< 26 August	28 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Torrilla[edit]

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

He fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in a professional league and despite him, being called up for the Gibraltar team, he didn't play in that match. HawkAussie (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much appearance in professional or international games, fails notability, Alex-h (talk) 08:34, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mayo Association Dublin[edit]

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

Relatively small non-profit organisation with a limited scope which is neither national nor international in scope, and which is not nationally well-known (failing WP:NONPROFIT). The subject organisation has also not been the primary topic of any significant or material coverage (failing WP:GNG). Any coverage that is available is ROTM stuff. Like reprinted speeches from club dinners or book launches. Or trivial coverage in hyper-local outlets of which the subject is not the primary topic (like reprinted press-releases about events the club sponsors/runs). Or which trades on inherited notability (like PR surrounding a politician's attendance at a club event). I can find no substantive coverage which features the subject as its main topic. Which, in all honesty, doesn't seem especially surprising.... Guliolop ez (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is difficult to find anything to add to Guliolopez's very clear summary. Before reading this page I had already done my own checking of the cited sources and my own search for further sources, and I independently came to the same conclusion as Guliolopez. The cited sources are exactly as Guliolopez describes them, and the outcome of my searches were dominated by the club's own web site, its FaceBook Twitter and LinkedIn pages, trivial local coverage, etc. A local club of local interest, and not remotely notable in Wikipedia's terms. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JamesBWatson. Spleodrach (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:41, 4 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek video game developers[edit]

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

This is just WP:LISTCRUFT with only about 4 notable entries. The rest are unsourced and don’t exist. I’ve attempted to clean it up multiple times but it keeps being restored to this unsourced cruft. Considering there are so few entries, I don’t see any encyclopedic value to this list. Praxidicae (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The title is inconsistent with our category system, which uses "developer" to mean people. Category:Video game companies of Greece only has one member at present, so it may well be premature at best for this list to exist, if consensus is (as is typical for company lists) to only include notable entries. This kind of list by country also does not appear to be standard for this industry on WP. postdlf (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 8 of the games have their own articles. This list video games developed in Greece as well as the companies that made them. Enough blue links to qualify for a list article. Dream Focus 05:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There does not seem to be a discernible reason for it to exist, in lieu of a category, especially since none of the developers have their own articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has encyclopedic value in terms of it listing companies who are actively developing, or have pioneered game development activities in the region, of which not much can be found on the web in a single place due to the business being largely fragmented in the country. I will agree there's room for improvement, such as creating articles for individual entries or notable games, and I believe this could be a direction for future work by Greek Wikipedia editors.(talk) 10:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd only say it has encyclopedic value if it listed studios notable enough to be in the encyclopedia. Having zero criteria for inclusion makes it fall firmly in WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point. However this list was made to demonstrate the current state of affairs in the Greek game development business market, which might be of interest to someone, e.g. for research purposes. I believe it contributes to knowledge, and may be of use to someone, such as a foreign game developer or artist contemplating a move to Greece, or simply Greek, game enthusiasts.
  - If you look at something like List of game companies in the United Kingdom there is a big difference. All the members of that list are blue links to notable companies. You are better off working on making (notable) articles that could potentially FILL the list before you create it. In addition, Video gaming in Greece is redlinked if you wanted to work on that as well. Until then, this article should be draftified or removed, since it's original research right now._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, that is exactly what I intend to do. To me it would be helpful to have an aggregated list of known companies of which to work off, given there are a number of notable companies (other still active, others now defunct) and games (e.g. 1453-1821 being the very first Greek game to actually hit store shelves, yet it doesn't have an article yet), which can contribute a lot in terms of knowledge, but unfortunately no one has ever taken the time to work on this. I hope to spark more interest in such an endeavor among Greek editors, and this list is the first step towards that direction. Perhaps it was the wrong way to go about this, given the actual content is not there yet, but still I find it a good practice to gather all relevant state-of-the-art prior to going into detail. But I intend to bring something that will hopefully match the List of game companies in the United Kingdom in terms of quality in the not-too-distant-future. As such, I'm just making an argument that, as a user, I'd like to see this evolved, not deleted. Ergotelis123(talk) 10:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would certainly not be opposed to Userification/Draftification until such point where there are enough proven notable game studios to merit such an article, and the article can also be fully referenced._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of video game developers or another similar article (such as an article on technology or entertainment industry in Greece). Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and any notable company (that has an article or one of its games has an article) can be placed on the List of video game developers. The Economy of Greece too could mention a few companies as the industry has gained some notability in the country. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what exactly? This is an entirely unsourced list with only 4 notable entries and none of them are actual developers. Praxidicae (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I modified my original comment to make my opinion clearer. The list should not stay an article on its own. If there is any company that editors judge to be suitable, should be moved to List of video game developers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC items 2, 4, and 11. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally unsourced. I'd be less worried about the sourcing if it only included companies we have articles about, because those articles would in turn contain the sourcing. But as it is, this list asserts that the companies exist, and what games they make, all of which fails WP:V in its current state. I would not be opposed to recreating such a list if it had reliable sourcing. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the criteria for inclusion, such as it is, is so vague as to be meaningless. More fundamentally WP:LISTN is not met because it has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Add to that the fact that it is wholly unsourced so nothing in the list can be relied upon then we have a clear case for deletion. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:25, 4 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 Andrez Bergen. I note that the target article is also undergoing a deletion discussion, so if that results in a deletion then this redirect would be deleted as a WP:G8. RL0919 (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depth Charge (EP)[edit]

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

Album fails all 7 criteria of WP:NALBUM. Note that the link to the artist, Little Nobody is a redirect to the producer, Andrez Bergen who appears to be one of the musicians in Little Nobody. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy Delete per WP:A9 because the group has been deemed non-notable with their name redirected to ~~one of their members~~ its one member, and his notability has itself been questioned. Otherwise the album seemed to receive a few mentions at minor electronica blogs but that is not enough for notability even if the group was notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some clarifications to address the misinformation from above. "the producer, Andrez Bergen who appears to be one of the musicians in Little Nobody." No. Bergen is Little Nobody. It's not a band with members, it's an alias. "the group has been deemed non-notable with their name redirected to one of their members". The individual, not group, has never been found non notable. the closest was an afd where there was no consensus (terrible afd, Only two of the many commenters appear to be good faithed and independent). There name was not redirected to one of it's members. The article was originally at Little Nobody and was moved to a new location ([1] unfortunately without any informative comment). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All true but that does not change the situation, because the album was released under the name Little Nobody and that act has no article. Therefore Speedy Delete per WP:A9 applies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Little Nobody has an article. The title of that article currently is Andrez Bergen. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curse words are used by those who have no confidence in their argument. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist or his discog, lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per duffbeerforme. I also concur with his commentary (above) re:misdirections by Doomsayer520.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, and the nominator, made an honest and incredibly minor error about the act having more than one member. This is not "misinformation" or "misdirection" and the other voters have reacted to a supposed ulterior motive rather than considering WP policy appropriately. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was already pointed out to the nominator[2] (before this AfD was created), that Bergen is not just a producer or member. So frankly I'm a bit surprised that this point was even brought up at AfD. It only serves to distract from the discussion. A9 does not apply in this case (it wouldn't apply even if Bergen was just a member of an act called Little Nobody). decltype (talk) 20:51, 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. There is a clear consensus towards keep. (non-admin closure) Taewangkorea (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Robinson (church musician)[edit]

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

I think that this page is autobiographical and promotional and that his notability is questionable. Nickmeister066 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 21:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 21:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's some coverage such as this. The worst case would be merger to List of musicians at English cathedrals but I favour keeping this separate as this is a common name and so we want to avoid confusion with people such as John Robinson (organist). Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there does seem to be press coverage in Boston and the UK, also at least one of the choirs albums was released on Decca, a major record company as per WP:NMUSIC, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is well referenced, demonstrating notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep poorly conceived as it stands, yet a mash of WP:COMPOSER/WP:NALBUM/WP:MUSICBIO overcomes questionability.Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was a scholar at Hereford Cathedral, which has one of the greatest choirs in the Anglican communion, and will have lead two major choirs. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 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 20:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksmiths festival[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable festival. The page is only one sentence long. HoverVan (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The related article on uk.wiki is much longer and has numerous references. This en.wiki stub can be expanded. Mccapra (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reference is too narrow. Barca (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sorry @BarcrMac: I'm not sure what you mean 'reference is too narrow.' There are plenty of references for this festival - aside from the ones in the uk.wiki article there's this, and various refs from blacksmiths from other countries recording the fact that they won prizes there. Far from being narrow it's evidently the major international competition in its field. Mccapra (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, now not an orphan - yaay!:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and added a source so no longer relies on just one, YIP!:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with Mccapra that Ukrainian WP article has references/info that can be used to improve this one, also a gnews search brings up a lot more useable sources, see here (entered свято ковалів у івано-франківську). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Concurr with user: Coolabahapple and User: Mccapra.Knox490 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added the citation suggested about by Mccapra. Article should be improved and expanded not deleted. Netherzone (talk) 13:59, 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 Amy Ray#Side projects. czar 01:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daemon Records[edit]

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

Unsourced, no notability if Google is any sign. Two external links, one is an interview, and the other is its website. Article also made by IP from days when that was a thing. Its only claim to notability seems to be that someone semi-famous made it. Jerry (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jerry (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amy Ray as Daemon Records is covered in that article - Epinoia (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amy Ray#Side projects as a solid WP:ATD. Only able to find passing mentions in articles that are about Amy Ray. Fails WP:NCORP, and the notability isn't inherited from Amy Ray nor the people that were attached to the label. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:04, 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. Participants (aside from the nominator) all agree that there is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Courage[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources on a WP:BEFORE check. Fails WP:ORG as a result. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a campaign covering at least 5 summer camps currently. Please see:

--Doncram (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of a new campaign to delete a bunch of summer camp articles. I have seen previous campaigns, mostly ending in Keep decisions, including one about a bunch of Jewish summer camps (this is not one, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations). I don't get the interest in deleting these. Are you against summer camps for children with disabilities???? It can be appropriate to tag for more sources and development, but I believe that there will exist coverage about this project, which surely was covered in newspapers when it was created because of its obvious public benefit/public interest nature. IMHO, summer camps are like public schools and parks and other places/facilities which touch the lives of many persons, often in significant ways, and are written about somewhat at least in guidebook-type literature (which can be very reliable and high in quality), and it serves the public to have these covered in at least a reference way, and IMHO Wikipedia could probably be a comprehensive gazetteer (sp?) about them, like we are for populated places. --Doncram (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage, often concerning the camp's specific catering for children with special needs which appears to make it notable e.g. [3], [4], [5].----Pontificalibus 06:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC) wrong camps.--Pontificalibus 09:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a consensus among Wikipedians that schools, parks, camps, major houses of worship, etc. belong in Wikipedia because these are important in people's lives and many people reminisce about these places. I think Wikipedia should settle this issue once and for all. Also, as per User:Pontificalibus, meets WP:GNG with significant coverage, often concerning the camp's specific catering for children with special needs which appears to make it notable e.g. [6], [7], [8].Knox490 (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are about Camp Courages (or Camps Courage?) in other states. That said, I checked newspapers.com for articles about Camp Courage in Minnesota, and there are plenty of articles about the camp. The two camps in Minnesota have been covered regularly by the Star Tribune and the St. Cloud Times. So, I suggest keep. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, well at least some other Camp Courages might pass WP:GNG if only we had articles about them.----Pontificalibus 17:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that the camp meets WP:GNG as there is significant coverage for the topic, although the article needs some work. Taewangkorea (talk) 09:03, 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. Since the comments mention the others, I'll note that this is the fourth of the five similar discussions that I'm closing. The first three were varied in terms of result, but this is one is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Interlaken: there is a complaint about the multiple nominations and a general assertion about the notability of Jewish summer camps in general, but a distinct lack of sources brought forward to support the notability of this specific camp. As with that earlier discussion, when non-policy Keep arguments go up against policy-standard "lack of sources" Delete arguments, the result is typically going to be deletion. RL0919 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Deer Run[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search has rendered no reliable sourcing for this camp. It is promotional and lacks secondary sources./ AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a campaign covering at least 5 summer camps currently. Please see:

--Doncram (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Two of those five have been closed "Keep", overriding the skeptical comments of persons also commenting negatively here, and the one closed "Delete" will be contested with its closer and/or at Deletion Review. Two are still open. IMHO, these AFDs are really unhelpful. --Doncram (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of a new campaign to delete a bunch of summer camp articles. I have seen previous campaigns, mostly ending in Keep decisions, including one about a bunch of Jewish summer camps (this is not one, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations); i have seen other campaigns too. I don't get the interest in deleting these. Are you against summer camps for children of military families where one or more parents are actively serviing (Operation Purple Heart)???? It can be appropriate to tag for more sources and development, but I believe that there will exist coverage about this project, which surely was covered in newspapers when it was operational because of its obvious public benefit/public interest nature. Once notable, always notable, too. IMHO, summer camps are like public schools and parks and other places/facilities which touch the lives of many persons, often in significant ways, and are written about somewhat at least in guidebook-type literature (which can be very reliable and high in quality), and it serves the public to have these covered in at least a reference way, and IMHO Wikipedia could probably be a comprehensive gazetteer (sp?) about them, like we are for populated places. --Doncram (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate to judge each camp on it's own against WP:N, and that's what we are doing. Your argument might equally apply to elementary schools, but we don't tend to keep as they often don't meet WP:GNG. High schools tend to be kept, because they do tend to meet WP:GNG. In neither case do we lower our requirement for sources into Gazetteer/Geoland territory.----Pontificalibus 05:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I searched newspaper archives but found no significant coverage. Lots of trivial mentions "local girl attends camp". I found one 250 word article in the Poughkeepsie Journal from 1962 but it's basically just a plug from the camp co-ordinator listing the summer activities.----Pontificalibus 05:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found some coverage about camps called Deer Run in Newspapers.com, but it will take time to work out where the camps are located (Texas, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New York ...), and how much coverage relates to these particular camps (why two in one article?). Per WP:NEXIST, the state of sourcing within an article is not a reason to delete, and the nominator does not indicate that they have done a thorough WP:BEFORE, particularly in historical sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how this is notable enough for an article and the sources do not appear to be forthcoming. Number 5 7 15:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, i get where you are coming from. You want to punish the article/original creator/editors involved now, for not immediately fixing up the article to your standards, though there is evidence that sources do exist. Well, wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 10:11, 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 speedy delete per nominator — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wind & Willow Home[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Cannot find a single reliable source - all Google hits are for retailing sites or personal blogs. Rogermx (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was created by a sockpuppet account. Mccapra (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5 as a creation by a sock of ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) with no substantial edits by other users. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:10, 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 19:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Merrick[edit]

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

No in-depth significant coverage independent of the subject. Neutrality^talk 18:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only coverage I can find is one auction record for a 1995 drawing by Merrick of Burt Reynolds. Vexations (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing in a source search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, not enough coverage, Alex-h (talk) 08:39, 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 keep. Tone 19:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Core-and-pod[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Core-and-pod (2nd nomination)

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

This article, besides being an orphan, a stub, and poorly referenced, deals with a topic which is arcane to most readers, bordering on the irrelevant. The topic itself has few mentions on the internet and appears to be highly technical and only applicable to a very narrow context. For this reason, I propose that it be deleted. No improvement has been made on the poor quality of the article since it was created, and it gets only a small number of hits each month. werewolf (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merging this article with Data center network architectures might be the best solution. As I understand it, Core and pod is a type of data center network. It could therefore be listed with the other ones (including Three-tier) listed in the architectures article. My knowledge of this subject is very limited. Rogermx (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The OP presents a long list of rationales that are all not valid reasons to delete. Being an orphan is not grounds for deletion (WP:ORPHS). Being a stub is not grounds for deletion (WP:TOOLITTLE). Being poorly referenced is not grounds for deletion (unreferenced is not the same as unverifiable WP:UNRS). Being arcane, technical, or narrow, is not grounds for deletion, indeed, it is the mission of Wikipedia to gather all human information. Not being worked on (WP:NOTIMELIMIT,WP:NOIMPROVEMENT and WP:IMPATIENT) is not grounds for deletion. Being poorly written is not grounds for deletion ([[WP:RUBBISH}. Having few pageviews is not grounds for deletion (WP:NOBODYREADSIT). It's almost like you are trying to go for a full house on arguments to avoid at AfD.

