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. AFD is not, in any event, the place to quibble over notability guidelines nor to run "test cases" about them. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atantaake Tooma[edit]

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

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

The player fails under criteria three in the player notability tab as Kiribati is not a member of FIFA. I would also like to nominate these articles too as they also fail the same criteria.

• Betaia Ioana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tebwaia Baikawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Naingimea Beiaruru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ruevita Iotin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tokabi Kaiorake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ukenio Kobuti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Palamo Kulene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No FIFA matches per NFT. GiantSnowman 07:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - based on below they appear to meet NFOOTBALL, and international players are given more leeway than club players on GNG, but I still have concerns. GiantSnowman 19:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi GiantSnowman, see this edit on my talk page, where we discussed the eligibility of Tuvaluan players, Fenix down made the following point:

Probably worth making the point that GS seems to have forgotten the recent change to NFOOTY, namely that players who have played for national teams in competitions organised by or sanctioned by continental confederations are now considered notable. This is to level the playing field for sovereign nations that are not members of Fifa. As such, Tuvaluan players who have played in the Pacific games meet NFOOTY, as it is an OFC competition. On the other hand the Falkland islands are neither a nation nor have competed in a competition organised or sanctioned by UEFA so players would not be notable per NFOOTY. Though they could still pass GNG with enough coverage in Falkland islands media.

As you did not dispute this point, I figured that all editions of the Pacific/South Pacific games counted towards WP:NFOOTY. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NFOOTY does not require FIFA membership for international caps to confer notability – it states that a player must had made an appearance in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA. Matches in the football tournament at the Pacific Games are senior confederation-level matches (with the exception of the 2015 edition, which was contested only by U23 teams), and have served as World Cup qualifying tournament for the confederation in the past. Pinging GiantSnowman for reconsideration. Number 57 18:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above, WP:NFOOTY does not need international games to be FIFA approved, so long as it is an 'A' team from both nations. If these pages are removed, then all of these pages will need to be removed too. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all We have allowed way to much inclusion if games do not even have to be FIFA approved to count. This is getting absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and International Players in any sport are not deleted also as per Davidlofgren1996 and Number 57.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. John Pack Lambert expresses my sentiments well. When was the wikipedia community as a whole apprised of this further attempt by a subgroup of football editors to lower the inclusion bar for biographies of living people? And, as for these articles: Where are the sources? Where is teh significant coverage? Who is going to keep these biographies updated? In reliance on what news sources? How will we know when these players retire? How will we know when they die? When keep !voters stop for a moment to consider those questions, the correctness of John Pack Lambert's use of the word "absurd" becomes obvious. Sorry, but no sources = no article. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As noted above. An AfD isn't the appropriate place to discuss your disagreements with Wikipedia's current guidelines. R96Skinner (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is indeed alarming how many participants at this AfD seem to disagree with fundamental Wikipedia policies like ensuring we have properly sourced biographies of living persons.—Mkativerata (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, BLPs whose only sources are primary (e.g., statistics databases) should be eligible for WP:BLPPROD. – Levivich 17:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all – let's assume they meet NFOOTY; the presumption of notability is rebutted by the total lack of sourcing. When I searched for "<player name>" -wikipedia -transfermarkt, none of these players yield more than three pages of results–most just one or two pages. I could not find a single secondary source on any of them–just statistics and directories. None of the articles seems to have a secondary source listed as a reference, either; they're all sourced to primary sources like statistics websites. All that these articles say is that these players played on the national team in 2003. It's the only information available about these players. That information can be listed at Kiribati national football team. With no secondary sources, we cannot have stand-alone articles, especially BLPs. These articles run counter to the consensus documented in our core policies like WP:NOR (Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ...), WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:BLP (Avoid misuse of primary sources) as well as our guidelines WP:N and WP:RS. If someone finds sourcing, these articles can always be recreated. – Levivich 17:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Each player has played multiple times for their country. This is different from ″one sub appearance in an FPL″ type AFD's. Dougal18 (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Really WP:NFOOTY isn't clear on that as stated 7.2 on the FIFA guidelines. All tier 1 International Matches must be authorised by FIFA and the Confederation(s) and Members concerned. A summary of the authorisations required for tier 1 International Matches is set forth in Appendix A. That key word being "and" as just because it's part of the OFC does not mean it authorized by FIFA and with the Kiribati team not part of FIFA as they would go probably under tier 2 not tier 1. HawkAussie (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - All this talk of tier 1 matches is completely irrelevant, NFOOTY is quite clear that players are presumed notable when they have played a full international organised at confederation level. The 2003 Pacific games football tournament was an official OFC tournament as RSSSF clearly states. These are all players who have played at the highest possible level for their country and, as has been stated above, this is far removed from the "one fpl appearance" type players. This sort of player is exactly what nfooty was created for, where players may not be covered in online media but probably have received coverage in offline I-Kiribati media. I'd like to hear from thos who voted delete what efforts editors went to to establish a lack of coverage in offline sources. Fenix down (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we’re playing onus-shifting, I’d like to hear from the keep !voters how they’re going to ensure these BLPs are kept up to date and accurate.—Mkativerata (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What onus shifting? Google isn't the only source of information. If delete voters have only used google to reach their conclusions then that weakens their arguments by definition. It's perfectly reasonable to ask people what other checks they have done. Your point is ultimately irrelevant; please see WP:OUTDATED and the fact that these are players who's career is now finished at international level. Fenix down (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before I book my plane tickets to Kiribati, can you give me an example of a footballer who is notable but has no Google hits? – Levivich 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Sydney Thompson (footballer), Peter Turbitt, to name two. There are quite a few pages created by reputable Wiki members, actually. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With those examples, they was backed up by a book source, that same area of getting that source might not be able to be applied to these players that have been nominated. HawkAussie (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David, Yeah but both of those are sourced to Bradford City: A Complete Record 1903-1988, and that's the only non-statistics source. If it's a "complete" record, inclusion doesn't really suggest notability. Are there any players who played in the 21st century who are the subject of multiple offline GNG sourcing, but no online GNG sourcing? I doubt it because the internet is ubiquitous. Anyway, if such sources are found, let the article be written then. How do we comply with WP:V if we have no sources? – Levivich 01:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please even players who have played just one domestic cricket match and have just one stat site asa source and retired hence permanent GNG failures were kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Sandanayake and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CE Holkar as noted by the closers .We need a RFC for this.No point of raising here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:30, 7 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Connor[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICIAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete - as nom says, no sign that any of her roles would count as significant as per NACTOR, and she'd need 2 to qualify. NMUSICIAN likewise. No single redirect target that seems particularly appropriate. Thus pure delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No real RS (almost every one of the numerous refs is IMDB). Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Black–Derman–Toy model. czar 02:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Toy[edit]

