, but again the role was not major.

She was recently in the news for tying the knot with Hamza Ali Abbasi but that does not makes her notable enough to warrant a standalone entry on WP yet. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, clearly.

And most important, this BLP was created by a serial sock puppet. User:Pakistanpedia. Saqib (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update The subject of BLP herself stated she quit acting as per this news report so I don't think we've a reason to keep this BLP anymore. --Saqib (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable currently, and no hope of her becoming notable in future. Störm (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors wanting to merge with the list article can continue making the case for that on the article talk page. But deletion is clearly not the outcome here. Haukur (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forky[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable minor character. I redirected it to List of Toy Story characters but was reverted; I believe that's still a viable alternative to deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forky in Toy Story 4 is not a minor character, he is a major character that needs Woody help.--Hong Kong Ian (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Hong Kong Ian (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the redirect was appropriate. The article is sourced to a fandom wiki and promotional material.Citing (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination talks of redirection and alternatives to deletion and so is not appropriate for AfD. Its claim that the character is minor and non-notable is quite wrong as it was the lead in the latest movie and now has its own spin-off show on Disney +, as reported by a variety of sources. Andrew D. (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Toy Story characters. Only one GNG source. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". It is quite easy to find more sources about the topic including the following. Given the nature of the coverge, it's quite ironic that the character should be brought to AfD to be thrown in the trash. Andrew D. (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable character per mentioned sources (and NEXIST), so keep per Andrew D. and HK Ian. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 12:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toy Story 4 or the character list. For one shot movie characters, such sources as the above belong in the movie article itself. TTN (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Andrew Davidson. If the nominator believes that a redirect is the correct WP:ATD then they should pursue that through discussion on the talk page, not attempt an end run by bringing it to AFD. Hug^syrup 16:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm generally skeptical of character based articles, but there was definitely Forky related coverage from RS after Toy Story 4 (e.g. [37]) and now that he's going to have his own series I think there's more than enough evidence of lasting notability for an article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I'd missed Andrew's sources when I cast my !vote but I agree his sources are exactly the kind that can easily be found to support notability which is why I unwittingly posted one of them again :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clicking the news search at the top of the AFD I find ample reliable sources talking about this character. Disney is giving him a series of shorts as well, I just adding brief mention of that to the article. The sources found by Andrew Davidson above prove the character easily passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 02:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the character appears to have received a significant amount of coverage from third-party, reliable sources about his appearance in Toy Story 4 and his future show on Disney+. I disagree with FoxyGrampa75 and Citing because the status of the article itself is not relevant. The article definitely needs a lot of work, but the state of an article is not a strong argument. It should be more focused on whether or not it meets WP:GNG, i.e. if significant coverage can be proven. Aoba47 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To List of Toy Story characters. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and is not individually notable. Andrew D typically looks for any source that could possibly be presented, no matter how unreliable or tenuous, and this discussion is no exception. Upon close inspection, they still do not merit the existence of a standalone article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: main character in high profile film. Fulfils GNG as there'll be sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Saying that sources will exist does not fulfill GNG. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect: into the List of Toy Story characters, per >ZXCVBNM comment's regarding the sustainability of a stand-alone article. The character itself has not managed to get deep coverage by reliable secondary sources and impact in popular culture. The sources presented in the article can fit perfectly into the List of characters (and are necessary for referencing statements). --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Citations don't seem to be much of a priority for the characters with text on the list at the moment. More seriously, I think what distinguishes Forky from those characters is A)existing coverage on creation (there's no "Rex has Haunting Implications for our knowledge about Dinosaurs" that I'm aware of) and B)his being the lead in his own animated series. This second point is a bit speculative, but to me addresses the sustained elements (at the moment) that would make me otherwise skeptical about notability just based on the (substantial) coverage from Toy Story 4. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my opinion is relevant enough to have its own page and also will have its own series called Forky Asks a Question on Disney+. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the unorthodox nomination, there's strong consensus here that the sources are of insufficient quality and quantity to support an article. All of the keep arguments are essentially, "the nomination is bogus". While that justifies a WP:TROUT for User:Dharmadhyaksha, it's clear that people were willing to look past that. The arguments to delete are mostly detailed analysis of the sources which show why they are lacking.