Is the page capable of being expanded into a substantial article? The book Inventing the Cloud Century covers the concept at length over several pages and I am seeing a number of scholarly papers that have some coverage. This document is from a supplier, so not neutral, but does explain the concept quite clearly. So yes, this can be turned into a decent article and should be kept and allowed to grow. SpinningSpark 23:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spinningspark. Mccapra (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 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 keep. Tone 19:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norbelis Lameda[edit]

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

No English sources. Yes, I know. But there should be a majority of English sources in the article on English Wikipedia, or where is the information going to come from? Vmavanti (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. The nominator has not advanced a valid reason for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. WP:NONENG states "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." It does not say "there should be a majority of English sources in the article on English Wikipedia". As for where the information is going to come from - any editor who can read Spanish, or is capable of intelligently using an online translating tool. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @RebeccaGreen: I agree that the nominator's rationale for deletion isn't valid. But that doesn't invalidate the fact that there is a lack in sources in Spanish as well. This article and the related Pandijazz are almost certainly written by Ms Lameda or someone involved with the band, and sourced either to their social media or the official website of their home town of Barquisimeto. The only other sources are El Impulso (a newspaper also based in Barquisimeto) and El Sumario which is just a news agency reproducing stories from elsewhere. This might need withdrawing and resubmitting. Richard3120 (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is what Mccapra and I are saying - this should be a procedural Keep, and if anyone wants to renominate it with valid reasons for deletion, they can do so. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, I just wanted to clarify that – I agree with your reasoning. Richard3120 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agreed. Mccapra (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not an argument for deletion; Vmavanti, kindly come up with a real reason why this should be deleted, or withdraw this. Zingarese talk · contribs 17:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough sources. Not notable.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we're going to be discussing the sources in the article (even though "Not enough sources" is not a valid reason for deletion either), the El Sumario article says "Texto y producción @idafebres", and Ida Febres is in the list of El Sumario team members, under Audiovisual. Which suggests to me that this is an original El Sumario article. Although it's mostly quotes from the subject of the article, so not actually independent ... RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep procedural. Gilded Snail (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep procedural. No valid reason for deletion. Per WP:NONENG, there is a consensus that sources not in English can be used to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV although English sources are preferred. Taewangkorea (talk)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Barrett (actor)[edit]

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

Barrett is a non-notable actor. He did small and bit parts, many of them uncredited. My search was not able to produce any sources, and IMDb is not at all even close to an acceptable source. Nothing comes close to suggesting Barrett had multiple significant roles in notable productions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have only just started searching for sources. I would note that IMDB shows that he has had roles in far more TV shows, including 13 episodes of Not On Your Nellie; another role besides the two listed in Coronation Street, for 19 episodes in the 1970s; two roles in Emmerdale, including one for 8 episodes in 1983; 7 of 9 episodes of Clochemerle in 1972, etc. And he appeared in all episodes of The Dustbinmen, and was the most significant character after the four dustbinmen. Apart from that, there was a John Barrett, actor, who won a BAFTA Imp Award for radio in 1978. Wikipedia doesn't seem to know anything about those awards, but whether it's notable or not, it suggests that his career extended to radio as well as TV and film. I will keep searching and add sources and info to the article, before assessing whether he meets WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am still working on the table of stage performances, as well as adding info and sources to the article. I will add the stage table when it's more finished. He definitely meets WP:NACTOR#1 - he played main roles at the Royal Court Theatre, London, in several notable productions, including the Edward Bond plays Saved and Early Morning in 1969; Barry Hines' play Billy's Last Stand in 1970; David Storey's play The Changing Room in 1971; and got attention as the gravedigger in Hamlet in 1980. There are comments in reviews like "Both John Barrett as Billy and Ian McKellen as Darkly give powerful performances, each sombre, thoughtful, balanced and real"; "The acting is first-rate. ... John Barrett is wonderfully solid and self-satisfied at the start as an innocent faced by capitalism; and in his final gritty resignation to his fate the actor never puts an eyelid wrong." "John Barrett as the butler, who, while never going beyond the bounds of correctness, can express his views of his employers with the twitch of an eyebrow or the set of a shoulder." And some of his TV appearances are also main roles, and got critical attention, eg in the Alan Bennett play Rolling Home: "John Barrett as Joey managed his day-dreams and disgruntlement, relieved from time to time by toothless smiles, with complete conviction." I'll hopefully have the stage and bio info ready for the article soon (there's also an extra 20 years of his stage career that's not included in the info box yet). RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article ha been significantly improved since being nominated and it can be seen through reliable sources that he has had prominent roles in notable television prime-time productions and West End theatre productions so passes WP:NACTOR criteria 1 which includes theatre productions (only one criteria neede), regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He does seem to have had prominent roles as noted above, and the article now shows this fairly well. Dunarc (talk) 19:39, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Anwar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:ATHLETE which states "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline". Regarding international appearances the book Wounded Tiger: A History of Cricket in Pakistan states in a footnote "a curious feature of this team was the selection of numbers 10 and 11, Mariam Anwar and Shabana Latif. Neither of them bowled or kept wicket, and neither reached the crease in either Pakistan innings. Anwar scored three runs in seven one-day appearances, and Latif scored none at all in three innings in four one-day matches. Like so many players in social cricket, it looks as though they were making up the numbers" --Pontificalibus 13:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I'm suspicious as to why you picked this one in particular, I would suggest you looked through all the women's Test and ODI cricketer categories and decided which others do not come to your satisfaction - and suggest we fix them rather than send them immediately to AfD? Deleting international cricketers is another matter altogether from deleting supposedly "minor" first-class cricketers. The suggestion that full international cricket and "social cricket" are analogous is... disturbing. Bobo . 13:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. "Making up the numbers" is a little harsh here. She was selected to be part of the Pakistan women's national squad for a series against the West Indies, playing in eight full international matches (seven ODIs and a Test). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- check out the extremely non-neutral canvassing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Female_ODI_cricketers. Reyk _YO! 18:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of canvassing. I was pointing out that our project was being attacked, and hoping to ensure that our articles were developed enough to stop this from happening in the future. Not canvassing. There's a difference. If you're not prepared to help expand the articles which require expanding, don't complain. It won't be long until someone decides to take those threadbare, unreferenced, Test cricketer articles to AfD. (Note that, like the Ranji Trophy players' articles which were also taken to AfD, nobody has bothered to expand on their prose content since they were created). At least we, who know about the subject, can do something about it. Bobo . 13:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I was pointing out the contrary beliefs of the user in question who took this to AfD - and how they do not relate to the articles which were being discussed in said AfD. (Note that, in this deletion discussion, he says he is taking them to AfD because of their lack of content, not for the purpose of passing - or otherwise - any form of guideline). Bobo . 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played at the highest international level of women's cricket, easily meets WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. All international cricketers (men and women) who play at Test/ODI/T20I level are automatically notable. StickyWicket (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's hardly surprising there is some animosity from CRIC. Users who contribute nothing to project come along and start trying to get articles deleted, straight after CRIC revamped its notability guidelines and deleted biographies of cricketers with no biographical details - to date about 500 articles have been removed as a result. Wanting international cricketers deleted could come across as an attack on the project. StickyWicket (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think enough "attacks on the project" - by those who claim to care about these things - have occurred already? It's almost as if we've lost sight of what we're trying to achieve... Bobo . 13:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Lugnuts. Khadar Khani (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note satisfying WP:NCRIC/WP:CRIN alone is not sufficient grounds to have a separate article. At the top of WP:NCRIC it states "subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." In this case the guidance clearly fails because the subject does not meet WP:GNG.----Pontificalibus 07:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to !vote keep, but just as "I don't like it" isn't a valid rationale, nor is "I do like it". As one of the lead contributors to the women's cricket task force, I want this article to survive, but I can't argue with the nominator's rationale. I hope to spend some time before this nomination closes looking for sources to possibly show that the subject does meet the GNG, but failing that, I have to agree that it currently appears the subject fails to meet our notability criteria. Harrias ^talk 09:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as having played for her country, until we have a major policy change to remove all sportspeople about whom little is known except that they played one match at senior/international level once or appeared once in the Olympics. And please, Pontificalibus, add that quote and book source, as an interesting comment on this player. Thanks. PamD 09:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD:You mention a policy change but that is actually our current policy per WP:ATHLETE - athletes failing WP:GNG shouldn't have articles, regardless of what level of competition they have appeared in. If this is wrong and doesn't reflect consensus or what the policy is supposed to be, then WP:ATHLETE needs to be reworded to remove the requirement to satisfy WP:GNG. On the other if that is our policy, and people are creating articles for athletes where there aren't sufficient sources to satisfy GNG, then WP:ATHLETE should be reworded to make the stated requirements more visible. ----Pontificalibus 09:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment again, I'm essentially on the same lines as Harrias: here. The fact that she's non-Anglophone and female suggests to me that we might keep - at least for a period of time to allow sources to be sourced - but there's a lack of reliable sources, so from that perspective I'm inclined to agree that it's a marginal case. I'd have no objection to appealing to someone with access to non-English sources to check for more details - but the fact that there's no article about her on any non-English wiki isn't promising (or perhaps just a representation of the lack of status women's cricket has with many people) Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources are shown that would suggest passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regretfully, despite more research, I've failed to find additional sources to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. I suspect that it is unlikely that much will turn up, primarily because of the attitudes towards women playing sports in Pakistan. Harrias ^talk 08:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. WP:Notability (sports) seems somewhat contradictory about requiring subjects to also meet WP:GNG. At the top of the page it says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways." (My emphases.) According to my reading of this, she is presumed notable, having played "at the highest international or domestic level", and therefore "it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Those sources may not be online, but we do have sources online that verify her name and the games she has played in, which is sufficient for an article. The bit that requires WP:GNG is in Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Applicable_policies_and_guidelines and says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." That seems to be intended as a blanket statement about standalone articles on any topic, and is highly questionable - WP:NACADEMIC does not require subjects to also meet WP:GNG. And, WP:GNG states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". So in fact, it could be argued that this article is in line with the WP:GNG policy - it meets a subject-specific guideline. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers. The article is, as Harrias says, not going to meet GNG anytime soon due to a number of factors - including the position of women's cricket in Pakistan. The Keep rationale exposed by a number of editors has been the subject of RfC discussions in the past where the precedence of the GNG has been the consensus view - as does the FAQ at NSPORTS. This is almost certainly going to be closed as non-consensus anyway, but the most obvious solution is to redirect - we have a barely verifiable BLP which we're unlikely to be able to find additional sources for beyond database entries. If those sources are found we revert the redirect and add them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone brought up the likelihood that any sources would be in non-English languages. A search on my part for Urdu sources, however, did not yield any relevant results. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 16:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a very short article with two solid references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:02, 4 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. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Maestosa[edit]

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

Software would appear to fall under WP:NPRODUCT. Regardless of that or GNG, it doesn't appear to satisfy notability. Can't find any reliable/independent source that covers it with more than a couple of lines Nosebagbear (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is really difficult to find significant coverage in reliable sources. The only secondary source in the article—the article on musicainformatica.org—is borderline for me, both in the "significant coverage" and "reliable source" aspects. I could also find a similar article on AddictiveTips (where the first paragraph just explains MIDI in general). Apart from that, I can't really see anything worth mentioning.—J. M. (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I spent a long time looking over that first source, and given its lack of an about page, the thing that swung it (though It'd still be a sole source) as unreliable is that its contact page reads "If you have advice, critics, collaboration proposals or if you want simply tell me Hi!" (my stress) - so there can't be much in the way of editorial control and review going on Nosebagbear (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 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 17:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of senior civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions[edit]