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

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MergeRedirect to Black–Derman–Toy model: While one might wonder what in the blazes a "leading finance practitioner" is (I do the household banking, does that make me one?), there's an easy redirect target here. Ravenswing 23:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Ravenswing: I have left a comment at Talk:Black–Derman–Toy model pointing editors there to this merge proposal, as I believe should be a required part of the process whenever a merge is proposed in an AfD. To do otherwise risks a conflicting outcome where the consensus here is to merge and the consensus among regular editors of that article is that the biographical material about Toy does not belong in that article and should not be merged, leading them to undo the merge and jeopardizing the result of the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, no merge. There's a little non-trivial personal coverage of him in Derman's My Life as a Quant but not enough by itself for general notability. All the rest of the coverage that I can find of him merely mentions his name as one of the creators of the Black–Derman–Toy model, a significant accomplishment but only one thing. His academic citation record shows huge citations for that one thing but not much else, and his co-editorship of The Handbook of Equity Derivatives isn't enough for notability as a book author. No merge because the other information about him in this article isn't relevant for the redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 2 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 02:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Stella[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Candidacy in an election or primary is not sufficient, and neither is the press comment surrounding QAnon/shoplifting by itself (per WP:1E etc). Endymion.12 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Endymion.12 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. I, as the creator of the article feel that she is worthy of being on Wikipedia due to the coverage she has received in multiple notable, reputable channels of media. She is a candidate for an important political position, that of the representation of Minnesota's 5th congressional district, which has been made more so newsworthy by the rise of Ilhan Omar. While I recognize that Stella's public prominence may have flash-in-the-pan qualities, I believe based on her political aspirations and media treatment render her notable, and that the coverage and public interest in her is likely to continue. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is unfortunate, but appears increasingly that the consensus disagrees with my analysis on the page. I feel it was worth a shot to create the page, because Wikipedia can always use with more BLPs of women, but I also anticipate that I did not study WP:NPOL well enough. As well, this is only my second created political article, and I have no present plans on continuing to make further political articles. (I specialize in music-related fare here). I am aware, at least, that, say, a mayor of a small, anonymous rural town would not make the cut on Wikipedia, unless if they have another reason to be Wiki-notable. Therefore, I'm okay with whatever decision comes about. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate, not enough non-campaign coverage to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won — people need to win the election and thereby hold office to pass WP:NPOL, and otherwise they have to already have had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article on those other grounds anyway. The coverage shown is not enough to get her over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL, either — it just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has passed the ten year test for enduring significance. It is not our job to keep an article about every single person who happens to show up in the current news cycle — we're writing the long view of history here, not the five-minute view of current newsiness, so GNG does not just count up the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses a certain arbitrary number, but rather it also tests for the context of what the person is getting coverage for. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if she wins, but nothing here adds up to a reason why she would already qualify to keep an article today. Also, sourcing anything to Facebook or Twitter is always a hard no. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota - a fairly conventional example of a candidate not meeting NPOL, we get hoards each year. I don't know whether if there had been piles of coverage specifically on the QAnon aspect that might have acted as a route for, but at this point I'm not inclined to view it as different to a candidate getting lots of coverage for a firm pro/anti abortion stance, despite its oddness. I would ask the other !voters to go for redirect to her election, as is logical. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the recreation of a redirect to the election article afterward — but I still believe that the article should be deleted first and then have a redirect created from the redlink, because I see no value in retaining the article's edit history behind a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind either way, but could be helpful if she does win the election. However, a provisional REFUND for post 2020 would also serve. I don't mind which it's a straight redirect or D&R. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second deleting first, although I wouldn't mind waiting until the Republican Primary to see if Stella maintains her campaign first before creating a redirect. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unelected candidates to congress are not notable. Wikipedia is not a place for election brochures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Her alleged fringe beliefs and alleged shoplifting add human interest to what would otherwise be a routine failure of WP:NPOL but I don't think they pass WP:FRINGE and WP:CRIMINAL respectively. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As a candidate, fails WP:NPOL. At this point, a redirect feels premature as it is unclear whether the subject will even be the Republican Party nominee for the position in 2020. --Enos733 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability just not there for any SNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment As a non-American, the BLP is fascinating. It's hard for me to believe that this is not some type of performance art. To this extent there may be a rationale that could be made for GNG based on public impact, it certainly makes for an interesting article. --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ It is somewhat performance art, but as an American who used to work in politics I can tell you that candidates such as Stella are actually rather common, especially in the primary stage or are long shots due to electoral demographics. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the impact were significant enough, I would draw a parallel with the fact that Wikipedia does host articles for Screaming Lord Sutch and Catmando (not a person!) as articles like this do benefit the encyclopaedia. I think there's actually wiggle room, if as you mention, Stella is just extraordinary enough to rise above other fringe long shots and has established some long term notability. --Fæ (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

95 per cent of all American politics is (bad) performance art now, unfortunately. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, an unelected political candidate who has not held any political office yet, and has not even won the party primary. Too early for either an article or a redirect. Nsk92 (talk) 00:19, 6 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. bd2412 T 02:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Aronson LLC[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Most of the references are to dubious "best place to work" awards, which are explicitly called out as WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage. Tagged for five years for needing better sourcing. Written by a dedicated team of WP:SPA socks:

• User:VicksWicks
• User:Sbbi1998
• User:ATodaro9812
• User:Wallsbebroken
• User:Taylorboo233
• User:Md2908a
• User:Jentmckay

all of whom showed an amazingly single-minded devotion to documenting this particular firm. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very few international consultancy firm would pass organization notability guidelines. This look like a page written by collaboration among the SPA or by staff of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRITE. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NCORP; run of the mill consultancy. Bearian (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete my searches are not turning up sources that support notability. also per [[WP:NOTPROMO].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 7 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 Scavenger hunt. Sandstein 13:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure hunt (game)[edit]