If anybody wants to create a redirect, they're free to do so on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kumkum Bhagya - Sawan Mahotsav[edit]

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

The real ~~WP:Bullshit~~ bullshit! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sources already cited, you are going to have to do better in your rationale than a mere slang assertion that this is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rectified the rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you really have not. You need something that is supported by Wikipedia:deletion policy, which that is not, at all. Uncle G (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who knows the topic will understand that the article is really bullshit and thus understand the rationale as well. Am thinking you have no experience of Indian TV show related articles. So if you would just wait and allow others to chip in.... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to provide a rationale that makes sense to editors that don't understand the subject. SpinningSpark 14:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per refusal of the nominator to explain their nomination, or provide a policy-based rationale, after repeated requests to do so. SpinningSpark 14:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 1. " The nominator ... fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection". An article that has a reference from The Times of India is clearly not WP:COBBLERS or any other form of Nonsense, so no policy-based argument for deletion has been advanced. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Only two sources are reliable; the ToI and DNA source. The ToI source however is just a photo gallery leaving the DNA source the only one. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, nominator fails to give argument but that doesn't mean this page is good. Fails WP:GNG and page is obviously bullshit. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha:Can u give me a sensible reason for nominating this page for deletion, and why did u call it BullshitPallaviharsh (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT Nomination does not follow procedure. Nomination is insufficient and not based on WP:POLICY Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I disagree with the nominator's rationale, the article does lack reliable sources - if we discount the two YouTube links (WP:NOYT), all the other refs are press-release style mentions announcing the series as upcoming, even The Times of India refers to "The upcoming episode" - there is nothing to show that the series is notable or has "received significant coverage in reliable sources" as per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, we have a nomination with no valid reason for deletion, some reasonable keep arguments based on the nomination, and a couple of subsequent assertions that the subject fails WP:GNG, with no real evidence of having searched for sources (just looking at the sourcing in the article is not sufficient to decide that no sources exist), but sufficient to prevent a speedy keep closure. We really need some better contributions here - please state why you believe the subject is notable/not notable, and how you have arrived at that conclusion, ideally with reference to policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete While I condemn the method of nomination, I would like to evoke "wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"; having said that, I would recommend taking a look at the subject's notability rather than discussing the nomination.
I didnt know about the show. When I read the article, I thought it was some sort of reality show, covering the cast of the original show. An internet search revealed it is a crossover. The subject didnt receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the coverage is from telly-sites. They try cover to cover everything and anything related to television. To establish notability, WP:PERSISTENCE is also required; the subject fails this as well. The ToI source being discussed, was published before the show was released. I couldnt find any RS covering the show after it was released. It didn't receive reviews from well-known critics, nor any awards. Basically it is just another show. Overall, the subject doesnt pass WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ Fails per WP:GNG. First two sources are just promos of show, IWMBuzz is discussed here and the other sources are either photo galleries or "in universe" gossip articles which are not at all helpful in establishing notability. Sid95Q (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with Miching, Redirect it to the the section Kumkum Bhagya#Television special as the topic is not notable enough for a page of it's own. --Sid95Q (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about other sources that may exist but which are not currently cited in the article - where did you look and what did you find? --Michig (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources which are available elsewhere are Another slideshow from Tellychakkar which is not considered reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES and Bollywoodlife which has been discussed here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_6#Bollywood_Life. --Sid95Q (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that this appears to be a special edition of Kumkum Bhagya, would it not make sense to merge or redirect there (where it is already mentioned)? --Michig (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't have enough coverage in RS for a redirect either. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it need a certain amount of coverage in reliable sources just to be redirected to the article on the series? --Michig (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: otherwise anything/anyone that has a very little coverage in RS, or a good coverage in non-RS would get a redirect to something? eg: non notable actor getting a redirect to the film with most screen-time. This might later result in "verifiable existence = redirect". —usernamekiran(talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, /no/ RS are needed for a redirect. Redirects are cheap and are just search aids - see WP:RPURPOSE - and if they are useful for the reader, primarily that they are mentioned in the target, then there should be no objection to their creation. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kumkum Bhagya#Television special. I don't see this series as being encyclopaedic enough for its own page but it is plainly a useful search term ("redirects are cheap") and the target can be expanded somewhat if reliable sources are found. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The NFOOTY points are moot, the question here is does the player pass GNG. Some sources have been presented to indicate GNG, but there is a lack of consensus whether they are enough. Fenix down (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lucas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. -- Tropicanan (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Has played in the A-League. Simione001 (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY has played in a WP:FPL that is A-League.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Bookscale (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changed from a Weak keep. - He meets WP:NFOOTBALL but I don't know about WP:GNG as he only played the one match against Sydney FC. HawkAussie (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking it over and @Levivich: makes a good point as he played less than 15 minutes of play in his only appearance. Their is mentions of him playing from Olympic in the FFA Cup but that is just match reports. HawkAussie (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per longstanding consensus: one appearance (10 minutes of play) [38] in an FPL league, and no indication of meeting GNG, is not enough to show notability. The one appearance was like seven years ago, and the player has been playing semi-pro ball since. – Levivich 21:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
reaffirming my !vote post-addition of new sources post-relist... none appear to be secondary, independent, reliable, and in-depth. This is the closest I see and it's not sigcov IMO. – Levivich 05:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage = no article. Arguments that we should create an exception to that principle for single-match footballers are not just uncompelling but ridiculous.—Mkativerata (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the article meets WP:NFOOTBALL then it meets, regardless of number of games played. Suggestions that it should be deleted due to a small amount of games played starts to blur the guidelines of WP:NFOOTBALL. Additionally, the player is currently the top scorer in the 2019 FFA Cup which is a national competition playing against clubs from WP:FPL so if anything, the article could be strengthened. Clifton9 (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He passes WP:NFOOTBALL. The only exceptions should be if a player plays a minimum amount of time in a fully-pro league in his whole career and they're retired. In this case Lucas played for a WP:FPL club, and has a career in the 2nd tier (semi-pro). Add to him currently being top scorer in the domestic cup as Clifton9 said, and this shows this article can be expanded, not that it should be deleted. --SuperJew (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no evidence of the article subject meeting WP:GNG beyond passing references in routine coverage. The subject clearly fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTBASIC. Hack (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the article meets WP:NFOOTBALL then it meets, regardless of number of games played. Suggestions that it should be deleted due to a small amount of games played starts to blur the guidelines of WP:NFOOTBALL. Article certainly needs improving but if it's deleted, then it is contradicting [39] Victoryboy (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFOOTY passed with career ongoing, which is consensus to keep; e.g. AfD/Mats van Kins, AfD/Sean Karani and AfD/Danish Irfan Azman. One app is also consensus, one that I am fine with being enforced, but it doesn't apply here - as mentioned by SuperJew. R96Skinner (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mats van Kins = 2 FPL games, 20 years old, still playing in top-tier league (Eredivisie). Sean Karani = 18 years old, 4 FPL games (at the time of the AfD), still playing in second-tier USL Championship. Danish Irfan Azman = 20 years old, 19 FPL games, still playing in top-tier Singapore Premier League (and that AfD was withdrawn). These three are in no way comparable to this article subject, Chris Lucas, age 27, whose single FPL appearance was seven years ago and has been playing semi-professional ball ever since. Not a single source that could even potentially qualify for GNG has been put forward here and there are none in the article. The consensus in such situations is to delete, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romain Carbonnier, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Pawiak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Paul Nomel, and many others like it (see User:Levivich/NFooty AfDs#Some NFooty for a list). – Levivich 14:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Mngadi, for example, vanished off a cliff after leaving his FPL club. That's very different to leaving an FPL club and joining multiple clubs one tier below the previous club's FPL; Lucas' case is equivalent to leaving an English League 2 team and joining an English National League team, in these terms. R96Skinner (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and then staying in the English National League system for seven years, generating zero in-depth coverage in reliable sources during those seven years. I call that "not notable". :-) The fact that this guy played for 10 minutes in an FPL seven years ago is a fluke–it is no reason to !vote keep–there is no logic or rational thinking (nevermind policy) behind such a position. It's a complete "WTF" kind of argument... 