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

WP:NOT concerns regarding this directory of "senior civil servants". power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Majority of people in this are not notable anyway. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that you have not actually checked all 66 people (eliminating duplicates by eye) on the list to see whether they are notable or not. We don't delete lists of people just because they do not have articles. We de-link the names to remove temptation, and this article is in need of some significant attention in that regard as several people are linked multiple times. 16 out of the 66 have articles already. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NLIST, no independent sources discussing notability of any of this, a departmental annual report certainly isn't a basis for an encyclopedia article. Reywas92^Talk 17:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the title, I was expecting an open-ended list. But it isn't. It is not, as I feared, a list of every civil servant who worked there for a long period; it is a list of the executives. It's not a very coherent one, which is indeed down to it apparently having been pieced together from accounting reports, rather than from some documentation of the history of the organizational structure here. I had a quick look to see whether this organization's historical structure changes at executive level were documented somewhere; but did not turn up anything. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As Uncle G points out above, this is not a random list of employees but a list of the executives in the largest British government department – the most senior civil servants in the department who sit on its top-level management board. So, to address the initial issue about the article failing WP:NOT, as far as I see it is exempted from that criteria for deletion: "Wikipedia articles are not:... 7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of ... employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries)". Furthermore, this list serves a useful function for navigation between articles, provides a useful reference guide for both readers and editors, and condenses information into one manageable space rather than through the creation of stubs or very short articles for less notable executives. While not all of them are notable enough to have their own articles, many could be; working from the top down, the following are just a few who have entries in the UK version of Who's Who published by Oxford University Press: Phil Wynn Owen [9], Jeremy Moore, [10], Adam Sharples [11], Hounada Nouss [12] (I count at least 14 more people with entries). I know that there was a lot of coverage of the CIOs and Universal Credit management in the news, and a good number of these people have received significant state honours for their work. So, yes: already a quarter of the links are blue, and many others very likely to be notable (there are duplicate links). Regardless, NLIST states that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability" so the inclusion of some non-notable people is not a reason to delete. Of course, the subject itself – the management of the DWP in this case – has to be notable for it to be a standalone (per NLIST), but we can easily find books, reports, articles, etc discussing the DWP management structure and its officers: a large section of [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], etc. In short, while it may need work, this list is notable and should not be deleted. —Noswall59 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Majority of non notable people and it's not particularly important to know who was in these positions. Practically all sources are primary and there is no independent secondary sources that verify the list and many of the BLPs as notable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How much weight should be given to that when you place it immediately following a comment that purports to point to sources documenting the executive structure of the organization? Less weight than if you had looked at them, evaluated them, and given a detailed rebuttal, certainly. Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ajf773:, have you read my comment? I've given a range of secondary sources for the subject in my detailed !vote above. As I've also pointed out, most of the links point to articles which are probably notable (I think about 50% of the links are already blue or are to red-linked for people with entries in Who's Who – there may be others who are potentially notable as well). Just because an article doesn't exist doesn't mean its subject isn't notable. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a sourced and well-organised list, yet these are probably the lowest-ranked members of government that we have a list on (if they count as such - I'd reckon in a well-functioning democracy this is probably the lowest level of authority that gets affected by the changing of the guard after elections), so I don't think we have a guideline/precedent that these are automatically notable (eg. they don't count under WP:NPOL). In addition to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, there's WP:LISTN: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines." (emphasis in source). I looked at the sources given above, as the sources in the article are primary and Who's Who, which. Discounting The Stationery Office as manifestly not independent, the other links don't seem to give WP:SIGCOV to the group. I'm not sure what I'd expect here, but these don't strike me as satisfying LISTN:

"Hunada Nouss leaves Department for Work and Pensions for private sector": routine coverage of staffing changes, no particular emphasis on DWP or executives qualifying for this list,
"Coming soon: the great universal credit deception": mentions one name from the last, Neil Couling,
"Department of Work and Pensions director's problem with women": expose about a single person on the list,
"Civil servants fail to answer key DWP deaths questions after meeting grieving parents": again only one person on the list addressing a temporal concern.

As for the Neville Harris book, will often be newspaper articles satisfying LISTN, e.g. comparing the last several ministers in their practices and effectiveness, but I'm not seeing this here, nor really expecting TBH. There should be no shortage of routine articles like the ones mentioned, where people from this list get SIGCOV for a temporal event, but that doesn't confer notability to the group itself. The group BTW seems to be fairly opaque, as organisations at this level are, going by the ??s and missing data for present appointments, which is another point slightly against its notability. Daß Wölf 04:43, 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. Whether we consider the sock/IP arguments or not, it seems like there is no evidence of notability; neither hosting a TV show nor appearing in some works do in and of itself establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paras Tomar[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Irredeemably promotional autobio edited heavily by the subject and several SPAs and despite the claims I can find very little meaningful and independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real public figure page... He is an Indian personality .Thus, this page should stay. Paras Tomar is an actor from India.. Celebrity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.140.28.249 (talk • contribs) 2019-08-19 16:02:13 (UTC)— 175.140.28.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Someone vandalise this page but I don’t think it’s suitable for deletion . The previous edit , i do believe this page should be maintain with the restrictions of protecting the page . A page that is vandalise unnecessary. Please do look sensitively into it. Do remove the unnecessary items but please retain this page . Thank you very much as this page is truly edited . Thank you & do help in retaining this page .. I’m sure the protection will prevent this page from being vandalised . Thank you .. hoping a great help ! A page that deserves to be retained as due to some recent editing , a page that is visible for years should be retained . Do look into this matter . Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:d08:1028:54d1:25d4:e982:9f52:4d46 (talk • contribs) 2019-08-20 00:29:18 (UTC) — 2001:D08:1028:54D1::/64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak Keep. It seems he's hosting a TV-Show in India and played in at least one movie and made appearance in few series [19] - R3lo sd (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hosting a show might be great for his career but ultimately has no impact unless he's received actual coverage, which afaict, he has not. Also iMDb is not a reliable source.Praxidicae (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP - This page has all the links that supports the documentation written. Research done & they are true. Wikipedia should retain this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:1028:54D1:DA9:8146:12CE:F21A (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC) — 2001:D08:1028:54D1::/64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Also, @Praxidicae:, open SPI for person who made page. Sock votes are coming here. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Article seems stable for past two days after being reviewed ! Valid to stay without any doubt now ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:1A81:302A:407D:6546:B7DA:9490 (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC) — 2001:D08:1A81:302A::/64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Vote moved from top of page where it was improperly placed. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete most of the content, and acting credits from the article cant be verified through reliable sources, the subject fails WP:NACTOR, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
geez. This article's edit history is full of SPAs since like 2013-14. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He appears to be very popular in India, and appears to have some coverage based on a quick search Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC), Delete Per nom Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helloimahumanbeing Would you please provide the coverage you're basing this vote on? Praxidicae (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae As I said it was a quick search, looking it up again it doesn't seem like there is that much Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring all the sockery, closing this as delete would be defensible at this point, but there's really not that much non-sock discussion here, so another week doesn't seem unreasonable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he is a singer too https://music.apple.com/my/artist/paras-tomar/1250085500 . Guess this article has to rephrased once this discussion process is over !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:1A00:7D94:6D18:CE7A:A76A:3FE5 (talk) — 2001:D08:1A00:7D94::/64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

comment omg. One more keep vote by an account (not an IP), and this article will not be deleted. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - http://www.tfm360india.com/influencers/men/134-paras/ . Link found as he is a model . Article can be improved in future! https://www.dailyo.in/user/15180/parastomar Guess he is an avid in writing as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divinejob (talk • contribs) — Divinejob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

kindly read wp:rs, and wp:writer. The subject still does not pass notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humaramovie This link proved that he is definitely part of this project Humara Movies called Baby Steps in 2017 ! In fact he produced it. This short film garnered decent praise ! YouTube page checked from the Wikipedia page & the movie is available ! Thus, subject is valid. Comment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_More_Shots_Please! Subject is a part of the show. This show was a great hit in Amazon Prime & currently in midst of works for season 2. Guess, much validation found so far . https://music.apple.com/my/artist/paras-tomar/1250085500 . Subject is also a singer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divinejob (talk • contribs) — Divinejob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For the final time, itunes, imdb and Wikipedia aren't sources. Even if you could use Wikipedia, that article confirms nothing more than someone was able to push some cruft through several years ago. Praxidicae (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NACTOR or heck, WP:GNG. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:43, 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 speedy deleted as a recreation of the recently deleted Steve Elias, which did not make or source any stronger evidence of notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Elias Freeze[edit]

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

A lot of references are provided, but few of them seem to be independent, third-party sources. I'm not finding much to establish notability. Lepricavark (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vision (Marvel Comics)#Mainframe. Tone 17:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mainframe (comics)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find detailed coverage of the subject such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D, or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M. BOZ (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vision (Marvel Comics)#Mainframe. Of the three characters using the name, this is the only one with even a shred of notability within the fiction. The source provided by Andrew is for the design of the film version, which was on screen for about 5 seconds total. Reviewing the source, I don't see any content the could be used to expand the article. Other sources I could locate focused on the character being voiced by Miley Cyrus and nothing else. There's potential for the character to meet GNG if a bigger role happens in a future movie or tv spin off, but right now Mainframe is a minor character unworthy of a standalone article. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vision (Marvel Comics)#Mainframe seems like the most useful target. I agree with Argento Surfer's reasoning. Aoba47 (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. @Andrew Davidson: is right about his claim on Mainframe. Plus, the MC2 version isn't the only Mainframe in Marvel Comics. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vision (Marvel Comics)#Mainframe. The character has very little non-primary coverage that would indicate any sort of notability. The source shown by Andrew is an official Marvel book, and thus is not independent coverage. I agree with Argento Surfer's assessment that the Vision variant is the most useful target for a Merge/Redirect for now, and, if the character does actually gain enough notability from future projects to pass the WP:GNG, it can be restored to a stand alone article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this page gets merged to Vision, where would the information for the MC2 version be relocated? --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)--Rtkat3 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At A-Next. Anyone looking for that version won't have trouble locating it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 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 17:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of So You Think You Can Dance finalists (American season 2)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So You Think You Can Dance (American season 16) Top Ten finalists, these are all poorly referenced content forks of dubious encyclopedic relevance. All five of them are merged lists of minibios of mostly non-notable contestants in a reality show, and none of them are citing strong sources -- pretty much right across the board, they're using references like the show's own self-published content about itself, episode recaps, IMDb or Yahoo Movies filmographies and social media content on Myspace or Facebook, and the few isolated sources that are actually real reliable source media coverage are all "local teen does stuff" human interest pieces in the competitors' local hometown newspapers, which is not a depth or range or volume of coverage that would have gotten them in the door as independently notable enough for standalone BLPs. And the relatively few competitors in these lists who are genuinely notable (Travis Wall, Allison Holker, Twitch, etc.) already have standalone BLPs separately from these lists and directly linked to from the main season article anyway, so it's not necessary to keep these just because there are a handful of genuine notables scattered among the cruft. We deprecated the idea that we should be keeping merged minibio lists of otherwise non-notable people at least a decade ago (as witness the fact that even though the show is now in Season 16, these standalone bio lists stopped happening after Season 6) -- in every case, the competitors are already listed in the season article as it is and the competitors who are independently notable already have their own separate articles, so these lists aren't necessary. Also, for the record, the deleted Season 16 article was apparently created because these exist, which is in and of itself another reason why these shouldn't exist anymore. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as my S16 rationale; too much questionable biographical information, an abandoned concept which was never expanded beyond the first six seasons, and those that meet WP:N have their own articles. This simply isn't needed. Nate • (chatter) 17:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"among the cruft" :: often, one man's cruft or trivia is another man's important relevant matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is precisely why we depend on reliable sources to tell us who's notable and who's not... Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 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 17:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Dakota Rogers[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized and poorly sourced article about a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The Canadian Folk Music Award nomination could get him into Wikipedia if the article were well-sourced, but is not such a highly mega-notable award that he would be exempted from having to have any quality sources just because the article text happens to have the word "award" in it -- and none of the other awards listed are notability-clinchers at all, being largely amateur talent competitions rather than major music awards that would pass NMUSIC #8. And for referencing, five of the eight footnotes are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all, and a sixth is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself (as opposed to being written about in the third person) on a campus radio show (but note that NMUSIC makes a special point of explicitly deprecating student media as not valid support for musical notability) -- and while the other two are actual third-person journalism in real magazines, they're both local interest magazines that aren't widely distributed enough to clinch notability all by themselves if they're the best sources a person can show. And all I can find otherwise on a Google search is concert listing calendars and music-PR blogs like Canadian Beats, which aren't notability-boosting sources either. Of course, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability claim and coverage improve, but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 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 merge to Popeyes. Does not yet have long-term notability to justify a separate article that is WP:NOTNEWS, but the content is relevant in the article about the company. RL0919 (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popeye's Chicken Sandwich[edit]