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

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

Essentially a duplicate of treasure hunting. I surmise that this article with almost no references is probably unnecessary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as there is content in each that isn't in the other. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The content is largely unsourced however, making a merge untenable. When you get rid of things that are covered elsewhere, like Egg hunt, Scavenger hunt and Geocaching, you are left with nothing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. Not concerned with the lack of sourcing, that can be fixed. SportingFlyer T·C 02:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Scavenger hunt. This has nothing to do with the article treasure hunting, which is about the act of looking for real treasure. This is about a game. It is (or at least was when I was young) the normal name in the UK for what is called a scavenger hunt in the US. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Scavenger hunt per Necrothesp. Agreed that the page has nothing to do with the page treasure hunting. One is a real-world attempt at riches and adventure, the other is a party game. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial merge to treasure hunting (make a section for this in that article, which compares and contrasts with scavenger hunting). A scavenger hunt is a distinctly different concept. The difference between the "game" and professional treasure hunting is simply a matter of degree, and trying to separate them is like trying to separate baseball (game) from professional baseball. Perhaps, make a broad-concept article, as baseball, that covers them both. Spending all day treasure-hunting for gold in an area known to have small deposits, and finding less than $100 worth, is just a game, but then what happens to the game when you unexpectedly find several hundred dollars worth of gold? Too many links to this everyday, well-understood term are of the WP:OVERLINK variety, and readers can usually readily determine from the context, whether it's a "game" or not. A scavenger hunt is an organized activity; when Tom Sawyer went treasure hunting he wasn't following "clues" given to him by someone who organized the hunt. When someone plays a video game which involves a "treasure hunt" they aren't scavenger hunting. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that there's a specific world record for this indicates that it's a separate topic with a distinct title. There are numerous books about the activity by this title and so it's quite notable and sourcing the topic will not be difficult. Other similar activities such as egg hunts or geocaching have separate and distinct features and, per WP:NOTPAPER, there's no need or benefit from trying to cram everything together. Andrew D. (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added a mention with a link in the lead of treasure hunting. Deleting this would have the adverse effect of leaving behind a lot of red links (albeit some could be considered overlinks to a well-understood term in the context of use), and a big hole in the encyclopedia begging to be filled. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Scavenger hunt (or vice versa). These are the same general concept with overlapping material and can be covered in the same article with no loss of content. Without an established definition it is a disservice to the reader to cover such a topic disjointedly across multiple articles, the name difference being subjective, regional, or colloquial. Reywas92^Talk 21:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose a merger-of-equals to a new article titled Treasure and scavenger hunts would work, since there is significant overlap in meaning. That would eliminate the need for the parenthetical "(game)" in the title. Interestingly enough, the Google Ngram shows that the term "treasure hunt" predates "scavenger hunt" by about 30 years, and has (at least up to 2008) been the more popular term. Neither seems to have been much used before 1900. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Scavenger hunt. Or, as noted above, it's fine to do the merge in the other direction too. Treasure and scavenger hunts seems like an excessively complicated title. The goal of a title is to be easy to search for and/or easy to remember. That's usually better than being excruciatingly correct. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 8 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, without prejudice to refund or recreation should sources showing notability become available. bd2412 T 02:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Perkins[edit]

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

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

There are two sources with no links. Seems really irrelevant. ▸ ‎épine _talk♬ 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ▸ ‎épine _talk♬ 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering this subject's career/death occurred before the internet age, it seems very unlikely any sources will be found online. Most likely what exists will be in 1960's-80's industry trade publications. Getting a career achievement award from the Grand Old Opry seems like it passes some level of notability among broadcasters, but I agree that without a source for verification it's tough to argue keep. Maybe someone (not me) wants to do the legwork to get this in a keepable shape. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the article was created by the editor Genshi, a near-SPA who states on his user page that he is an experimental musician with the band jido-genshi. That almost certainly means that he is the Craig Anthony Perkins mentioned in the last line of this article, and therefore he wrote the article as a memorial to his late father. The TV Radio Mirror source cited as a reference was a TV gossip magazine (the front page for the cited June 1971 issue focuses on the love triangle and paternity suit between Lucille Ball, Desi Arnaz Jr. and Patty Duke), and probably doesn't qualify as an RS in the same way that we wouldn't use TV Guide or Hello! magazines as reliable sources. I'm not sure what the "Grand Old Opry award" is, but it doesn't appear to have been one of the major CMA Broadcast Awards awarded at the 1990 CMA Music Awards. At present I haven't been able to find any mention of Mr. Perkins in Billboard, neither a mention of his receiving an award in 1990, nor an obituary in 1991. Richard3120 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have added refs for the 1990 award, and two obituaries. RossRSmith (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so it's basically just coverage in his local newspaper, and a long-service award not tied to any notable award ceremony. Richard3120 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article contains a few local sources and some passing information about an award that does not appear to confer notability. I agree with the sentiment that this reads more like an obituary than an encyclopedia article. WP:GNG does not appear to be met. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ran his name through a proquest newspapers search using keywords including KHEY, "El Paso", radio and got nothing. finally tried keyword "country music" and got hist like : (Gary's gig will be music to the ears Holmes, Jeff. Paisley Daily Express; Paisley (UK) [Paisley (UK)]02 Feb 2013: 8. .. Gary Perkins has released six popular albums and was voted Best Male Vocalist...) which cannot possibly be the same Gary Perkins. So the sourcing we are left with, is all from the local El Paso Times, where he appears to have been a beloved local deejay. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 7 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 02:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Newkirk[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. One major credit for A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 doesn't cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No refs. Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant source to support the article. Barca (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom Ceethekreator (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Play Pavilion[edit]

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

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

Article is an incorrectly-named stub based on a vague press release from Disney and dubious information from a Disney rumor blog. The official Disney press release specifically states that the refurbished pavilion is still un-named (see [1]. The body of the article is sourced from the Disney rumor blog WDWNT, which is notorious for propagating unproven rumors and gossip. The only sourced information in this article could be summed up in one sentence on the Wonders of Life page.

The article creator speculates that more information about the pavilion might be released at a press event in August 2019, but that remains to be seen. In any case, the article should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL until more official information has been released. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not speculation it was confirmed they will be talking about it at D23 by the Disney Parks Blog heres the url https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2019/05/epcot-updates-coming-to-d23-expo-2019/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is pure speculation. A new – but classic – look to match our offerings: Longtime fans of Epcot are familiar with the pavilion icons, like the ones you see here for Imagination!, The Land and The Seas with Nemo & Friends. With new experiences like the previously announced play-themed pavilion joining these Epcot staples, don’t you think we need some new icons to match? More will be revealed at the Expo! The article is WP:TOOSOON with even the name not officially announced. – The Grid (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This subject passes WP:SIGCOV easily with multiple WP:RSs. Disney, USA Today, Orlando Rising, TV News 13 etc. It is not WP:TOOSOON based on the multiple independent reliable sources. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete WDW News is the press release, TV News 13 links back to it, and even USA Today links back to it as well. WP:SIGCOV fails here especially when the material is coming from a press release - a primary source. This is something common for album launches for comparison. Note the date of each article versus the press release, they will be all similar. – The Grid (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Maritime Center[edit]

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

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

Only local sourcing, doesn't meet WP:ORGDEPTH, also appears to be a promotional piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I originally placed a PROD, which was removed by the initial editor. While additional citations have been added, they do not comprise significant coverage of the subject (and at least one appears to not mention it at all). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Has various sources. JimmyPiersall (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, which actually isn't a valid rationale.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am seeing quite a bit of solid sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, could you specify which pieces of sourcing you found significant? I see you added [2], which to me seems like rather trivial coverage and also is published in a local source. [3] was also added, which is more significant coverage in general, but still reports relatively little about the Center itself (and is once again local coverage) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs work, but regional media are WP:RSes, plus there is a scholarly article among the sources. I do think that this maritime center can support a page - it just needs time and editorial attention. This covers the public and grant funding for this center: Canal Corp., Buffalo Maritime Center unveil new phase in building of replica of historic Erie Canal boat. Someone just needs to take the time to go though the news coverage and relationships with the NGOS that it works with and the govt. funding it gets.CANAL CORPORATION, BUFFALO MARITIME CENTER UNVEIL NEW PHASE IN BUILDING OF REPLICA OF HISTORIC ERIE CANAL BOAT , SUNY College at Buffalo: Buffalo Maritime & Great Lakes Center.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see a notable subject with WP:RSs. Good work by the above AfD ivoters. Regional media are WP:RS. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the first two sources above by E.M.Gregory are press releases, and therefore invalid as to notability. The third is a promotional piece for the building's architect, again not valid for notability purposes. So the rationale for at least two of the keep !votes is invalid (the other simply said there were sources, without giving any).