10 minutes and you get a bio in Wikipedia? With no GNG sources, but just because of the 10 minutes? Come on, let's put that argument to bed, forever. – Levivich 16:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: By that logic, might as well scrap WP:NFOOTY completely. (And also deletion discussions are not polling booths) --SuperJew (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While his WP:NFOOTY qualification isn't all that much, Lucas at least has a full body of work in the Australian cup along with a decently covered lower league that's second-tier Australian in which he was the top scorer, and being the first player to score multiple hat tricks in the FFA Cup [40]. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N. Although a number of sources can be found, and some are provided, all the coverage is routine statistical listings. That does not meet the "significant coverage" from "multiple sources" required by GNG. The subject made a single top-level appearance. Technically, the subject meets WP:NFOOTY, but this forms a part of WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." Harrias ^talk 06:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added some content/sources which specifically pertains to the subject.Simione001 (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. Simply put. - J man708 (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG with one, two, and three. Nfitz (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the first two are written by the leagues (not independent), and the third one is a local blog written by self-described "aspiring journalists" (not reliable). I don't think any of those count towards GNG. – Levivich 03:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. Nfitz (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that while NFOOTY is not satisfied, GNG is met with sourcing about his managerial work (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano Trani[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Tropicanan (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has been an assistant manager at several A-League clubs. There are also plenty of articles out there to satisfy WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails WP:FOOTY guidelines but appears to satisfy WP:GNG due to coverage of managerial work. ----Pontificalibus 06:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Fails WP:FOOTY~~ but passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update the subject passes WP:NFOOTY he was the acting coach for Adelaide United in the Asian Champions League run checking for how many matches"Kosmina's assistant Luciano Trani has taken the formal reins of Adelaide's ACL campaign, with Kosmina's current qualifications not recognised by the Asian Football Federation." as per Sydney Morning Herald here .He did led them atleast in a match against Pohang Steelers as per this and hence he has managed a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues.Have added references .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC) @GiantSnowman: can you please take a look thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unconvinced by GNG arguments, coverage is ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 09:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfies GNG for managerial duties. Bookscale (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ – I agree with GS: coverage is routine transfer reports and non-independent bios from team websites. Would change my mind if WP:THREE were presented, but I don't see it in the article, here, or via online searches. – Levivich 01:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - extensive media coverage over the last 20 years. Article is well referenced with 15 references, and some of the coverage is significant. Meets GNG. I added three more to make it 18. Nfitz (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – (changed from delete) Ask and ye shall receive: another POTW WP:HEY, I think it meets GNG with 2016, 2014, 2011, among others in the article. – Levivich 19:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned Skies[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a song with no credible claim to passing WP:NSONGS. The only claim of notability in evidence here is that the song exists -- and two of the three sources are the band's own self-published Bandcamp page and a Reddit thread, which are not notability-supporting sources. And while the third source (The AV Club) is more reliable in theory, it isn't actually substantively about this song either, but just glancingly namechecks its existence in a recap of a television episode -- which means it isn't deep enough coverage to magically get the song over WP:GNG all by itself as the only starter source in play. As always, every song is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, but neither the substance of what there is to say about this one nor the sourcing on offer to support it add up to notability. Bearcat (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nathan for You or List of Nathan for You episodes. Not independently notable from the show or episode. No objection to outright deletion either. Sergecross73 msg me 11:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I don't like redirecting to articles where the subject is not mentioned; it just annoys the reader. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very sparse article with negligible references: the first reference is an advertisement, the second presents the lyrics in an unreadable format, and the third is not really about the song, but the show. It's also very odd to have a song presented as notable when the band isn't. ubiquity (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sievers[edit]