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

I am not convinced that this sandwich merits its own Wikipedia article. Yes it's got a lot of coverage right now, but it's doubtful that will last. I suggest putting the gist of the info in the Popeyes article and redirect. ... discospinster _talk 13:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to disclose that I am the creator of the page. I believe the sandwich deserves its own page because of several reasons. The sandwich is Popeye's flagship sandwich so its nutritional information should be available, the amount of coverage the sandwich is receiving and will continue to receive outpaces virtually any other fast food item in history, the marketing behind the sandwich in notable and the nutritional information should be available. Lets face it, the sandwich will eventually get its own page. THe discussion will likely be more about whether it happens now or we delete my version and someone makes one a few months from now. I think with the ongoing coverage there is likely going to be a lot more to add to this story. Plus there are a lot of news items which are happening that center around the sandwich which could be added to the page. The sandwich is looking to be one of the biggest ongoing coverage episodes of 2019. Plus many are voting it the best chicken sandwich in fast food. I definitely think the sandwich deserves a page. If in a 6 months or a year from now if the sandwich's page doesn't improve and this was just a singular viral campaign then perhaps it should be noinated but at this point I think coverage will continue to spiral and there will be more noteworthy events to attach to the page. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to add that the sandwich seems to have picked up by every media outlet that Wikipedia considers credible including the NY Times, Wash Post, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, Yahoo, CNBC, CNN, USA TOday and virtually every local paper too. I'm not going to be floored either way but this sandwich definitely meets the criteria for it's own page. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. While there are pages on specific fast-food chain burgers, this one is new and it is too early to say if it is significant. The essential details could be added to the Products section of the Popeyes page. asnac (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here today, gone tomorrow--not the sandwich, but the coverage. Merge and redirect. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Primarily per WP:NOTNEWS, but also because it's not really the sandwich itself which appears to have generated most of the coverage - from what I've read, most of the coverage seems to be about the success of the company's viral marketing campaign, and its rivalry with another firm. I feel that this would be better contextualised within the article on the Popeyes, rather than in a separate article about the sandwich, which does not appear notable to me in and of itself. I don't think we want too much of this content merging into the main article, which already covers this briefly with good sources; it could perhaps be expanded upon a little, but we don't need the trivia in there. I'll note that there is currently a typo in the position of the apostrophe in the title, which should either be after the s, or omitted altogether (I guess we could have redirects from all three, as plausible search terms). GirthSummit_(blether) 17:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I realise this isn't an argument for deletion, but just wanted to add in response to the author's claims above about this being one of the biggest stories of 2019, that I had literally never heard of this sandwich before I reviewed this article. I realise that I live in the UK, but I just got back from a three-week vacation in California, having managed to remain entirely oblivious of its existence while I was there. I'm not saying that it hasn't been in the news, but to say it's one of the biggest stories of 2019 is overstating the case. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  - adding my input as an American who watches plenty of TV and reads the news, I've only really seen memes about it on reddit or facebook but nothing much more.CodeLyoko^buzz 18:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  - Girth Summit I would do a search on Popeye's Chicken Sandwich on the USA Google News to see all the coverage. People are crawling through the drive through windows and the sandwiches are going for up to $4k on Ebay. There are a lot of news stories surrounding the item. Ultimately I think this is more of WP:TooSoon that a WP:NotTheNews issue. This is going to be their flagship sandwich, the item isn't going anywhere for probably a couple of decades and I think it will only be a couple of days before someone likely gets shot for one of these sandwiches. Again this article is guaranteed to be published again in the near future. This is just taking it down and making someone rewrite the article again sometime soon.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Remember ScienceAdvisor that there is an active viral marketing campaign going on. We have a duty not to be taken in by their nonsense. It's very easy to set up an eBay account, bid $4000 bucks for one of these, screendump the image of the successful bid and put it on Instagram - instant story, journalist Mr Phil Space gets to go home early. Show me a respectable RS, that has actually checked, the facts and that seriously asserts that money like that has changed hands between two people unrelated with the campaign. GirthSummit_(blether) 22:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - GirthSummit _(blether) I dont really care but I did check ebay and there are a number of them that sold from sellers who have been long time ebay members. Several in the $500 - $5k range. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        That would be trivially easy to manipulate. Again, show me a proper reliable source that has checked any of those out and reports that it ever actually happened. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        GirthSummit _(blether) If you google Popeyes Chicken Sandwich google returns 78.5 million hits for a sandwich that has been out two weeks. That is more than WP:NotNews. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        ScienceAdvisor, 'Donald Trump's Hair' = 546 million hits. Article? No, it can be adequately covered, with appropriate context, at the main article. This sandwich is not significant, but the marketing campaign launched by the company probably is, which is why dealing with it at the main article is a better approach. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        GirthSummit _(blether) It's notable. It will likely be in the top two for every rating of chicken sandwiches for at least the next few years. With every news source conducting their own poll at this point the sandwich is pretty much guaranteed to be notable, even if you dont think there has been enough sustained coverage yet. The item is certainly heading that way. When you sell out of a sandwich and every news source in the country covers it, the item is notable. Even if it is notable for being a trend. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Popeyes as per WP:NOTNEWS CodeLyoko^buzz 17:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge This reminds me of the infamous Boondocks episode. Do Patti LaBelle’s pies have an article? Remember that? People acting like they’ve never eaten before. Trillfendi (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously I really don't have much stake in this because this is a "just for fun" article I created.. but several other sandwiches like the Whopper and Big Mac have their own pages and havent had this type of PR push. They have been around significantly longer but this will likely be Popeye's version of those sandwiches. Honestly I think there will be a number of incidents in the news regarding this sandwich where people get arrested. I think we should wait a month before deciding to merge to see what can be added.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I don't think so. Right now the hype around it is almost certainly fleeting, as was with the whole "IHOP is now IHOB" and we don't have an article about that, its just a redirect to the main IHOP page. I think in this instance we should just merge into the main Popeyes page and if in the future the sandwich gains enough coverage to warrant an article it can be rewritten at that time. Also per your comments about the Whopper and Big Mac, see WP:OTHER.CodeLyoko^buzz 23:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per WP:NOTNEWS; not enough independent, lasting notability to merit a standalone article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment I would like to say that I went to WP:NOTNEWS and if you read it correctly it states that newsworthy events should not be included. This is not a newsworthy event. This is an item that is receiving a lot of coverage. Hence from my interpretation WP:NOTNEWS wouldn't be relevant and you should look at the sandwich as an item that is receiving news coverage. Also given each of these franchises are going to reply with new offerings and the amount of taste tests that will be done over the Great Chicken Sandwich wars that are to come, this will be in the news for quite some time. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your repeated personal predictions of the future have zero basis in Wikipedia:deletion policy. Only a policy-based rationale will hold water here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uncle G In that case the article has the notability, 3rd party press sources, and plenty of reviews which would qualify it for an article. By every means in which we would rate every other category or item for an article this article qualifies. Virtually every painting by every Rennaissance master seems to qualify for an article even though many of them receive little to no press coverage. If notability is WP:NotInherited then that shouldn't be wikipedia's policy but it is. The subject has had ongoing national attention every day for nearly a month. The press coverage has resulted in thousands of 3rd party articles covering everything from the ingredients, marketing, availability, and consumer base. Every one of these delete and merge votes is based on a "prediction" which as you said is not wikipedia policy. What are your thoughts on that? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem with that response is your inclusion of the word "press". Academic books and articles, where you will find plenty of coverage of paintings by Renaissance masters, count for a lot more than ephemeral coverage in newspapers. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment Just one more thing.. this page is getting 250 views a day so there is some reason for it to exist. I know this page is heading to a merge from the voting but for some reason unbeknownst to me that decision is irritating me.. Perhaps cause I know the page will be recreated by someone else.. lol ScienceAdvisor (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge. I know that Chick-fil-A got drawn into the culture wars and the mainstream news which leans left is not favorable towards Christian owned Chick-fil-A. I have not tasted the Popeye chicken sandwich, but I suspect the free publicity will go away just like it did for some of the Democratic presidential candidates that the press used to highlight. In other words, I suspect this sandwich is the "Beto O'Rourke and Pete Buttigieg of chicken sandwiches". In all likelihood, the free publicity does not come from love of Popeye's chicken sandwich, but antipathy towards Chick-fil-A. I think it is a media created sensation that is a flash in the pan. The media will tire of this shiny new toy just like they have done with Beto O'Rourke and Pete Buttigieg. Chick-Fila-A's chicken sandwich doesn't have its own entry and I am sure I could find plenty articles about its sandwiches. At a bare minumum, this is a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. The sandwich doesn't have the name recognition of the Whopper/Big Mac.Knox490 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- None of that rationale has any relation to Wikipedia:deletion policy. Only a policy-based rationale will hold water here. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sandwich is certainly generating enough coverage to merit its own article. It was launched earlier this month, and it is still generating coverage today, 18 days later. Yes, the lawsuit is absolutely frivolous, but the fact that a WP:RS is reporting such a frivolous lawsuit means that that the sandwich meets notability. The only reason to merge to Popeye's would be if there is no reason to believe that the article could not be developed beyond a stub. I don't think that's the case. Given that the template for the sandwich already has partial nutritional information, and I expect it to be completely filled out over time, I don't see how this nutritional information would fit in the Popeye's article. Banana Republic (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18 days later! Wow! That must be nearly a lifetime to some of the participants here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Popeyes. It is well researched and nearly all the information could be a major improvement to the main article as the most notable product. If the sandwich continues to receive substantial coverage to become a globally ubiquitous term in the vein of Big Mac, then a move to standalone would make sense.Burroughs'10 (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the nutritional information can be included in the main page as Banana Republic mentioned. Plus within the last 24 hrs someone tried to use a gun to break into a Popeyes to get one of the sold-out sandwiches. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems more reasonable. The content shold stay but not as an article on its own. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Popeyes, WP:ATD Wm335td (talk) 19:35, 4 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. Additional arguments still made in favor of keep. Tone 17:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Scott (athlete)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NATH Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not pass WP:NATH requirements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails both WP:NATH and WP:GNG, nothing in the article indicates notability. JTtheOG (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've updated the article. Represented his country at the highest senior level of the sport in the Americas and is a multiple national finalist. SFB 22:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Initially closed as keep after improvements were made but then asked to relist to get more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 13:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question I note that this athlete (or non-athlete) has an international authority record. Shouldn't that be enough to substantiate keeping a Wikipedia page? If so, then I'd favour keeping. If not, how, in a nutshell, is athlete/non-athlete status determined? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NATH (point 2) with a top-eight finish at the Pan-Am Games. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:50, 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. Haukur (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of G-funk musicians[edit]

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

Has been tagged for lack of reliable sources and citations for more than a decade. Talk section indicates lots of faulty entries, which cannot be verified to be true or false. If I let the deletionist in me speak up I'd say get rid of this listcruft. ronaz^Talk! 12:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - G-Funk is a well-known, notable musical style. Per WP:LISTN what we need to sustain the notability of this article are reliable sources showing that G-funk musicians are notable as a group (e.g., sources that list them). This source discusses a number of G-Funk artists as a group, as does this, as does this. As such WP:LISTN is met and this appears to be notable as a list. Faulty/unreferenced listings should be deleted, but unless this is really a WP:TNT situation (and I don't think it is) then we should simply keep and improve. FOARP (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am certainly not questioning the notability of the style. There, notability is established. The argument I am trying to make is nobody has cared enough about the article to improve it in the last 11 years. Should we really want to keep around the article in the state it is in? ronaz^Talk! 12:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:NEGLECT, and also WP:NOWORK. Basically if you think this list should be improved . . . then improve it? FOARP (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my subject, I'm afraid and I must say I wasn't aware of these specific bits of policy. I understand now no work for a decade+ isn't an argument.ronaz^Talk! 09:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above, the article needs improvement, not deletion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:13, 4 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. No new comments since the first set, which leaned toward a possible WP:TNT deletion, so anyone who wants to improve this can request a WP:REFUND. RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locos Por Juana[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being nominated for a Latin Grammy satisfies WP:NMUSIC, but the article is in a atrocious state. The NPOV here is really off and comes off as an advertisement for the band. Article might need a WP:TNT. Erick (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I definitely believe WP:TNT makes more sense than deletion if we can agree the act meets notability standards, which it sounds like it does. That said, could the suggesting editor User:Magiciandude point out where the NPOV seems strongest? I initially assumed I would see it all over the article, from the description above, but on re-reading the article, the main part that seemed badly done was the lead-in section, which was sloppily written — see, for instance, the un-sourced sentence fragment about being voted Best Latin Band, a detail that belongs in the intro but in a full sentence and with a source — and seemed to introduce elements unnecessary to that section, if not to the article as a whole: e.g., the detail that they supposedly write and produce their own music — not only does that not belong in the opener, if it is in the article at all, it needs a citation of one or more reliable sources. The sections need re-titled, but I only see tiny bits of NPOV in the content (e.g., "famed" singer so-and-so). In summary, I think the answer to "Can This Article Be Saved?" (apologies to Ladies' Home Journal) is "yes," with small changes and added citations. Lawikitejana (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it was a quick glance that made me think the article was written like an advertisement. It might not be. But to me, that's beside the point. Erick (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:BAND, has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" - the article was created by "ChristopherLopez22" and the user page for ChristopherLopez22 is all about the band, so there may be an undiclosed conflict of interest WP:COI - Epinoia (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:33, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Rationale added after since the close was questioned on my talk page: I re-evaluated this close and I'm still confident in it. DGG quite rightly pointed out that the sources posted were mainly gossip sites and/or trivial mentions. Even the best of them, the BBC and Cosmo articles, are basically a bunch of quotes/statements from the subject about another topic (mental health & reality TV) - they aren't really about her personally. The MTV article is substantial, but not independent, considering Geordie Shore is an MTV production. Ultimately I don't think there's enough to substantiate an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Goodhart[edit]

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

Fails notability reasons with only two minor roles in two reality television shows. Jamesbuc (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I Found her in quite a few sources. Many are gossip pages, and some are related to a suicide epidemic among reality actors. The Sun The Daily Mail, BBC, Chronicle Live, Another Daily mail, The Florida Post, Cosmopolitan Magazine, OK Magazine. Wm335td (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BASIC and WP:ENT #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. They're not good TV shows, but they have millions of viewers and get an enormous amount of press coverage. If there was just one show, a redirect would be suitable. Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references referred to are classic examples of mere mentions. None are significantly abouth her. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ((|DGG)), on the whole those in reliable sources are not significantly about her (different if you look at the tabloid press). However, I think it's enough to pass WP:BASIC, especially with BBC and FLorida Post now added. There are also WP:ATDs, although as she was a part of two notable shows, it would be unclear which one she would be redirected to, as neither would show a complete picture. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I think it is worth noting that many other people who have appeared on reality shows have appeared on others, a good example being contestants on MTV's 'The Challenge'. I wouldn't think multiple appearances on television would count as notable at this stage unless they were the focus of a large event that happened outside of the show or was notable for winning competitive shows. I do feel there are quite a few stub articles around Wikipedia currently for these sort of tv appearances with very little outside of gossip magazine information. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesbuc, maybe you think that shouldn't be the guideline, but it is, and by the guidelines she meets WP:ENT #1. Start a discussion about changing the guidelines if you think appropriate. These are two very well-known shows, not similar to The Challenge. And why are you not proposing WP:ATDs? Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO which requires "a well-known and significant award or honor" and/or "made a widely recognized contribution" - does not meet WP:NACTOR which requires "significant roles" (parts in two minor reality shows are not that significant) - does not meet WP:BASIC which requires "significant coverage"; of the sources provided, the Newcastle Chronicle, Capital FM, MTV, and OK-TV mentions are all run-of-the-mill press-release style promos of upcoming shows (WP:MILL) - the BBC article gives her coverage, but she is not the main subject of the article and The Florida Post gives a mere one-line mention - not enough for notability, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epinoia, no one has suggested she meets WP:ANYBIO. She meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG - a small amount of international coverage, coverage in multiple national publications and the reality shows are very well-known, not minor. I'm also confused as to why you are voting delete rather than an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of coverage, which provides more information about her. Most of the coverage is in the tabloid press, but The Sun, Metro, Evening Chronicle, MTV (UK and Ireland) are not banned as sources. As for "they're not about her", "From beach to Toon Who is Sarah Goodhart? Geordie Shore new girl and former Ex on the Beach star – all you need to know" [20] has where she's from, where she's studied, what her job is, how old she is. The Cosmopolitan article [21] is "What happens to reality TV stars when the cameras stop rolling?", so it's not only about her, but has 4 substantial paras about her. The MTV article [22] is very similar to the Sun article, but has some slightly different info (a different job). WP:BASIC actually doesn't require "significant coverage", it says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." It does also say "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", but these are not trivial in the sense of passing mentions. I think it's also arguable that she meets WP:ENTERTAINER, having had roles in 8 episodes of one show and 12 episodes of another. I'm not into reality shows myself, but if someone has been in two, in all or most episodes, and has coverage as a result (before, during and after), then they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just a note on tabloid sourcing, WP:BLPSOURCES says, "material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" - at this point I don't think there is enough substantial coverage outside of tabloids to establish notability - Epinoia (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources are not tabloids - Metro and Evening Chronicle, for instance, are not tabloids like The Sun or the Mail. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial mentions in press releases do not notability show. Rockphed (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rockphed, why do you feel she doesn't meet WP:ENT #1? Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Without doing a lot more digging into the two shows than I am willing to do right now, I can't say that she doesn't. I could have sworn there was something in WP:ENT about contestants in reality TV shows, but the word "reality" does not appear on that page. How major was her role in Ex on the beach? That article is in execrable shape and doesn't even include an explanation of the basic format, so I can't tell if being someone's ex on the show is a significant role. Looking at the references in that article, I'm not convinced the show is notable since almost all of them are MTV sites (and thus probably press releases). Rockphed (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think she's just about passing BASIC. Szzuk (talk) 20:05, 4 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 keeps seem to have the advantage in arguments and source notability. (Also, not reasons for this close but still of note, the keep !votes form a numerical majority and this article has survived 2 AfD's previously.) (non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April Wilkerson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Almost every reference is the introduction to one of her own videos on various sites. Reference 3 is a mention of one of her youtube videos, in the context of an article about a charitable project run by somebody else. Ref 1 is a single image of her workshop and 1 line of text, in a more general article. Ref 6 is an interview on a LifeHacker site, in which she simply tells whatever she chooses to, so it's not independent. And a count of YouTube views is not evidence for notability