• Do not misquote me. As I clearly stated, I brought the NGO and GOVT sources to show that there has been "public and grant funding for this center". There has been many years of regional news coverage of this Maritime Center, as I'sm sure you saw in your BEFORE search. This is a good example of an article where it would have made a great deal of sense to tag REFIMPROVE, and encourage the inexperienced editor who started the page to improve it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 The article has sufficient WP:RS. E.M.Gregory is a thorough ivoter and I appreciated the NGO and GOVT sources. Note:WP:BEFORE is an actual policy not a guideline. And part of that policy is to consider WP:ATD or as E.M.Gregory states: apply an appropriate cleanup tag, such as notability, hoax, original research, or advert. Also other policies to consider WP:IMPERFECT, WP:IMPROVE and WP:PRESERVE. Lightburst (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did not misquote you, simply stated a fact about the links you provided. And while local coverage is there, it does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep striking previous delete vote and switching sides. While Onel is correct that currently provided coverage does not meet CORPDEPTH (including the additional sources added in this discussion), I think that E.M. Gregory's findings vis-a-vis grant funding suggests that WP:NPOSSIBLE is likely enough to justify keeping. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I have done a basic cleanup/source of an article that really was so badly composed that I quite see how it misled you and User:Onel5969 into thinking that this was a vanity page for some sort of non-notable boat project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- We usually have articles on museums. If this were just a training programme in boat building, I might question its merits, but it is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Chater[edit]

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

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

I am unable to find any references that would make the subject meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC (no significant coverage in reliable sources, no reviews of his work). The article makes claims, but all seem unverified per WP:V (and is a policy). I don't see a case for WP:NACADEMIC either, citations don't seem to be great [4] (note that the 3139 cited article is from KF Chater, not James Chater). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to be a distinguished early musicologist, although I wish I could find more sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Ping @User:Antandrus Xxanthippe (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment That is non-existing keep rationale though, dissapointed. WP:NRV. It's actually my big mistake I opened this, since it of course will be kept on unverifiable basis and rationale. Eh. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Espresso Addict in 2009 AfD discussion: "publications by "J Chater" are cited in 14 encyclopedia entries in Groves as well as one in The Oxford Companion to Music, which suggests he is a significant expert in his specialised area." TSventon (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even putting the "significant expert suggestion", which I certainly don't agree with at all.... the evidence for that is...where? I will again refer to WP:NRV, and the fact that nobody refers to an actual policy, which is WP:V. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The evidence is in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, WP:V allows reliable sources which are not easily accessible. TSventon (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that (WP:AGF and WP:PAPERONLY applies), what I meant is how does that establish his notability (for which WP:NRV and thus WP:V applies as something has to be cited as a reference)? I would have agreed if he had a biography in there, but it just seems he is cited there (and as I mentioned above, he is actually very poorly cited all-around to pass Criteria 1 of PROF). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being cited in 14 encyclopedia entries in Groves suggests that Chater passes Criteria 1 of PROF. Unfortunately, as PROF says, "in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries)." TSventon (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TSventon (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My inclination is not to delete, but this is a *very* undersourced BLP. Grove's seems not to be independent of the subject, as he says he was an editor of it 1997-2000. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Citations of his work in 14 encylopedia entries is not sufficient for passing WP:PROF#C1. If there was an encyclopedia article about him or at least an article discussing some of his contributions in more detail, that would have been a different matter. I looked around a bit for published reviews of his work but did not find them either. The WP article hasn't been improved since the 2009 AfD. Moreover, as was brought up in the first AfD, this is a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY case. Given that the notability here, if it exists, seems to be borderline, the WP:AUTO considerations push this case into the delete column for me. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, after extended time for discussion, and reasonable arguments that the subject has sufficient coverage to be kept. bd2412 T 01:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Claxton[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 11:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 11:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom. Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet any notability guidelines here - fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although would be nice if someone took a run at sources.Catladyz6 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with possible draftification: In the article's current state, only his revue provides a reasonable if weak claim against WP:N. Everything else is noteworthy, accomplished, or non-notable, and the discussion between article creator FloridaArmy and myself at Talk:Leon Claxton#Pivot applies. Unfortunately anything by his granddaughter (website, film, book) currently falls under self-published and non-independent, while Audrey Taylor Henry's Sound of Applause[5] and Joe McKennon's A Pictorial History of the American Carnival, Volume 1[6] would be useful but unfortunately appear to be self-published.

However... the show was an early inspiration for Joni Mitchell[7]. Claxton was "the most successful black carny on the [fairground] circuit"[8]. Has sigcov in Seeing is Believing: America's Sideshows[9] and Caribbean Tourism: People, Service and Hospitality[10]. Notable performers who appeared in his shows were at least Fontella Bass (for a couple of weeks)[11] and Lester Bowie[12] (the show became known as Harlem Review for some period[13]). Evidence of popularity of earlier show "Hep Cats"[14][15]. Between Claxton and his shows there's more than enough material and evidence of notability out there for one article but not, at the moment, for more; cover his shows under his article and redirect there (WP:NOPAGE). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What about these sources. There is a lot more on Gbooks. I'm sure there would be more on newspapers.com and fold3. I think there is enough to flesh out a basic article, more if the work was done. Satisfies WP:SIGCOV.
• Johnson Publishing Company (30 November 1967). Jet. Johnson Publishing Company. pp. 58–. Retrieved 20 July 2019.
• Nielsen Business Media, Inc. (27 November 1954). Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. p. 87. Retrieved 20 July 2019. ((cite book)): |author= has generic name (help)
• Nielsen Business Media, Inc. (2 November 1959). Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. pp. 71–. Retrieved 20 July 2019. ((cite book)): |author= has generic name (help)
• Audrey Taylor Henry (November 2009). The Sound of Applause. Dorrance Publishing. pp. 8–. ISBN 978-1-4349-6350-5. Retrieved 20 July 2019.

scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there is enough sources and satisfies WP:GNG but the article needs to be reworked.Taewangkorea (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep subject is covered very substantially in reliable independent sources as noted above in this discussion and as cited in article. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets the WP:GNG, is covered directly in independent secondary sources.

https://jonimitchell.com/library/view.cfm?id=2464 Contains substantial biographical commentary on Leon Claxton.