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

Advertorialized article about a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that he and his music exist, and the sources are a 105-word blurb and a deadlinked article in a university student newspaper -- but NMUSIC makes a special point of explicitly deprecating student media as not carrying of musical notability, and the 105-word blurb is not substantive enough to be a magical inclusion clincher all by itself if it's the only real source in play. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be much, much better referenced than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just being a colorful, local character is not enough if there isn't RS coverage to back it up. A student newspaper and a paragraph blurb in PopMatters (a source that, while staffed with a seemingly independent editorial board, is at the end of the day a volunteer venture that solicits anyone to write for them at no pay--much like wikipedia, see [41]) fall far short. Article is the effort of a largely SPA whose other edits are topics related to this subject. But--hey, claiming notability for owning 800 heavy metal albums is a new one on me. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Frood (talk!) 19:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safe as Houses (band)[edit]

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

Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage. The only notability claim being made here is that they and their music exist, with no attempt to even suggest that they pass any actual NMUSIC criteria; and the only sources being cited are one article in their local newspaper and an unreliable WordPress blog. And even on a Google search, the only other sources I can find that are non-trivially about the band, as opposed to glancingly mention its existence in the process of being fundamentally about something else, are from the other local newspaper in the Kitchener-Waterloo-Guelph triangle and another unreliable blog. This is not the depth or range or volume of media coverage a band would have to show to get over WP:GNG in lieu of actually achieving anything that would pass NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Lacks accomplishments or the kind of coverage necessary for wikipedia notability. Apparent promotional/vanity page by editor whose only other wikipedia activity is for a page (Benjamin Dakota Rogers) that shares a connection ("Electric Boy," referenced in their local paper article) with this subject. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Social media marketing. While there are more keep !votes than anything else, it makes little sense to have an article with essentially zero content which is already covered somewhere else (hence, redirect). If anyone wants to expand the article with some actual content, go ahead, as pointed out, it is a valid topic. Tone 13:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter marketing[edit]