In the first AfD, the publication names were emphasised, and this was accepted as a reason for notability. But that was apparently without consideration for what was actually in them--that they were a combination of not-independent, and basically to her own work. I'm more careful now to view or read the actual reference in its own context, Sometimes that's not possible, and we tend to give the benefit of the doubt to sources that are difficult to find or access, or in a language little read here. I think that's a good practice, if what is claimed in reasonable and the reference looks appropriate, although strictly speaking it would be questionable in BLPs. . But when we can see the references, we should. That's what Verifying means: check the sources. Not just check that references are present to what might be sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Speedy Keep. This is the third attempt by DGG to delete this article, with the first one here and the second one here. Both times the community said 'Keep'; so DGG, what's your problem? Magazines like Woodworkers Journal and Popular Mechanics have profiled her and her projects -- they trust her -- so to try to invalidate them because there's a lead-in to her YouTube videos is dubious. To claim these sources are "not independent" is spurious reasoning at best; these magazines have to keep faith with their readers and provide good information, which they do. Wilkerson is one of YouTube's new stars, getting millions of views, and helping all kinds of do-it-yourselfers finish many projects (including myself -- I'm a handyman and her advice is sound and helpful). She's received plenty of coverage in Popular Mechanics and also here with international coverage and also here in Australia and in Woodworkers Journal. Her shop has been covered in Popular Mechanics and her projects such as turning a barrel into an illuminated decoration have gotten coverage in Simplemost magazine. Notable person who clearly meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing what has changed since this was kept after you last nominated it. We do cover YouTubers (and for YouTube gamers, the fanbase ensures that notability need only be extremely minor). When such YouTubers get coverage in Popular Mechanics, which is the relevant large-circulation paper magazine where we'd expect to see DIY channels getting covered, then that's WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have looked at all the Popular Mechanics articles listed as sources, and I do not see them as profiles of April Wilkerson, they are basically republishing her projects. The only one that says anything about Wilkerson herself is this [23], which presents videos of 5 people's workshops, and has 2 sentences about each person. So that's 2 sentences about Wilkerson: "April Wilkerson works out of a 500 square foot shop, and most of the workbenches, storage bins, and tool holders were built by her. She narrates the tour and shares details on why and how she uses everything in her workshop." (That source is used as a reference for the size of her workshop, though how "500 square foot" got to the "3000 square foot" stated in this article, I don't know.) The LA Daily News source is about abandoned babies being buried, and it also has 2 sentences referring to Wilkerson: "The urns began coming shortly after a video was made by April Wilkerson of Fort Worth, Texas, that went out to her fellow DIY woodworkers all over the country. It’s five minutes long, but it feels like 30 seconds because it’s so mesmerizing watching this talented craftswoman show us how to build a baby urn fit for a king or a queen — or a pauper." That tells us where she's from, at least. The Woodworkers Journal is a profile of Wilkerson, the only source that counts as significant coverage in an independent, reliable source (and even then, it's part interview, so taking only the content written by the reporter about Wilkerson shortens it considerably). The February 2018 issue of Woodworkers Journal has a brief profile of her (4 sentences), which confirms that she lives in Texas, but doesn't count as another source because it's the same journal. And that's all I've been able to find.

WP:BASIC is a useful guideline, because it allows that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". But here we have one longish source and two others which each have 2 sentences about her. I'm not convinced that this adds up to multiple independent sources. So unless there is other coverage about her, rather than reposting/republishing her projects, then I would have to say Delete. Maybe just WP:TOOSOON, or maybe not everyone whose projects and plans are published in magazines like Popular Mechanics and Woodworkers Journal is notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When an afd discussion goes against my opinion, and I am not convinced by the result, I keep track, and look agin in a few years. (i lose about 10-20% depending on how you count NC closes--the reason that's so high is that I deliberately try to nominate borderline cases ,with the intention of clarifying consensus) If the article has been kept, I don't renominate unless I think there's a good chance consensus has changed, or at least is changing. I think that's the case here. We have finally over the last year or two shown signs of becoming skeptical about people and firms who may technically meet the notability requirement, but where the sources are border line, and there does not appear to be any genuine encyclopedic interest. This consensus has already firmly changed for firms, with WP:NCORP, and I think it is in the process of changing for people.

Additional, I have become skeptical about the nature of coverage in routine news and web sources. An appropriate role for a news source is to spread information about things that may not be notable, but seem interesting.(the usual name for this is "human -interest" stories There's nothing wrong with this, if they're not concealed advertising; I like most other people sometimes read such articles. (for that matter, I even read advertising when it's something in which I might be interested) But that does not mean the material is encyclopedic, which is supposed to contain information of permanent interest. So when I see what might be such references, I go and actually read them. There's probably tens of thousands of blps here which seem to be based on such sources. As with other widespread problems, it will take years for us to either improve or remove them.

I have never been a deletionist. If something appears to be of potentially long term interest, or even serious interest about important things in the world, I try to keep an article. When such articles get deleted, I also look after a few years to see if I can find something further that might justify them. As all regulars here know, improving articles is harder work than making arguments ,so i am not able to do it as often. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to explain, but the problem with your reasoning is this: you're trying to second-guess news sources, saying this one's 'good', this one's 'bad', this one is 'permanent', this one is 'temporary'. That's not something we Wikipedians are equipped to do. We're not the editors of Woodworkers Journal or Popular Mechanics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I've observed previously and as many past AfD cases have proven, secondary sources can be wrong or the notability they might suggest can be false or fleeting. The problem with the simplistic "there are sources" basis of WP is that it does not account for the fact that a large fraction of content that is generated today is done so basically to fill our modern infinite channels of zero-cost communication. (This is opposed to, say, a century ago, when communication was expensive, for which a source was written to confirm/report some aspect of already-existing genuine notability. Then, one could not easily be famous for being famous.) So, it should be clear that it is absolutely WP editors' jobs to judiciously evaluate sources. If we're not doing this, then how/why are we "editors"? Why not just have smart people write a big script to crawl the world's knowledge banks and automatically create a WP of all sourced information infinitely more efficiently? Answer: because that would not really be an encyclopedia. The only real value that we editors add to WP is through discriminating discernment and judgement of what is, in fact, encyclopedic...then we write it down. Unfortunately, social fads have pushed WP into significant mission creep. Enabled by "there are sources" philosophy, one of its main goals has become WP:RGW by flooding WP with non-encyclopedic bios that are supposed to (by various subjective and shifting criteria) "balance" the overall content. I don't know if this is one of those cases, but it looks like DGG has done the homework. Agricola44 (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tomwsulcer, I mentioned above that I do not see the Popular Mechanics articles as contributing to Wilkerson's notability because they are basically republishing her projects. If they were articles (or even one article) about Wilkerson, then they would contribute to her notability. It's not the publication that's in question, it's the focus of the article. Profiles of craftspeople in publications like Popular Mechanics and Woodworkers Journal certainly do contribute to notability; just being the author of projects published by those magazines does not, in the same way that just being the author of published books or being a journalist with published articles (even if those articles are republished by other newspapers, etc) does not. We need other media to write or talk about the authors and their work, and provide information and/or considered opinions about them, to establish notability. Woodworkers Journal has written a profile of Wilkerson - are there other profiles in other publications? RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply RebeccaGreen, When Popular Mechanics published Wilkerson's plywood truck rack project, their editors were saying to their 1,208,642 readers that her project is important. It's worth doing. The editors vouch that Wilkerson knows what she's doing. Do you think the article is bogus? fraudulent? untrue? It is good stuff; Popular Mechanics has standards. It's a national magazine. In addition to the existing sources in the current Wikipedia article, there are others, such as here. She was a guest on this podcast about tools. She did a meet and greet event here. It's why almost 6700 people have read her Wikipedia page since May 21st of this year which averages 74 views per day. Pageviews, while not an official test of notability, does indicate that there's substantial interest in this person. Wilkerson is a YouTube star in the DIY woodworking and tool world.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tomwsulcer, I am not questioning that, but those are not Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Popular Mechanics publishes projects by many people, and has over its long history. Those people are only notable by Wikipedia criteria if other people have written about them. There are many people, organisations, etc, that I might think are notable who have made substantial contributions in various fields, but unless there is coverage about them in independent sources, there can't be Wikipedia articles about them. Not all sources are online, though, so if you are aware of other coverage about Wilkerson in reliable sources, that might help establish Wikipedia notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources are about her. Who she is is what she does. That's true for everybody. We are what we do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your logic necessitates the conclusion that all woodworkers who've been similarly featured are notable and therefore merit WP bios. Moreover, they do not have to be adjudicated on an individual basis, so someone can just (hypothetically) write a script to populate WP with these bios. Or, is the notability issue really a little more complicated and subtle than this? Yes. Agricola44 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not my logic. Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nope, patently false. There are lots of past deletions where knee-jerk "there were sources" squawking did not carry the day because the sources themselves were shown to be flawed, indicated fleeting (rather that WP:LASTING) notability, or failed for some other reason. These findings were due precisely to careful adjudication by editors (not advocates, who seem increasingly to be populating WP) doing their editorial due diligence. Agricola44 (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay let's examine the sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Mechanics, a national magazine with over 1,000,000 readers. They've published numerous projects: fold-up and fold-down workbenches, plywood truck rack, french cleat storage system, outdoor shower. Each project by itself might be insufficient but taken together it's a solid source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woodworkers Journal. Profiles her, her career as a YouTuber.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makezine magazine. Another profile.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's three solid sources. Do you think they're wrong? untrustworthy? Nonsense, they're good ones. From them, we can learn all about Wilkerson (to respond to RebeccaGreen's point): she's from Texas, married, she's a self-taught DIY-er, she has a YouTube channel, she built much of her own shop, she helped fix up her father's shop, she graduated college 2012 with a degree in business administration, she's motivated to improve her home, and the numerous things she's built: pantry, coffee table, shop tables, etc. All taken together: she meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in a nutshell: You want an article on someone whose notability is basically knowing how to saw wood and who "helped fix up her father's shop". WP continues to stumble sadly toward WP:DIRECTORY as more and more advocates lose their ability to distinguish what is encyclopedic from what is not. Agricola44 (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed my points above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me address your points, such as I understand them to be: (1) there are sources on this person and (2) those render her notable, therefore (3) this article stands. Essentially, you are arguing that sources are a sufficient condition. I claim they are not and that this can be for a variety of reasons: errors, overstatement, transience, limited scope, too local nature, promotion, trivial coverage, etc. Jacob Barnett is a good counter-example to your claim. There were many dozens of sources in mainstream media, but they were eventually deemed by a large editorial discussion to be too unreliable, promotional, or some just plain wrong. I do not know if this particular person is notable (I have not !voted), because I have not really yet delved into the sources myself. However, at the very least, I could see a recentism issue: will that Popular Mechanics project be of LASTING interest? Was this fleeting coverage of human interest, or is this an individual who is respected in the field such that she will continue to be covered widely in DIY, home improvement, and woodworking sources? Nobody can answer that (yet). So, I'd say that I do not yet see any convincing argument for keeping this article. Agricola44 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is there are good sources. You wrote "errors, overstatement, transience, limited scope, too local nature, promotion, trivial coverage". Can you be more specific? What's wrong? What's overstated? Your "too local nature" claim is odd, considering Popular Mechanics is a national magazine. Recentism isn't a reason to nullify sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said Tom, I have not delved into the particular sources in this case, nor have I !voted. You and I have different philosophical takes on the sufficient conditions for a WP article. I'm going to sign-off now because the closing admin is already going to have to read too much off-topic text. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC based on these two profiles: [24], [25] plus coverage in Popular Mechanics. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject satisfies WP:GNG, what more is there to say? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Publication in two nationally recognized woodworking magazines plus meets guidelines. Terasaface (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is adequate to establish wiki-notability. The profiles mentioned above are sufficiently in-depth, and they are in publications that can be presumed reliable for the purpose. The Jacob Barnett case invoked above is not comparable; there, we had a profusion of low-quality reporting, where the sources looked plentiful but turned out to be uncritical churnalism. (There was also a real concern that perpetuating such uncritical churnalism would be harmful to the subject.) XOR'easter (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really don't think three interviews/profiles meets the hurdle for significance alone - half a mark there. At present these magazine have many other wood workers who have been profiled many times, written books etc have apparently not met the significance for wiki inclusion - just take a look at a few of the other profiles on those woodworking sources for examples. Next, I looked at the additional criteria at WP:AUTHOR for Creative Professionals - her 1 million subscriber count is impressive, but I still don't know that it completely satisfies criteria 1 - half mark there. No one has given evidence to support WP:AUTHOR criterias 2 and 3 yet, no marks. But, she has received Google Play buttons for her large youtube channel, and for that I would give a half mark for criteria 4(c). Overall, that is just enough for me to not say delete, but only barely enough to say keep. pinchies (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above deletes that the coverage on her is not significant, independent, and from multiple sources. Yes, there are several sources, but they are either youtube videos, things she built as described by someone else, or interviews dressed up as articles.Rockphed (talk) 18:43, 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. Consensus of the discussion is that this specific item lacks independent notability to have a standalone article. No prejudice against creating it as a redirect and/or including material about it in the article about McEntire. RL0919 (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sandy Spika dress of Reba McEntire[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Red dress of Reba McEntire at the 1993 Country Music Association Awards