https://itvs.org/films/jig-show "unearthed is the life and lore of African American showman Claxton, a little-known civil rights hero whose vision, passion, and determination produced a multi-cultural stage show that still resonates today." This is an impressively rich secondary source, even as only a single sentence.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these sources, though significant, are independent since Cunningham is Claxton's granddaughter. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while I love those revue shows, the performers are almost always too common for notability. I'd change my mind if someone can find better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 7 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Halik[edit]

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

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

Not notable- nothing about him online besides his books. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - if he does do a spaceflight article can be recreated but nothing apparent to establish notability. On basis of articles obtained by User:Northamerica1000 this is probably borderline, so I'll change to neutral as the article needs significant work and sourcing. Bookscale (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with above MaskedSinger (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Teraplane (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Per a basic WP:BEFORE search, I found some articles and content about the subject in seconds, listed below. Not !voting at this time, but the subject has received some coverage outside of the purview of his books. Furthermore, coverage about a subject's books can qualify notability per WP:AUTHOR if independent book reviews in RS are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While much of the article and in fact the searches turn up puff pieces I am convinced there is notoriety in the subject: Perhaps not for the book (5 Day Weekend) which was a co-write situation, but more for the subject's wealth and ability to perhaps be a civilian moonwalker. I found references which appear in reliable sources: Forbes, Times of India, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and Entrepreneur The article is in need of a Neutral POV rewrite (I started to add refs and rewrite a bit), however WP:NOTCLEANUP Seems this subject meets our general notability guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep – Per a source review, just squeaks by WP:BASIC. Some sources have interview content, but also contain non-interview biographical information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Entertainers are notable based on their creation. If his book is notable, then so is he. Dream Focus 09:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - except he's not an entertainer, he's an entrepreneur. Bookscale (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is notable for being a "best-selling author". Anyway, doesn't matter, passes the general notability guidelines with coverage like this [16] Dream Focus 14:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't disagree with you - was just pointing out the error (in case there was some confusion about him meeting a guideline for entertainers). Bookscale (talk) 10:12, 6 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 02:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manvir Singh (footballer, born 2001)[edit]

Manvir Singh (footballer, born 2001) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable football player. Barca (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Trending to keep after improvements, though. Sandstein 13:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cameron (lawyer)[edit]

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

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

David Cameron, though he has won a two-person, low turnout, Republican primary for Attorney General of Kentucky, is clearly non-notable. The article sources only to material published by his new employer law firm, and also to Ballotpedia, which in turn sources back to the same employer-generated material. Aside from his candidacy, I can see nothing of note in the article. Activist (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template. Fixed now. As for the subject at hand, I'd lean strongly delete based on what's in the article at the moment, but he's gotten a bit more coverage due to an endorsement from Mr. Trump here, for example. --Finngall ^talk 23:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Finngall: Thanks for fixing that, Finngall. I was unaware of the endorsement until shortly after I'd made the AfD recommendation. That doesn't change anything. A long and well-sourced article about Steve Watkins who was endorsed by Trump, though it contained significant, well-sourced behavioral and credibility problem issues about the congressional candidate, was deleted last year by a British editor who probably wouldn't know North Carolina from North Dakota. The removal may have contributed to Watkins' election as editors and reporters from the scores of small-town papers in that mostly rural, vast district look to Wikipedia for info. Two regional papers in Topeka and Lawrence published much of that negative info, and their readers voted heavily against Watkins, but they're not commonly read outside those two big cities. Roy Moore was endorsed by Trump, but of course, he had vastly more qualifications for the seat he sought. Activist (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I responded thusly to a posting by the Cameron article's creator, USER:Gemofadeal, on my Talk page, answering the subject article's creator:

Wikipedia has had a long-standing policy, with which I have long personally disagreed volubly, that mere winning of a primary does not convey notability. I lost those arguments to overwhelming consensus. I don't make the rules. If Cameron wins the election, an article about him will be warranted, but unless something remarkable happens to him between now and then, I expect it will be pretty thin gruel. I'll look at the election article on Wikipedia but this doesn't expect it will change anything. I don't know what's happening in KY, but the "D"s hugely outpolled the "R"s in the contested primaries. Their governor, Bevin, may have left a bad taste in the public's mouth, though there were even worse candidates on the "R" ticket, such as Dan Johnson (Kentucky politician) who was also elected in 2016. The Democratic gubernatorial and other statewide candidates polled about 150,000 more total votes than the Republicans in the contested primaries. Check the numbers, and this story: https://www.whas11.com/article/news/politics/bevin-holcomb-seats-could-switch-parties-in-the-upcoming-election-and-in-2020-says-national-journal/417-e52eb030-9469-4ee7-8899-a6a4e6c6fa90 So, following policy, no article unless Cameron wins, and if he doesn't perhaps no article ever unless something remarkable happens to him.