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

Completely vacuous stub; no evidence it is likely to turn into an article Imaginatorium (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for one thing, the article already has 8 sources that are clearly on the subject. Twitter, of course, has its own meta-marketing page on the subject, not to mention "tweets". There appears from a Google search to be any number of consultants and specialists who offer their services in the subject, too. We may not think the subject lovely, but it's certainly there, and as they used to say in Yorkshire, "where there's t'mook there's t'brass". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking they are not sources for the (nonexistent) information in the "article", they are just the result of a search for "book Twitter marketing". Probably there are books written on "Marketing on Twitter for the financial industry", or "Marketing on Twitter for Chinese speakers"... but notability is not inherited. This kind of check is obviously valid for a person, to confirm that they are written about, but not for an obvious combination of already-known terms. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And most of the "sources" are self-published, not WP:RS. So I am deleting those by not-really-publishers. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nothing more can be said in that article or in its newly created sibling Facebook marketing that isn't better explained in the more general article Online marketing. Various books on "Use [large platform] for [activity]" exist where both [large platform] and [activity] are notable, but that's not a guarantee it can be a standalone article. If Wikipedia were a guide it could be expanded. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An obviously notable topic with a tremendous impact. Entire books have been written on the specific topic of Twitter marketing, some of which are already in the article, such as Twitter Marketing For Dummies. Some of these books are mostly howto, but nonetheless have some history and do compare and contrast different marketing techniques, allowing for a summary description. A quick WP:BEFORE style search yields articles on the history of Twitter marketing campaigns, such as Brand Twitter Grows Up and The Evolution Of Advertising On Twitter, And What Comes Next and case studies such as A cross-sectional examination of marketing of electronic cigarettes on Twitter. The article is a new stub, just a week old, and with all the sources out there, has the WP:POTENTIAL to be developed into a reasonable article. A notable topic, with reliable sources discussing history and impact, and an article with surmountable problems, suggests a keep. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 06:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Social media marketing. Nothing unique to Twitter. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that there is nothing to merge. (So perhaps redirect?) The "content" is an explanation that "Twitter marketing" means marketing using Twitter, and a list of generic keywords. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Twitter marketing merits its own stand alone article since it involves mechanisms that are unique to Twitter's platform; an example being Wendy's use of Twitter to promote its brand by awarding a user who had the most retweets with a year's worth of free chicken nuggets. Even Wendy's digital marketing officer singles out Twitter as a "star player". Not to mention the vast demographic differences between Twitter and other social media platforms such as Facebook (the latter's demographics tend to be older, for instance) means that there are tangible deviations in marketing strategies on Twitter that deserve to be explored. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flava (band)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claims here are competing in (but not winning) a television reality show and placing songs in film soundtracks, neither of which is an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt a band from actually having to have any reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator on notability requirements. A search is tough because there are many musical acts with "Flava" in their name. After some time searching for this band in relation to events and media in their home country, I can find nothing but typical industry listings and self-created social media announcements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Son-Rise. Tone 13:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raun Kaufman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:V. Available sources are merely passing mentions, or biographical information in a memoir published by his father. The father's memoir is not a reliable source as he is closely affiliated with the subject. Also, much of the negative or positive sourcing pertains to the Son-Rise program, the related Option Institute, and the related Autism Treatment Center of America [42], [43].

Comment from the nominator. This may also fail WP:1E because the subject has garnered some attention for a single event - which is, that he might have been cured of Autism as a toddler (46 years ago). His parents used this event to help promote their Autism program, i.e., the Son-Rise program. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Son-Rise, per nom. Ajpolino (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Son-Rise. Complete overlap of scope. Valid search term. czar 06:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that there is available sourcing to be had, as well as some more information written out in the Hungarian version (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Séd[edit]

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

Stub with no sources for at least a decade, cannot find anything else other than a few passing mentions elsewhere. KKFeline (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. KKFeline (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It can be expanded with content from the Hungarian Wikipedia article, where there is a book from the year 2000 as a source, with a title which translates as "The valley of the Sed in Veszprém". RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is at least real. But "patak" means stream. And I believe that "nevezetesebb patakok" on Fényes 1841, p. 403 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFényes1841 (help) means "the more notable streams", although someone else should double-check that, with the Séd being given its own numbered item above them. Uncle G (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dukay, Igor (2012-09-21). "A Séd patak revitalizációja" (in Hungarian). Mátyásfa Egyesület.
- Fényes, Elek (1841). "Veszprém Vámegye". Magyar orszagnak, 's a' hozza kapcsolt tartomanyoknak mostani allapotja statistikai es geographiai tekintetben. Vol. 1. Pest: Trattner-Karolyi. (1836 edition at the Internet Archive)
Keep the principle watercourse in the city of Veszprém (with it's own hiking route [44]) and a major landscape feature elsewhere ([45]).----Pontificalibus 10:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NGEO and WP:GNG, a quick WP:BEFORE would have shown it appears on gmaps (here), and the importance of the Séd to the area in relation to milling ie. "A Séd-völgy malmai", a couple of "geotours" of the Séd area, a history teachers conference talk that mentions (note no. 53) that there were 8 mills during the 1800s, article about Séd's Kopácsy mill. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i have added a link to Hungarian WP page on article talkpage for ease of access, and added the rivers project so that rivereditors are aware of the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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