Articles for deletion/Red Sandy Spika dress of Reba McEntire

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

This article is just trivial information that is best suited for both articles listed in the article and its own article. I think this should be deleted for being pointless. Pahiy (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trivial object, yes, but covered in sources as if it isn't. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not sure why, but it seems to have been covered enough to pass GNG. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We aren't obligated to retain articles simply because the subject is covered by other sources.----Pontificalibus 13:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - famous does not mean notable - the WP:ONEEVENT guideline is for people, but I think the principle applies here, a dress notable for one event, no lasting significance or sustained coverage WP:SUSTAINED - therefore, delete - additional: if the dress is signigicant, this article could be Merged with the Reba McEntire article, but it is certainly not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you square your assertion with the sources, pointed out in the first AFD discussion, that were discussing the dress 20 years after the event? Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would note that WP:LASTING asks that an event be "a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" or have "a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance". The two articles presented as lasting coverage in the previous AfD (Rolling Stone and Billboard) say nothing about the impact of the dress on fashion. They are very much of the tone "remember that one event, wasn't it notable" (apparently because the dress was revealing). Where are the fashion magazines and books and fashion designers talking about the influence of the dress on fashion or design? ----Pontificalibus 15:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article makes me question my mental health, mostly because of how long I've spent thinking about it. I don't think the dress has independent notability. I never thought I'd be typing those words, but here we are. Certainly it's been referenced in sources but it does not have sufficient coverage to merit it's own article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Rename to Sandy Spika Borchetta, add line of biography about the designer (who has apparently also red-carpet dressed Taylor Swift). @Pontificalibus, Epinoia, Cosmic Sans, and Uncle G: ? Hyperbolick (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would work even under a different name. I just don't think the dress deserves it's own article. I've also considered how implausible it would be that anyone would ever visit Wikipedia and type in "Red Sandy Spika dress of Reba McEntire." Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually agree with Epinoia on this being properly part of the Reba McEntire biography. But it is important that people read and evaluate all of the sources presented, in the prior AFD discussion, in the article, and now. Uncle G (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It is not the mission of an encyclopedia to follow celebrity trivia. I'm pretty much with Pontificalibus on this one; none of the presented sources have any discussion or analysis that could in any way pass for factual information from which an encyclopaedia article could be built. It boils down to this woman once wore a red dress at an event. Has anything been written about this outside the WP:ONEEVENT of the context of the awards ceremony? No. Then it doesn't belong. SpinningSpark 22:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reba McEntire ¶ Two of the sources in the article are about the garment, specifically, and I suspect there might be a few more. The others only mention the dress, though. As it stands, this doesn't warrant an entire article on its own, but can easily be dropped into the wearer's article appropriately. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would this fit into the Reba McEntire article? It certainly wouldn't be appropriate in the "musical career" or "acting career" sections...what would you say and in what context? ----Pontificalibus 06:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ephemeral/one event. Possibly merge to Reba McEntire. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fashion cruft. Good sourcing is necessary, but not sufficient, to justify an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 4 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 17:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamko[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Third-party references stem from local press coverage that is WP:SPIP and/or WP:ROUTINE. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, Wikipedia is WP:NOTYELLOW. Yogiile (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Yogiile (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Yogiile (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (They employ close to 600 people just within the Joplin area) reads non-neutrally and stretches the lack of in-depth coverage outside Joplin subjectively.Burroughs'10 (talk) 05:10, 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 17:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Chachas[edit]

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

Clear vanity article that lacks reliable sources containing WP:SIGCOV about the subject. Fails WP:GNG, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPLUG. Yogiile (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Yogiile (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Yogiile (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Szzuk (talk) 15:48, 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. It seems like some people are working under a misconception of how Wikipedia establishes notability. It is usually not so much important what a subject has written, but what others have written about the subject (c.f WP:GNG), and based on the discussion here there is very little of the latter. Plus, with some of the sources there is a question of reliability and independence that have not been addressed; not all radio stations are reliable and things authored by an article subject are not evidence of notability.

Incidentally, I am pretty certain that WP:BLPCOI is primarily about people editing biographies of people they are in dispute with, not simply a matter of "knowing" a biography subject, and while often ill-advised it is often appropriate to extend a certain courtesy to article subjects editing their own articles per WP:BLPKIND. Finally, stop speculating on the motives of editors who nominated the article for deletion, thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Stead[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfD - The article is highly autobiographical as per WP:AUTOBIO and has signs of WP:NOR due to the absence of third party sources. Even the photograph of the subject is a self portrait, which the article creator User:NeilA1978 claims he created, which is highly unlikely unless 'Neil' is Marcus himself. I believe that the subject was responsible for recreating this article after its earlier deletion.
It lacks WP:NPOV due to reference to a number of personal facts about the individual which are unverified, and the entire article has instances of unverifiability WP:VERIFY due to reliance on sources written by the subject. I have searched for additional sources but there are none I can see that verify much of the unreferenced information, and what little is out there was written by the subject or by organisations he is linked with, likely also self authored.
The IP edits indicate that the subject is actively editing this article himself and the article was previously deleted in 2008 due to the same concerns about self editing, which probably indicates that much of the current article is self written.
The subject is not sufficiently notable as per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:GNG and his career is not publicly notable, aside from work for low listenership radio stations, minor podcasts, and expressing views on current affairs. Fundamentally, the reasons for deletion of the 2008 article have not been at all resolved in this recreated article, it’s contents remain unremarkable Llemiles (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Llemiles (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Llemiles (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment – Please be aware as above that Wikipedia deletion pages are not a ballot, and despite the number of comments below from duplicate IP users and accounts with few or no previous edits on Wikipedia, the merits for deletion will be judged on the basis of the discussion, not the tally of Delete or Keep votes. Thank you.
Delete as the subject is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have to make enforcement against autobios an ironclad situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think that this article from The Independent is adequate to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I first became aware of Marcus Stead in the early 2000s when he was on the Youth Committee of a National Political Party from whence he rose to management of the Party with executive authority for the Welsh Regional, which returned 4 MEPs to the EU Parliament, 40 MPs to Westminster and 60 members to the Regional Assembly. since which time he has written at least 3 separate authoritative biographies of well-known sporting personalities, which have had regular updates and have remained in print for at least 12 years. Stead is an extensively published freelance journalist with polemics on sport and other issues and several obituary articles for both broadsheets and red tops both nationally and in Welsh parochial papers. Stead is often used by minority media such as a stint as a sports pundit and commentator on BBC and other stations and has had regular slots on such outlets as LBC, Talk Radio, Radio Sputnik and the like. Stead writes authoritatively and factually on numerous subjects, many articles have appeared on the internet both factual and opinion on various other organisation's and individual's sites. A mark of the caliber of his writing and factual accuracy can be found at [26] - a lengthy polemic with extensive links and provenance presenting the history of Wales and the Welsh language and the divisive and damaging nature of Nationalism and the racist policy cloaked by the compulsory teaching of Welsh the minority language of at best 10% of the population which seemingly acts to damage the career path and wellbeing of the 90% majority in Wales. That Stead has increasingly become a figure of note is indisputable as evidenced by the largely foul-mouthed minority cult who seek to bully and abuse him on social media and try to make mischief for him in a criminal manner currently under investigation by the British Police!
'per exempio':
User: Cullen 328 selects as an example advocating Deletion a single Tweet entry by Stead which gave rise to this article from the failed The Independent, which no longer has a print presence but numerous other mainstream print National press republished and extensively commented on his viewpoint as did numerous broadcasters.
If Wikipedia aims to only publish listings on people who pander to populism with flattery and inaccuracy you will, of course, wish to delete Stead's presence - However, if Wikipedia is to maintain its value as a reference source the verdict will be Keep however large the cult/mob seeking to silence the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.200.160 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC) — 165.120.200.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 165.120.200.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment – IP editor, you have failed to bring forward any links to independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Stead and his life and work. Journalists do not gain notability on Wikipedia by getting lots of articles they wrote published. Notable journalists are the subject of significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Being on a Youth Committee or in Party management is not notable
  The 3 biographies are not considered objectively authoratitive. They have not been reported in any third party publications, and instead this article heavily relies on Marcus' Amazon seller page for credibility
  Marcus has not been discussed or covered in any major publications that are referenced in this article, other than the Guardian obituaries column. Not notable.
  Your final point relies on the "damaging nature of Nationalism" and the "compulsory teaching of Welsh" among other theories. These are not evidence of why he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Having an opinion does not make you notable.
  I am concerned that you share the same IP 165.120.200.160 with the below user who expressed distinctly similar views to your own. This intervention may indicate further self editing or astroturfing by the subject or those with a conflict of interest with him. Llemiles (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per Cullen. Article requires more coverage in independent third-party sources -- which it does not have. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Do you deliberately overlook authorship of 3 separate books still in print, participation in and a leadership role in a political party, regular commentaries on radio, a long term involvement in snooker where he is the main pillar of a monthly snooker magazine, instances of commentary in Britain & overseas of international sports events. That you have failed to trace but a fraction of Stead's output is no measure of his achievements the failure hardly justifies clamoring for deletion of his entry. As none of the Stead entry seems to have been by his authorship, understandably external links may be limited - I for one am not inclined to work for Wikipedia tracing the accuracy of their facts and providing sources and links. I for one have a life and do not see myself nitpicking over the copious examples of inaccuracy to be found in Wikipedia - I rarely use it as a source due to its inaccuracies as a result of individuals and organisations not infrequently altering postings on a commercial basis and for gain rather than in consideration of veracity. We are all well aware of the $/£Bns spent by politicians, their parties and lobby groups placing false news and spin on their own entries and those of others. There is no doubt that Stead has been an outspoken and well publicised journalist and commentator and in his field is clearly an authority with a career expectation of at least another 30 years ahead of him as an author and commentator. I have met him once many years ago when a witness to a Court caseand was sufficiently impressed with his knowledge and abilities to follow his career ever since. I would strongly advovate, minded of his achievements to date, that Wikipedia Keep his entry and whatch it grow over the years ahead and perhaps a competent researcher will opt to infill the gaps you have on this page pointed out, one with time and ability to spare! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.200.160 (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC) — 165.120.200.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment – You confirm you know Marcus. That is a violation of WP:BLPCOI and you should not be making any edits to the article. Having books in publication is not uncommon or notable. They lack any coverage in third party media aside from Marcus' Amazon seller page which is unreliable
  His political, radio, and snooker hobbies are not sufficiently notable. Again, there is complete absence of third party coverage of these.
  Absence of referencing was the cause of deletion in 2008 and it is very concerning that an IP account with snooker edits (curious that) created the article again with no new third party referencing of note.
  165.120.200.160 - you refer to "working" for Wikipedia. We are all volunteers. The result is that the quality of Wikipedia must be vigilantly maintained, and articles which do not meet verifiability and notability rules must be removed. I am sure this article can be revisited once third party sources discuss Marcus for more notable activities, should he do so.
  I am concerned that you share the same IP 165.120.200.160 with the above user who expressed distinctly similar views to your own. This intervention may indicate further self editing or astroturfing by the subject or those with a conflict of interest with him. Llemiles (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Marcus Stead has a sizeable media presence as a journalist. The Wikipedia page could do with improving in some ways but it's worth keeping. Stead has experienced a considerable amount of abuse on social media from Welsh nationalist campaigners in recent weeks and it seems likely the individual who started this discussion page seeking deletion is linked to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.129.106 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC) — 5.148.129.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment – Please sign your comments with your details in future. I again note you are an IP user with less than a dozen edits, which raises issues with your trustworthiness. As for your accusations against myself and other users here, they are completely baseless and you should remove it. I have no history or connection with Marcus and have never followed or observed his commentaries. It is for that reason that I nominated the article for deletion - he is not sufficiently notable, and appears to have created this page for self publicity and advertising. Llemiles (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First of all, I should make it clear that I am NOT Marcus Stead. He is a former colleague of mine who I worked with during the early part of this decade. We meet up from time to time, usually when I visit the Cardiff area. I think there is enough distance between us to fulfil Wikipedia's criteria. I created a Wikipedia page in his name because he has a substantial and growing presence in the UK media.
Secondly, and as others have said, I believe this attempt to get this Wikipedia page deleted came about maliciously. The discussion on deletion was launched within an hour of a group of Welsh nationalists discussing his Wikipedia page on Twitter. The person who started this discussion had edited many Wikipedia articles before this point, but they were all related to his/her interest in railways. It seems very odd indeed that he/she should start a deletion discussion on Marcus Stead within an hour of a group of Welsh nationalist campaigners debating it on Twitter.
Thirdly, I have edited just ONE snooker page in my life. That was for a Cardiff-based professional player who I know personally. Millions of people in Britain and around the world enjoy snooker, so to imply that this means I am either Marcus or working for him is absurd.
Fourthly, Marcus certainly does work in snooker journalism. His work has appeared in every edition of Snooker Scene magazine since June 2011. The magazine can easily be obtained from larger newsagents or via the magazine's app. He has also covered the sport for radio and has commentated on online tournaments.
I have added additional sources as the founder of this discussion page requested. I was not aware that including links to Amazon pages went against Wikipedia rules, and can still find no evidence that this is the case. However, I have provided alternative links. It was also the case that the founder of this discussion put 'citation needed' notices on to an excessive extent, often for points that were clarified and linked to further down the page.