Activist (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the polls, as I was urged by "Gem", but found some marked anomalies and they left me unpersuaded as to their utility. Activist (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to keep based on E.M.Gregory's improvements. Just winning the primary doesn't confer notability by itself, but he clearly passes WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 18:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability"... and the coverage we have ("he's running for office", "he has an endorsement") is basically the rote for an unelected candidate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won — a person has to win the election and thereby hold the office to qualify for a Wikipedia article, not just be a candidate. But this makes absolutely no credible case that he had preexisting notability for other reasons, and the sourcing isn't getting him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL either: it's based 2/3 on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the only references that are reliable sources are the purely WP:ROUTINE pieces of campaign coverage that every candidate in every election can always show, not evidence that he's somehow a special case of significantly greater notability than most other unelected candidates. Wikipedia is not a free repository of campaign brochures for aspiring officeholders: we keep articles about people who hold notable political offices, not everybody who ever ran for one. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This just about as clear cut as it gets. As NatGertler noted above, this obviously fails WP:POLITICIAN. This article was created shortly after Cameron received the nomination as part of the campaign, and it reads as such. --Avidohioan (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that article now does have reliable , SECONDARY sourcing of his career before this campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WP:HEY I have upgraded the page with coverage like Washington Post: "Cameron, a young, black Republican who could rise fast in national GOP circles.". Coverage of his childhood, education background and career - much of it pre- candidacy and some of it national has been added. Coverage of his race for AG in national sources has been added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed people speculating about a candidate's potential to "rise fast" in the future is not a notability claim for a person who hasn't already risen. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if Cameron wins the election he will be notable, until then he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As per WP:NPOL "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. ".E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That bar is still not passed just because a couple of new hits of slightly more than just local coverage, still fundamentally hemming him into a purely WP:BLP1E context, exists. For an unelected candidate to be exempted from NPOL because media coverage, that media coverage has to literally explode to Christine O'Donnell proportions — even though strictly speaking she's a WP:BLP1E while Chris Coons (the guy she lost to) is an incumbent US Senator who's been in office for almost ten years now, their articles are equal in length and O'Donnell outsources Coons by about 2.5 times as many distinct footnotes, because O'Donnell generated such a massive national and international firestorm of coverage that she's still to this day about a million times more world-famous than Coons is. That's the bar that a candidate has to clear to become special enough to get an article just for being a candidate: not just "hey, look, one piece exists in a more-than-local newspaper too, booya!", but "so very bloody much media coverage exists in so many more than local sources that even if he loses the election it's reasonable to expect that he'll still be a household name in 2029 anyway". Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, Cameron was just endorsed by the President, which I updated, not may Americans can say that for either party in their lifetime! With regards to Ballotpedia..they have their own independent verification process. You discontent winning the nomination of a major political party for a statewide office. The polling shows he is AHEAD in the race (see KY AG Race on Wiki) and could break the long streak of one party rule by the Democrats since 1948. Also the Wikipedia policy should at a minimum allow for a political nominee of either major party during the election cycle to be here if their opponent is here. Otherwise it gives an unfair advantage as many people search to initially learn about candidates on Wikipedia. At worst it is up for a few months...many on this cite have a short term outlook, this site will be around for years and needs a longer term focus in my opinion. Thank you.Gemofadeal (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' while I'm wavering on my delete !vote in the face of EMG's eager WP:HEY effort, I have to say that this argument is unconvincing. You want us to keep on the basis of things he could do, like become AG and break a party line, but those aren't things that he actually has done. We are almost all born with potential to do things. Yes, he's made some progress in trying to get the job, but that's not having the job. And it's not Wikipedia's job to even up the election, and even if it were, giving preferential treatment to candidates from the "major parties" is not the way of doing that. And you're asking us to think of the "longer term focus" while your promoting inclusion of an article in which all interest could be gone in 5 months. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion reminds me strongly of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Lamb. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• An endorsement from somebody else is not a notability criterion for an as yet unelected political candidate in and of itself: the notability test for politicians is winning the election and thereby holding the office, not just being a candidate. It is also not our job to give "equal time" to every candidate in an election, either — we are not a news site whose job it is to cover every single person who happens to show up in the current news cycle; we are an encyclopedia whose job it is to cover people who have already achieved something that will make them still notable ten years from now, and not to promote people who merely aspire to accomplish that in the future. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, Cameron has currently got a good chance of being elected the next Attorney General of Kentucky, which makes him notable enough for an entry imho. –Arkansawyer2509 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People's WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions about a candidate's prospects of winning a future election are not a notability claim for a political candidate. People get articles on here by winning the election and thereby holding office, not by being candidates. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Per Gemofadeal (talk) satisfy. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does not pass WP:NPOL. but does pass WP:GNG per WP:RSs This article has been greatly expanded and sourced since AfD. WP:HEY Lightburst (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hope I'm not construed as neither being hypercritical or unappreciative, but the "Keeps" on this article are very light on relevant experience, either being almost entirely from editors who are quite new, are not experienced with Wikipedia policy regarding elections or ditto, AfDs. The creator knows a lot about historic races for South Dakota Attorneys General but has contributed briefly and almost on no other subject and when editing calls up individuals with personal knowledge of the articles' subject relying on that instead of respecting the need for RSS. Others have almost no experience at all with articles about the U.S. I see that one had contributed substantially to recent AfD discussions, and I respect that. But the voices of experience here are perhaps unanimous coming to the judgment to delete, based on considerable experience with both U.S. elections and conformity with Wikipedia policies regarding articles about candidates who have never been elected (one exception is an editor with only six weeks or so experience briefly editing one article of an elected official if South Korean judges are actually elected, as they are in many cases in the U.S.) I refer again to the Steve Watkins (congressional candidate) article which was deleted despite considerable biographical material and a Trump endorsement. (Now that he won a narrow victory, the article with that name still is about a long-retired baseball player who pitched for less than a season, and I need to see if I can get the time to fix that.) Activist (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Finngall: Ooops!!! I missed looking at User Finngall's experience. He's loaded with it, but the exception doesn't prove the rule. Activist (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, I suppose I should be insulted. Unless, of course, User:Activist intended his remarks to be read as a satire of policy based AfD discussions. The thing is, User:Activist has participated in 9 AfD discussions [17], while I have participated in, well, dunnamany, but Activist is welcome to count them [18]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a double "oops." I've been doing a number of things at once, some very distracting such as major and immediate focus on my physical living situation. I scratched down a few editor names on the back of an envelope, while I was answering the phone and emails, and missed yours as well. I've read your edits for a very long time and have always appreciated them. Mea maxima culpa! Activist (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wonkette doesn't much like the GOP, so she's following this campaign pretty closely 33-year-old Republican attorney general candidate Daniel Cameron got salty with his 67-year-old Democratic rival, saying, "Greg Stumbo is like the milk you have in the carton at the back of your refrigerator. This carton has been spoiling for 30 years, and folks, it smells terrible!" Get this guy a Netflix special, STAT!. American Thinker doesn't much like Democrats, so it's following closely too There is a reasonable expectation that from now on the GOP will recruit more women and minorities who agree with the party’s views on racial and gender issues, so their number will eventually increase. A recent example includes the Kentucky Republican attorney general candidate, Daniel Cameron (an African-American and former Mitch McConnell staffer), who praised Trump in the midst of the fallout over the president’s comments directed at Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings and Baltimore that have been condemned as racist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both are interesting comments and thanks for including them. The 20th Century GOP has always had an allegiance to "outliers," i.e., Booker T. vs. W.E.B. DuBois, Phyllis Schlafly vs. Germaine Greer, and perhaps most importantly Clarence Thomas vs. Thurgood Marshall, Sr. Exceptions v. rules. Activist (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY, WP:SIGCOV, and as the probable leader in the race; this should not be construed as an endorsement of his candidacy. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think there are enough good sources to say that Cameron easily clears WP:GNG. He's had coverage in The Guardian (misspelled, of course), the Washington Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post. And a lot of very substantial and detailed coverage in the regional press. Railfan23 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read through all the citations in the article and left comments on the Talk page. I'll take a look at the Guardian coverage which was posted after I'd edited the article. I left the first few sentences here as comments on the article's Talk page: I deleted one of two identical citations plus others that only provided cumulative info. Those which duplicated The citations from the Washington Post of 7/30, WKYT, Lexington Herald-Leader and WCLU all just reiterate the Trump tweet without adding any additional significant information. I'd prefer keeping the Herald-Leader cite but any three could certainly be eliminated with little to no loss of notable content. Much of the remaining article comes directly from company promotional material from the two firms where he worked, essentially fluff, hardly RSS. More like KISS. "Things are seldom as they seem: Skim milk masquerades as cream."(Gilbert and Sullivan-HMS Pinafore) Activist (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I looked at the Guardian mention. It's more bare-bones, the two consecutive Trump tweets reiterated, but the only added info is the irony/hypocrisy/whatever, of Trump criticizing Cummings' constituency. As usual, there's no logic there, as I've spent time in north-central Kentucky and southeast Kentucky, and the latter in particular, is hardly a cut above the worst in Baltimore, though it's more poor-white rather than poor-black, and places like Elliot county could be seen as the meth capital of the universe. Trump's tweet also has Cameron as "Strong on immigration." That's hardly a major issue in Kentucky which has a very different set of critical/relevant circumstances. In one of the polls that were quoted in the article, in the Herald-Leader, I think, I looked at the raw data from which the article had drawn. Trump had 100% support on all questions from the entire Asian demographic which was polled. There were 741 respondents of all races surveyed. However if that one "Asian" had been out of town that week, there would have been zero to count. This fails on GNG, I believe: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] (A widespread dissemination of those two tweets provide no variance at all...they're completely redundant. What we're looking at in fact, is republication of those same two joined tweets, over and over. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. (And the single source is in fact Trump's brief paired sputter. The coverage is far more focused on Trump's few peculiar lines than it is on Cameron's candidacy, which is simply an artifact.) As far as the two law firms providing RSS for a great deal of the initial edits, they don't meet: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject (in this case, Cameron's own campaign website) or someone affiliated with it. (the two law firms) For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] It couldn't be clearer that what we're looking fails GNG. Lastly, when I went back and looked at all the edits, I discovered that an AfD template had been attached to the article shortly after it was created, and just as quickly, sans explanation, removed by another editor. When I added the AfD template not long afterward, I had been unaware of the deletion which had left no trace. Activist (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD tag was not "sans explanation, removed" - in the edit comment for the change, it says "Rv AfD tag placed without followup -- see WP:AFDHOWTO" - Rv is short for "revert", and it's saying that the tagging lacked followup - that someone placed the tag without starting an AfD discussion, like this one here. That's required for a proper AfD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the clarification and correction. Activist (talk) 12:31, 8 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 02:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hemchandra Burman[edit]

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

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

Head of the local chapter of a political party and failed parliamentary candidate. Fails WP:NPOL with no other indication of notability GPL93 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Presidents of local chapters of political parties are not automatically notable, and neither are unsuccessful legislative election candidates. The only reference here, further, is his primary source profile on the self-published website of his own political party — but people also do not get Wikipedia articles just because they have staff profiles on their own employer's website or get named in their own employer's press releases. To qualify for an article on these grounds, he would have to have a depth and volume and range of reliable source media coverage that clearly marked him out as much, much more special than most other people who've done the exact same things. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the leader of a political party at this level is not notable, especially in a country like India that has a multi party system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mradurekha Choudhary[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL and has absolutely no sourcing. GPL93 (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It seems she was a candidate in the 2013 Rajasthan Legislative Assembly election but did not get elected, and may have stood unsuccessfully in 2008 as well.[19] That doesn't confer notability, nor does the unsourced claim of being "the most educated lady politician in Barmer city" (I don't even know how one would go about verifying that claim). I'm not seeing any other significant coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:NPOL -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this doesn't even try to make a case that she had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacies themselves. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found a few things online, but nothing substantial enough to pass notability criteria. WP:BASIC and WP:GNG fail. Netherzone (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Millwall Rugby Club[edit]

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

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

Minor amateur sports club playing in a local league at the ninth teir of English rugby union, fails WP:RU/N. No reliable sources provided, only external links to club-related sites, so no indication it passes WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking through Google, their isn't really many sources stating this club with most of the hits being for the football club and not the rugby club as this page has been. Add to the fact that this page is uncleanly not reference and this probably doesn't count as a page that should be on Wikipedia. HawkAussie (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same case as with HawkAussie here regarding the searches. Does not meet WP:GNG considering they is no WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. They may become notable in the future, but not now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:10, 7 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 02:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelmalek Amara[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hasn't played in a fully professional league, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 08:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 211.243.200.191 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC) — 211.243.200.191 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - Article about youth footballer which doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:25, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbos goy[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:N. This is not an official concept in Judaism, rather just a term for something some Jewish people do on Shabbat. The term itself is relatively offensive, and may fail WP:NPOV. On top of this, the article is poorly written, and lacks quality references. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 20:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 20:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain. Which means either keep, or perhaps merge into Activities prohibited on Shabbat with a section redirect, doesn't make a big difference which. This phenomenon is notable and noteworthy due to the manner in which it proliferates, socially. It perhaps being offensive —why?— should not be a factor, at any case. Article could for sure be improved (and I encourage participants here to do so) but I do not find its quality is to be so low that it needs to be deleted. El_C 20:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the word goy tends to be used by people stereotyping Jews, in offensive sentences like "Oy vey, the goyim are here." --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 20:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • People say "Oy vey, the Jews are here." but we still have an article at Jews, not that I'm saying Shabbos Goy is negative, it's not the same thing as calling someone a goy, as I'm sure you are aware. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the delete rationales offered so far look pretty weak. This does not need to be an official concept; there is nothing non-neutral about the tone; and at least some of the refs suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Would you like a University of California, Berkeley, professor of anthropology, Dundes 2002 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDundes2002 (help), as a quality source? Is the fact that it is in another encyclopaedia, Wigoder 1970 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWigoder1970 (help), convincing that it is encyclopaedic?
  • Dundes, Alan (2002). "The Shabbes Goy". The Shabbat Elevator and other Sabbath Subterfuges. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 62–74. ISBN 9781461645603.
  • Wigoder, Geoffrey (1970). "Shabbes Goy". The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia. W. H. Allen. p. 1723.
• Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep the subject itself is notable. It's not controversial nor offensive and I have no idea why it's NPOV. If it's poorly written, it can be fixed up. It's referenced, and it's clear that it's notable and worthy. When Colin Powell, for example, or Elvis, can talk about their days as being a Shabbos goy then it makes sense to have a separate article and not part of a larger Activities prohibited on Shabbat. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the delete rationales offered so far look pretty weak. This does not need to be an official concept; there is nothing non-neutral about the tone; and at least some of the refs suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is part of a series of articles about Shabbat. The term has been in use for ages, and is well-known and notable. Even if it were a pejorative, that is no reason to delete the article, see Zhyd. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/merge. 7 of the 9 12 sources on this page are simply references for "[famous person] was a Shabbos goy!". While cleanup would fix that issue, and poorly-written articles don't necessarily merit deletion, this /does/ go to show that that the concept of 'Shabbos goy' may not merit a page unto itself. The concept clearly exists, but I don't know if the page needs to. I'm leaning towards merging this content into Activities prohibited on Shabbat. Gilded Snail (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You missed the two sources in the references section. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. There's 3 more that aren't famous-person-related. Thanks. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment solid ref here: Alan Dundes (2002-01-21). The Shabbat Elevator and other Sabbath Subterfuges: An Unorthodox Essay on Circumventing Custom and Jewish Character. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4616-4560-3 as well as an entry in Ronald L. Eisenberg (2011-12-01). Dictionary of Jewish Terms: A Guide to the Language of Judaism. Taylor Trade Publications. pp. 368–. ISBN 978-1-58979-729-1
• MergeI agree with the proposal to merge into Activities prohibited on Shabbat from Gilded Snail. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into Activities prohibited on Shabbat. Yes, Puzzledvegetable, calling non-Jews "a bunch of goyim" is derogatory, but "Shabbos goy" is a specific role played by non-Jews and is not meant to be derogatory at all. Harry S. Truman spoke fondly of his experience being a Shabbos goy when he was a youth, and many Shabbos goys know more about the laws of Shabbat than Jews because they are called on to do prohibited activities. Shabbos goys are also paid for their services when they come to flick on a light switch in a dark children's room, or turn off the gas that's been left on. The presentation needs to be improved, not deleted. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is encyclopedic and richly integrated into Wikipedia in the form of links to other articles. The "Shabbes Goy": A Study in Halakhic Flexibility is just one book-length work on the topic, which appears widely in sources available to be added as references. Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Opposed to merge (as the goy workaround is distinct from activities prohibited). While not "official", this is a quasi-official workaround or hack to the Shabbat code (and people were (and in a limited capacity still are) employed for pay to do this... Of course the pay was, pro forma, for something else). This is not particularly offensive. Widely discussed in sources and clearly meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic is notable, many reliable sources discuss it (some listed above). Could be expanded, but already contains material that would not fit well in any other article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The term is not offensive and the topic is notable, as shown in the book length coverage cited above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is not a compendium of official concepts of Judaism but a collection of notable topics, which this one clearly is. Can be expanded to include anecdotes about some of the famous Shabbos goys. Agree with Jayjg that it doesn't fit anywhere else (similar to paperboy not belonging in newspaper), and with El C and Debresser who stated that whether it is pejorative or not (it's not) isn't relevant. Havradim (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. (But if somehow the final decision is otherwise, then content must be merged into Activities prohibited on Shabbat, and not just deleted.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After reading the discussion above, it is clear that consensus disagrees with me. I simply wish to point out one thing. The only part of this article with quality references is the one sentence in the end that would probably be removed if the article was cleaned up. The actual article itself, the part that defines the concept, has only two references, both of which are non-scholarly. One is from dailyhalacha.com which I can't even get to open on my browser without a "runtime error" and another from chabad.com, which ironically enough is about why most people are in fact incorrect in using a "Shabbos goy". --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC) + edit[reply]