In conclusion, I see no grounds at all for deleting this page, as the subject is significantly well-known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilA1978 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment – I agree with those who've said that this discussion has come about as a result of abuse Marcus Stead has received from Welsh nationalists on social media. I don't know much about his work in sport as it's not my scene, but I frequently listen to him discussing political matters on the radio (including international radio) and have read his political work in various publications. There is no cause for removing Marcus's Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASKHW77 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – What all of these inexperienced "keep" voters have failed to do is bring forth links to any significant coverage of Stead in reliable, independent sources. Such sources are an absolute requirement for keeping a Wikipedia biography. So, yes there is cause for deletion: the lack of acceptable references to significant coverage of Stead in reliable independent sources, whether in the article, or in this deletion debate. Disagree with deletion? Furnish the sources and the article will be kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – His Wikipedia page includes links to Radio Sputnik, a radio station with bases across the world, and has a global audience. The Guardian is one of Britain's best-known newspapers. WH Smith is probably Britain's best-known newsagents. These are reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilA1978 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - NeilA1978, you confirm you know Marcus. That is a violation of WP:BLPCOI and you should not be making any edits to the article nor to the snooker article you describe, of an individual you know. You appear to have a conflict of interest, and my concern is that you may even be Marcus himself, based on the image you have uploaded.
  Wikipedia has worked closely with the Chartered Institute of Public Relations and they have produced guidance which is informative for individuals who are concerned about their information on Wikipedia, and how it is presented.
  Marcus has not followed their guidance, which is for one to create a named account (e.g. 'Marcus Stead') to discuss the article in the talk page and refrain from actual edits. Marcus has frequently tweeted about this Wikipedia page in recent weeks, however, so he is interested in how this deletion goes.
  This says a lot, if he is not engaging directly and openly with this page. It raises, in my mind, the question of whether he is linked to a number of highly unusual edits to this page and the article, from duplicate IPs with no previous history of Wikipedia editing. These are all serious red flags associated with an individual editing their own page.
  My edits are not limited to the railways, but I would love to know how you feel I am connected to Welsh nationalism. I often find those interested in the railways come from all political pursuasions, and none.
  None of the work you describe has answered the question - why is it notable? These are fringe radio stations and papers with low readership. The Guardian obituaries column included. Citation needed tags can be removed when you feel there is a citation. I look forward to you improving the page through use of reliable impartial third party sources.Llemiles (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This discussion is starting to get very silly. Yes, I 'know' Marcus, but I don't have any great vested interest in him. He is a former colleague of mine who I see from time to time when we visit our respective areas. I have also spent time around Prince Harry and 'know' the Secretary of State for Wales, Alun Cairns to talk to. Does this mean I shouldn't edit their Wikipedia pages if I consider it appropriate to do so? I follow Marcus on Twitter and can't see a single reference to his Wikipedia page so your claim that he 'frequently tweeted about his Wikipedia page' is blatantly untrue. To my knowledge, he doesn't edit on Wikipedia at all. You refer to Radio Sputnik as a 'fringe radio station'. It is a global radio station that employs well-known public figures including George Galloway and Jon Gaunt. The Guardian is a widely-read British newspaper that has existed since 1821 and today has a circulation of more than 134,000. The timing of your quest to get this page deleted coincided with Welsh nationalists tweeting about the page, which suggests dark forces are at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilA1978 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've been aware of Marcus's work as a journalist for some years. Some of his work is certainly controversial but he has enough of a public presence to merit a Wikipedia page. I note that further links have been added to verify information recently, but for some reason the links to his work on Talk Podcasts has been removed - I see no reason for this. As others have said, it seems a bit of a coincidence that this discussion about deletion came about at a time when he was receiving unpleasant messages from Welsh nationalists on social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A028:9D00:6482:888F:84E0:6614 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – "Public presence" does not make someone eligible for a Wikipedia article. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is required. Please point out that coverage. As for Welsh nationalists, I live in California, have no known Welsh ancestry, and am not active on Twitter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I refer you to my earlier comment. His Wikipedia page includes links to Radio Sputnik, a radio station with bases across the world, and has a global audience. The Guardian is one of Britain's best-known newspapers. WH Smith is probably Britain's best-known newsagents. These are reputable sources. With all due respect, since you are in California, you may not be aware of these brands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilA1978 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Hello 2A02:C7F:A028:9D00:6482:888F:84E0:6614. I'm curious, you have no previous edits on Wikipedia. Was there anything in particular that motivated you to come and contribute to this discussion? I removed the Talk Podcasts links as, much like the links to Marcus' Amazon seller page, they are unnotable and had the appearance of self advertising a product rather than offering a third party, verifiable, and independent discussion on his notability. If you feel there is content to be added to the article from major sources discussing Marcus, please add them. The purpose of this deletion discussion is the fact I could not find any major outlets discussing Marcus as a notable person. Llemiles (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I agree with those who've said that this discussion has come about as a result of abuse Marcus Stead has received from Welsh nationalists on social media. I don't know much about his work in sport as it's not my scene, but I frequently listen to him discussing political matters on the radio (including international radio) and have read his political work in various publications. There is no cause for removing Marcus's Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron von Greenback (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Hello Baron von Greenback. I'm curious, you have no previous edits on Wikipedia. I can assure you, there have been no established links between Delete voters on this page and Welsh nationalism. If you see any, please do bring it to our attention. I would contend that you are wrong, as Marcus is not discussed on major radio stations and has few and far between third party, verifiable, and independent details available on any major websites. I would be surprised if he is an individual who is frequently accessible to international radio listeners as there is no evidence for this in the article or online, other than the fringe radio station Radio Sputnik (a station of debatable impartiality itself). If you feel there is content to be added to the article from major sources discussing Marcus, please add them. The purpose of this deletion discussion is the fact I could not find any major outlets discussing Marcus as a notable person. Llemiles (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I live in Canada and have been following Marcus Stead's political writing and broadcasting for some time. He is a reputable journalist with a public profile. The links on his Wikipedia page are all to recognised outlets. I don't see any case for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASKHW77 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Hello ASKHW77. I'm curious, you have no previous edits on Wikipedia. Marcus does not appear on major websites, his books have not been discussed or reviewed in major papers, and he does not have a major profile as a journalist aside from writing in the Guardian obituaries column (a low profile role with low readership). This is why the article is nominated for deletion. If you feel there is content to be added to the article from major sources discussing Marcus, please add them. The purpose of this deletion discussion is the fact I could not find any major outlets discussing Marcus as a notable person. Llemiles (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To repeat what I said above, The Guardian does NOT have a low readership. It is Britain's best-known liberal/left formerly 'broadsheet' newspaper, has existed since 1821, and has a circulation of more than 124,000. Marcus has written both property features and obituaries for The Guardian.
- Comment Are obituary writers now the standard for notability on Wikipedia, or having one article in a paper once? I was on television once. Perhaps I should have a wikipedia page. Llemiles (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the sources listed, all are self published. Even the one from The Guardian looks like it was written by Marcus Stead (I admit I didn't read the entire thing, but when it started with a picture of Marcus and proceeded to be in first person, I determined it was not reliable). Rockphed (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There seems to be no picture pertinent to The Guardian link - I don't understand the seemingly biased efforts to delete, which read akin to a vendetta, could it be, since at least one campaigner against Marcus Stead lives in Newport with a penchant for train spotting that you could well be actively campaigning due to views widely published by Marcus Stead - in view of the fact that the efforts to remove Stead have apparently been orchestrated subsequent to conversation in public media in the hour prior on Social Media, if for no other reason, I believe, to show itself unwilling to pander to bullying 'Wikipedia should Keep Marcus Stead
- Comment The Guardian link on the Wikipedia page links to Stead's work from The Guardian, but that's the point - it shows he has worked for them as both an obituaries writer and for property features.

- Keep I see no reason at all to delete Stead's Wikipedia page. It consists of a fair and accurate outline of who he is, backed up by reputable sources. That should really be the end of the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.21 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I believe those who sought to vituperatively orchestrate a campaign against Marcus Stead have been their own worst enemy - showing just how consequential Marcus Stead is which alone shows why 'Wikipedia should Keep Stead

I note a supporter of delete has resorted to the dishonest ruse of seeking to repeatedly imply Marcus Stead has written his own entry which is clearly without substantiation of substance. An implication he/she or it has repeated in one form or another about other individuals who have advocated Keep such as myself even seeking to belittle my comments to Keep because I have not obfuscated my identity by using various ISP numbers, which is an easy achievement but using the ISP my WiFi has selected, I am belittled for being insignificantly interested in being an anorak signed in to nit-pick over articles on Wikipedia as a job working for Wikipedia, be that for income or otherwise! Keep is clearly my view as Marcus Stead is far more widely published and publicised than many other entries many of which may well be self-authored, and frequently edited by staff and supportive vested interests, in a manner this entry clearly has not been, despite the desperate and dishonest efforts of some campaigning for deletion, campaigners who have gone so far as to orchestrate implications Marcus Stead has both lied and promoted himself, of which I see no compelling evidence. Minded of the facts I and others have independently posted and the dishonesty of some who have orchestrated a campaign against him I contend that Wikipedia should Keep the entry and remove the spurious claims for repetitive provenance of citations that have been and are clearly verifiable.

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

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

The result was merge to Lake Ashi. Tone 17:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moto-Hakone Port[edit]

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

Weak sourcing with little notability. Article contains more about the bus services, which hold little notability Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 10:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article and Hakone-Machi Port to Lake Ashi. That article can mention that the sightseeing cruise on the lake stops at these piers but they are not notable individually. Reywas92^Talk 17:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. Bookscale (talk) 11:00, 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. Tone 17:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grow Business Intelligence[edit]

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

no evidence of notability for this very small companuy. The refs are either just about funding, or trivial PR DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete few non-press releases pull up from searches and those lack any information not repurposed from press releases, let alone clear WP:ADPROMO.Burroughs'10 (talk) 05:19, 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. Haukur (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don Jeffcoat[edit]

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

Only sourced to Filmreference, a blog. Does not meet WP:NACTOR -- Deep fried okra 09:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, fails WP:NACTOR. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of WP:GNG qualification. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources in the article aren’t adequate for a WP:BLP and my searches aren’t finding anything better. He seems to be an ordinary actor who just isn’t notable enough. Neiltonks (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undoubtedly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable as a martial artist or actor. He also fails to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 21:20, 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anisur Rahman Zico[edit]

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

Anisur Rahman Zico fails WP:NFOOTY as the Bangladesh Premier League is not a professional league and he hasn't played in an international as of yet. HawkAussie (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 08:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- He was goalkeeper for the national squad in a joint pre-qualification round for the FIFA World Cup 2022 against Cambodia in 2019, playing two matches against Laos in Dhaka and Vientiane. Source 1 and 2. The subject meets GNG, almost borderline, but there is enough converage and mentions in reliable sources to pass GNG guidelines. If the result is delete, I request the closing admin to consider moving to draft space. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence he has played in an international match, for example not listed here. Giant Snowman 10:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – only finding routine game reports and roster moves; nothing in-depth enough to satisfy GNG. – Levivich 15:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Semi-professional footballer who hasn't played in a FIFA "Tier 1" international match (according to Soccerway he only made the substitute's bench). There is some online coverage (e.g., [27], [28]) which borders on passing the GNG, but I don't think it's quite enough. Jogurney (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Semi-professional footballer who hasn't played in a FIFA. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draftly. He hasn't played in an international match, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Since he is not a member of Bangladesh's national teams list, fail WP:GNG. in the future when he pass WP:NFOOTBALL, can be created.--Nahal^(T) 08:36, 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. Whilst there are some AfDs where players have been kept because they are young and starting out a career in an FPL and have made a hanndful of appearances, this player is much different. He played once, very briefly some years ago and is now at a level far below that which WP:NFOOTY would consider notable. Whether he passes NFOOTY or not is irrelevant when the challenge is that he fails GNG. None of the keep votes in this discussion deal with that. He is unlikely to suddenly become more notable in the near future and the article can always be restored should he play at a significantly higher level later in his career. Fenix down (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dobrica Tegeltija[edit]

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

He fails WP:GNG as he only played three entire minutes as a substitute in the 2016-17 season which probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy the criteria. HawkAussie (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:17, 27 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) 06:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NFOOTY passed recently, career still ongoing. Similar AfDs include: AfD/Mats van Kins, AfD/Sean Karani and AfD/Danish Irfan Azman. Quick search found this: [29], could be more out there in Cyrillic. R96Skinner (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY note the subject is only 18 years and is currently playing .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTBALL based on his youth and ongoing career. Giant Snowman 07:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – round 37 or so of this debate – according to Soccerway, this player played for 3 minutes two years ago, having been subbed in the 87th minute of a 3–1 win, has no senior appearances since, and now plays in a 4th-tier non-FPL league. A technical NFOOTY pass due to the 3 minutes two years ago, but there is no reason to think that he is going to get any more NFOOTY-qualifying games anytime soon. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, WP:TOOSOON, etc. In addition, it's a total GNG fail, whether searching for "Dobrica Tegeltija" or "Добрица Тегелтија", in Serbian [30] [31], Bosnian [32] [33], or Spanish [34], all I see is brief mentions, routine game reports, etc. This isn't a poor-access-to-sources situation; it's easy to find coverage, just not in-depth coverage. This young player is not notable, and three minutes of play two years ago is no reason to keep a stand-alone article. The "young and playing" exception–which I disagree with and think is contrary to policy anyway–shouldn't apply here because he's not playing in an FPL-listed league. – Levivich 15:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In short: you disagree with the exception rule that is used. That's absolutely fine, but an individual AfD isn't the place to discuss your grievances with current consensus - as noted at AfD/Atantaake Tooma. R96Skinner (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In short: delete, fails GNG. – Levivich 05:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who made a single substitute's appearance (due to an injury crisis) in a fully-pro league. He is no longer with a professional club, and the online coverage in English, Bosnian and Serbian language sources is very thin. I added a Dnevnik article to the article which was the most in-depth coverage I could find, and I believe it is far below the GNG threshold. It's possible things will change, but for now it's much WP:TOOSOON for this article. Jogurney (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to add that there are plenty of AfDs which reach the conclusion that a handful of minutes of play in a fully-pro league is not enough to satisfy NFOOTBALL when the article massively fails the GNG - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristian Gorgerino is a recent one that is on point. Jogurney (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, but Gorgerino (and Mngadi, a similar example) both disappeared upon leaving their FPL club. This player left a matter of months ago, and plays for a new club. The same logic for the 'exception rule' applies here - otherwise you get a messy create/delete loop - if he returns to FPL in January: create, but then leaves next June: delete. TOOSOON? Maybe, but then you'd have to use that for players still in an FPL club - therefore ignoring the consensus of the original exception. R96Skinner (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking at the AfDs mentioned above, Sean Karani has made 16 appearances and Danish Irfan Azman has made 32 appearances in leagues included at WP:FPL. Those two don't really stand for the point you're trying to make as they didn't play a nominal amount (and both are still playing in those FPLs). Only Mats van Kins could (with his single substitute's appearance in a FPL) stand for it, and at least he's still under contract at a club in a fully-pro league - Dobrica Tegeltija is not. By any reasonable analysis, Tegeltija has ended his professional career (not unlike Cristan Gorgerino) by joining an amateur club playing in the Austrian regional leagues. Jogurney (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Németh also goes against the "young and playing" exception (he's only 23). I believe the "young and playing" exception so to speak is limited to footballers actually contacted to a club in a FPL (even perhaps those on loan to semi-pro or amateur clubs), and not to footballers who no longer are contracted to such a club. Jogurney (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Impressive deflection from my point(s), which you haven't adressed. AfD/Sean Karani supports the fact NFOOTY pass/ongoing career is enough, hence why it was kept when the sourcing was questioned. The exception rule is regarding the player's career, as opposed to any of their FPL clubs, and exists to stop what I mentioned above from happening. R96Skinner (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I was simply trying to describe what I believe consensus has been (in terms of the "young and playing" exception to GNG-compliance). I just noticed Levivich basically said the same thing above, but I've provided links to a couple of AfDs which support the idea. As far as the "messy" loop, I don't think it's a problem at all. We can easily re-create articles - it happens frequently when new players are drafted and haven't played; someone creates an article TOOSOON, it is deleted, and the work can be restored when and if they actually start playing (and there are sources to justify more than a sub-stub). If for some reason, Tegeltija signs another professional contract in a few years, we have the tools to restore this article (not that there's much to it to be honest). Jogurney (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course, the issues with deletion weren't exactly a problem I was claiming. More so it's illogical to delete, create, delete, create when the whole point of Wikipedia is for the reader to be able to read an article, if it disappears here-and-there then what's the point? Similar reasoning exists for WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. emphasis on 'similar' - I'm obviously not claiming NINT exists for this AfD. Admittedly I'm happy to discuss this with you, as I trust where you're coming from, but I can see we aren't going to change each other's beliefs here. Happy editing! R96Skinner (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Levivich and Jogurney, whose reasons are overwhelmingly strong and which I am happy to adopt as my own.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, users Levivich and Jogurney made compelling arguments.Knox490 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Serbian-language article has a few decent sources, and his young career is ongoing in spite of playing in one league below a FPL - expect this to be unfortunately deleted, but mostly voting to make sure there's no prejudice on creating a better article if one can be written. SportingFlyer T·C 21:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its a young player that already made its pro debut. FkpCascais (talk) 21:20, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre L. Conte[edit]

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

Not notable outside of his company, lacks in-depth news references, no major WP:RS. Meeanaya (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Chen[edit]

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

Non notable outside of his company, promotional content, lacks WP:RS and fails WP:GNG. I am not sure what he is notable for. Wikipedia is not a linkedin for organisation's CEO and executives. Meeanaya (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hi@Meeanaya: just as I (unfortunately) had to explain recently, this was much more a case of being new and hyper-motivated, than it was conscious corporate spam or promotion. By now I absolutely agree: doesn't meet GNG--Ruhri Jörg 14:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete laughably bad spam. Retail expert would be the claim to fame, however searches display nothing to meet WP:GNG.Burroughs'10 (talk) 05:28, 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. Haukur (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Cercone[edit]

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

Lacks WP:RS and fails WP:GNG. Nothing significant found for him. Meeanaya (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:DIRECTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:52, 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 redirect to Blockchain.com. Tone 17:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Cary[edit]

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

Non notable outside of his company, promotional content, lacks WP:RS and fails WP:GNG. Most of the news is about the funding his company has raised and not what he is notable for. Wikipedia is not a linkedin for organisation's CEO and executives. Meeanaya (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If a company article existed I'd say point it there, but without one there's not really anything here to keep - David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is one but it was at the Blockchain.info title which I just renamed. Ҥ (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

aha! Then I suggest Redirect to Blockchain.com per Ҥ :-) - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blockchain.com which is his company. Ҥ (talk) 10:23, 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. Tone 17:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tacy M. Byham[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a linkedin for organisation's CEO and executives. Non notable outside of her company, promotional content, lacks WP:RS and fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mktg fluff. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:16, 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 17:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Jenkins[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, most of the sources are primary. Only CIA propaganda has raised some controversy but really there is nothing notable for her. No prestigious academic award, nor she is elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. Meeanaya (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the sources are about brief mentions and really lacks in-depth RS to establish her authority. Meeanaya (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or redirect. Her work on the CIA appears to be notable but should be focused on the book not on her per WP:BIO1E. Beyond that, her publications appear to be only journal papers (well received but not heavily enough cited to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1) and edited volumes (much less strong than well-reviewed books as evidence towards WP:AUTHOR). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a case where the book is more wiki-notable than the author? It sort of has that feel. XOR'easter (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The refs don't support notability of the subject. It could possibly be draftified and turned into an article about the book and sent to AfC. Szzuk (talk) 15:45, 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. Haukur (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Capovilla[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NPOL as a member of the YMCA Youth Parliament. Most likely written by either a friend or the subject himself. GPL93 (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 03:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- Clearly fails WP:NPOL, far away from notability. Meeanaya (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as shameless promotion per WP:SPEEDY #G11. Bookscale (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet elected politcian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles for serving in youth parliaments — NPOL requires people to hold office in real legislatures, not educational mock legislatures that have no actual political power. But nothing else here is a notability claim at all, and the references (a mix of primary sources, "local kid does stuff" human interest pieces in his local newspaper, glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people and purely tangential verification of stray facts about other people which completely fails to mention Capovilla at all in conjunction with them) are not adding up to a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass any SNGs. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect? Hello, I am new at editing and creating pages. I apologise for not meeting the criteria to warrant an individual page. Perhaps instead of straight-up deleting the page, a redirect to the program page may be more appropriate? YMCA NSW Youth Parliament. FYI for above, I'm not the subject or even a friend, I know of him from the program and knew of his achievements and figured he warranted a page. Thanks again for clarifying that there is specific requirements for that. :) --SeaplaneSilly (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To justify a redirect, you would have to demonstrate that he's actually a plausible search term that a significant number of readers are actually likely to expect us to have content about. We don't just automatically redirect every person who exists to a related topic; we need to see actual reasons why a redirect would be warranted. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youth Parliment seems more like a training ground than an actual parliment. Local govt councillors don't get a page, this person is way below even that level. Teraplane (talk) 23:46, 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 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Udaan (company)[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV per WP:CORPDEPTH as most of the references has routine coverage on raised capital and funding. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 03:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search for references found nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Just brief mentions, general announcements, and unreliable sources (a ton of YourStory articles). --CNMall41 (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Cursory mentions.Knox490 (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets minimum notability criteria. Article just needs improvement which isn't a deletion issue. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not that notable and there is a lack of sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Lefcentreright (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:TOOSOON and Userfy. If the company is indeed a unicorn, it should receive coverage with more substance over time.Burroughs'10 (talk) 05:36, 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 delete. Tone 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Alok[edit]

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

Doesn't Seem To have Enough Coverage on Reliable Resources to pass a stand alone article , moreover seems to be a self promoting one Kundaliniwar (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kundaliniwar (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 03:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I went through the GNews and GBooks hits for this guy in my WP:BEFORE, and whilst I see quotations I don't see WP:SIGCOV of the man himself, and as such he fails WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 10:08, 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. czar 01:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Platoon of Power Squadron[edit]

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

Article about a web series, not reliably sourced as notable. The only references here are its own self-published website about itself, its IMDB page, its self-published YouTube channel and its creator's self-published blog, which means that none of them are independent or notability-supporting sources. The notability test for web series is not that their own self-published web presence technically verifies them as having existed -- it is that the web series has been the subject of reliable source coverage about it in real media. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete absolutely no independent sources whatsoever. fails WP:GNG --Dom from Paris (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - catastrophic fail of notability guidelines - Epinoia (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – From a WP:BEFORE search, I found the following sources in seconds. They have some interview content, so it's debatable if there's enough non-interview coverage there to qualify notability from these alone:

"'Platoon of Power Squadron': low-budget superhero web series with big results". Chicago Tribune
"Series Finale Sure to Ensnare Super Fans". Daily North Shore.
"OTL #541: Possible CPD reforms, Navigating Lake Street, The Platoon of Power Squadron series concludes". WGN Radio. (Select "play" on the media player to listen to the content)

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for review of North America's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Craig Benzine#The Platoon of Power Squadron where it's somewhat mentioned and can be expanded a bit. [35] is a really good source, but the other ones aren't WP:SIGCOV to me. Searches of mine led me to same sources and listings. Does not meet WP:GNG because there aren't multiple sources discussing this in detail. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:54, 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 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Fowler[edit]

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

Fails notability reasons and at least one source has been deemed as unusable (Digital Spy) Jamesbuc (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of reliable sources including BBC, Radio Times etc. Also clear WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with featured non-trivial coverage in secondary sources. The article and the references are in need of formatting, not deletion Wm335td (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Im not sure how it meets WP:GNG as none of the sources provide significant content and some of the others are more about or is information based around the Samaritans and not Maria herself. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of 'significant' is far more than is required in the guidelines at WP:GNG and, perhaps more approriately, WP:BASIC. Coverage in numerous national publications, full articles on her, including in the BBC News and the Standard. Boleyn (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Only Way Is Essex, as that is the only thing she is known for - just having a job is not notable - the references are run-of-the-mill for someone who has appeared on TV (WP:MILL) - she hasn't actually done anything notable, no major roles or awards (sorry about her depression and suicide attempt) - no evidence that she meets WP:NACTOR - Epinoia (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs are good, satisfies GNG and BASIC. Szzuk (talk) 15:16, 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 speedy redirect to CTBC Bank#Canadian subsidiary. Page redirected by User:Mrschimpf (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 03:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CTBC Bank (Canada)[edit]

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

This page contains only a single sentence and has no useful information. It appears to be an AfD candidate under Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. Moreover, we could also consider the CSD process under similar grounds. Proposed alternative is to simply merge the single sentence of this article into its parent company article, CTBC Bank, possibly under a Canada-specific section.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment Note, too, that CTBC Bank also includes a Canadian subsidiary section, which essentially already states what this page is stating. Thus, this article could be a candidate for speedy deletion on grounds of being a carbon copy/duplicate. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to CTBC Bank#Canadian subsidiary as a plausible redirect, which the nom could have easily done themselves. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 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. Consensus seems to be that this is a notable topic, albeit one in need of some cleanup. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citibank Canada[edit]

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

This page reads much like an advertisement and contains little, if any, added information. It appears to be an AfD candidate under Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. Moreover, we could also consider the CSD process under similar grounds. Proposed alternative is to simply merge the first two sentences of the article under Citigroup, possibly under a Canada-specific section. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added Comment Note, for example, that the last paragraph is irrelevant and the second last paragraph is outdated with Citibank Canada having sold its CitiFinancial division to private interests and rebranded as Fairstone. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – obviously notable, but agree the article needs some work. However, AfD is not cleanup. – bradv🍁 01:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Brad - Wouldn't it be fair, though, to merge this article into a section of the Citigroup article, thereby deleting this page? Or you saying we could still do that by being bold but that adding a redirect is preferable to deleting the article? Doug Mehus (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Dmehus, no, this is a notable enough topic on its own. It just needs someone to gather some sources and write a better article. – bradv🍁 01:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Bradv, appreciate the reply and clarification, but often in global organizations, I've noticed that Wikipedia will include geographic sections for each of the country's operations. It seems to me that even with writing a better article, we'd still only 3-5 short paragraphs, which doesn't strike me as too long or a Canada-specific section of the Citigroup article. Can you, perhaps, provide some colour on the basis for determining whether to merge an ultra-short stub article into a parent company article or not? Additionally, if this article was to be kept, would you add your voice of support to a move request whereby we rename the article to Citi Canada in accordance with Wikipedia:CommonName? (It's no longer using the name Citibank Canada in a legal or operating sense and Citi's Canadian operations include myriad subsidiaries; thus, Citi Canada from its Canadian division website seems like the best for that.) Doug Mehus (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Dmehus, I have no problem with a rename, but please wait until the AfD concludes. – bradv🍁 01:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Bradv Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Nate, to the second part of my question below, please disregard. Also, to you or Brad, is there an easier/faster way of tagging someone besides manually typing the square brackets and the word User, etc.? Doug Mehus (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD isn't cleanup (and the last paragraph is fine, no problem mentioning its CBA membership and CDIC deposit backing; that's a standard paragraph in most articles), stubs are just fine...and nom, you couldn't have made those corrections to the article yourself? If this is kept, do move to Citi Canada. Nate • (chatter) 01:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Nate No, I'd planned to make those changes, but would've done so under the Canada (or similar) section of Citigroup. Nonetheless, I appreciate your support for moving this article to Citi Canada. Can I tag you and Brad when I flag the post for a move, so as to add your voice of support there? Can I simultaneously tag this article for moving while AfD debate is still ongoing? Let me know, and I'm happy to do it. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I can move it upon close with my move rights, so no need to tag it with that template. Nate • (chatter) 02:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Okay, but what do you mean by move rights? I can move articles as well, but I thought something like that should go through a move discussion, no? So it doesn't get reverted by someone. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You should be able to move it yourself at the close of discussion, then. Move discussions are usually for moves which are likely to be challenged; this likely will go through without any issues since it's a known change in corporate branding (and the former title will be retained as a redirect). Nate • (chatter) 03:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply Okay, thanks, Nate. That makes sense. Plus, we can always link, in the page's Talk page to this discussion on the likely uncontroversial page move request. For clarity, could I also have moved President's Choice Financial to PC Financial fairly uncontroversially, given the policy(ies) I cited? Feel free to comment on Talk:President's Choice Financial if so. Doug Mehus (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 03:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This meets WP:NCORP on its own. Merging it to the Citigroup page would be counterproductive as a section on this would likely be recommended to be split "out" from that page and have its own.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fix this mess then Merge it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:01, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAAMP (band)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the requirements of NBAND, certainly not in terms of the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band has received coverage from NPR, KRCU,Paste and various local publications. They made their debut on the Billboard Emerging Chart this past week. KidAd (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is too soon for now. Give it a little while and maybe sufficient coverage will happen. Appearance on a chart isn’t inherent notability. Especially one that isn’t more prestigious such as the Hot 100, Top 40, Billboard 200, etc. Trillfendi (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they are in the Billboard 200 now and #1 on the Heatseekers Chart so pass criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC, only one criteria needed. They also have coverage such as Paste, Allmusic staff bio here and album review, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NMUSIC. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV coverage in The Kansas City Star [36], CityScene Columbus Magazine [37], Cleveland Scene [38], Tageblatt [39], Gaffa (magazine) [40] along with AllMusic coverage mentioned here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:25, 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. Nomination effectively withdrawn, with no delete proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Execs[edit]

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

This article looks like an attempt to retro-promote a short-lived local band as historically important, even though they received little notice when they were together or since, and only released about eight songs overall. Of the eight sources currently in the article, six are actually about other people and only mention this band in passing. They do have one reliable gig announcement at footnote #3 but that does not get too far beyond the routine. At footnote #8, it is true that one of their songs was mentioned by notable critic Dave Marsh, but he wrote just one sentence about it (see [41]). Otherwise nothing can be found on the band beyond self-created social media, the typical retail/streaming sites, and a few more brief mentions in articles about other people. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking in terms of "retro-promotion" -- I simply found it interesting and significant that this band launched the careers of assorted musical figures who have authorized articles -- it's a useful element of their back story. This article explicitly acknowledges the band's scanty output. If I recall, I've seen some other information about how producers Paul Kolderie and Sean Slade actually learned their craft while in this band. That could be helpful. Rory1262 (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added two citations about how Kolderie and Slade did indeed begin to learn about producing as a direct result of being in the band. Rory1262 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing is eh, not great but not non-existent, more importantly it passes No. 6 of WP:Musicbio, which requires that it be an "ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians." OhioShmyo (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MUSICBIO #6 is the only notability criterion approached by this band, and even that is a bit of a stretch because those members became (apparently) notable long after they were in the band. There is no problem briefly mentioning this band as a historical episode at each guy's personal article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "apparently" qualifier is in order. The members did in fact become notable...and the gap wasn't that long after the Sex Execs became defunct. The main thrust is that this band directly helped notable careers germinate. Rory1262 (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The band also meets another criterion of WP:Musicbio: "has won first, second or third place in a major music competition" -- unless the Boston Rock 'n' Roll Rumble does not qualify. Considering the band they beat (Del Fuegos) and the band that won ('Til Tuesday), and the presence of an entry for the competition, I submit that it does. Rory1262 (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforced the lead to make the point more clearly about the formative production experience for Kolderie and Slade. Rory1262 (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's slim but I think User:OhioShmyo is on-point with it passing WP:MUSICBIO #6. FOARP (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been significant improvements to the article since the AfD began, and notability seems well-established to me. Thanks to OhioShmyo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nominator - If any Admin happens to see this before the time is up on the relisting, the article has been improved since the nomination so I have no objection to keeping it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 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.