This article should be fairly easy to find additional sources for. So it needs to be improved. That is no reason to delete it, when the subject is notable and can be sourced better. Debresser (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is below standard now but there is no reason it can't become a good article. I disagree with merge proposals. Zero^talk 17:37, 6 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 02:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Organization of Labor[edit]

Revolutionary Organization of Labor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has been tagged for nearly five years with no resolutions. Organization is small and does not have any elected officers; no sources are cited. Does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable independent sources. Toa Nidhiki05 20:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A gBooks search comes up blank, except for false hits on sentences like this from 1921, "The need of the hour in America, therefore, is a strong revolutionary organization of labor which would serve as a center of mobilization for all the militant, class- conscious, aggressive workers in this country." I cannot find the books listed at the bottom of the page as sources, nor can I find the author, one "Ray O. Light" (though there was a winning racehorse with this name.) The name is that of this blog [20], and these "books" appear to be self-published. A Proquest news search produced only 1 hit: (The 45th President: More Than 200 Arrested, Kesling, Ben; Tau, Byron; De Avila, Joseph. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]21 Jan 2017: A.8 "Police arrested more than 200 people in sometimes violent protests here on President Donald Trump's Inauguration Day..." (at demonstrations in Boston that day) "What I am hoping for is the beginning of some serious organizing on behalf of working and poor people," said Rose Brown, 71, handing out a newsletter for the Revolutionary Organization of Labor.") While it's nice that the old revolutionaries keep busy handing out leaflets, this is not SIGCOV and may not even be about the same ORG. I don't see any basis for keeping given that the sole verifiable source is a book by Stalin, who was dead before this ORG was founded. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:20, 1 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. No prejudice against redirection. czar 02:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Organizer[edit]

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

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

Sourcing is non existent and has been tagged for nearly a year. Small political group with no elected officers. Does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage from multiple secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 20:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect - if someone can identigy a proper target page. article has been here since approx. the year Trotsky died with zero sources. lots of claims of "building" various movements, but nothing resembling a claim to notability. That said, if someone with a knowledge of the ins and outs of Trotskite splinter groups takes the time to upgrade this article (searches on keywords "socialist organizer" + Trotskyist bring up mere PRIMARY, like this list of International Trotskyist Tendencies ,) feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No needed coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fourth International (ICR), since it is listed there as the United States section. Candido (talk) 17:34, 3 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 02:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Briskman Briskman & Greenberg[edit]

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

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

I started trimming this after a rather trivial update, but other than a bunch of references that involve Mr Greenberg there is almost nothing about the company itself (a GNews search finds exactly 1 hit). In other words, this would appear to be a MILL law firm failing CORP. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — does not appear notable by WP:CORPDEPTH. 'Trivia Updater',

Lindenfall (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: very run of the mill law firm. Also, this fails my standards for notable law firms and lawyers. Some of their attorneys are "active" in bar associations. I should hope so! The sourcing is especially poor. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: a law firm is not notable just because it's a law firm. There does not seem to be anything indicating notability. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, does not meet WP:CORP. Alex-h (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Through founded in 1981 not clear how this particular law firm is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Delta ray. (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon radiation[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT#DICT - the one ref is just a definition, and several searches for this term yielded only a few mentions that were also trivial or definitions in a glossary. Given the lack of coverage, there doesn't seem to be enough material for a standalone article. ComplexRational (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:CHEAP to Delta ray and fix all the double-redirects. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - little to be said more than a dictionary definition and naming who coined it, but as Bearian says, redirects are cheap. Agricolae (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Protein[edit]

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

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

Fails notability. Fails verification as the references seem to be mainly from sponsored sources or blog posts and are generally unreliable. This page has no real use other than as advertisement, despite the small criticism section. Bottletoppen (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article carries the templates for both a PROD and an AfD at the moment. I'm assuming you only intended on one of these. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 19:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There are many reliable sources for the generic concept of a high protein diet, but none about this specific program or its originating organization. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP lacks reliable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:44, 6 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Soliman[edit]

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

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

per WP:MASK and WP:FAKE, this person is not a leader or political, just working in normal role in a "low profile" party in Egypt, he also guest writer in some newspapers, no achievement, awards nor works, all sources don't talk about him it talk about another things, he also put articles he wrote it Ibrahim.ID ✪ 14:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 14:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Holdings Power Plant[edit]

Grange Holdings Power Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Based on primary sources, no reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while I could find some other sources that weren't primary, they were either pure basic financials, or failed either reliable/independent Nosebagbear (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references in the article are purely WP:PRIMARY, and nothing to find concrete in my searches either so it's a clear fail of WP:GNG. Was the construction even completed at all (2015 was the date)? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:13, 7 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Single & Famous award[edit]

Single & Famous award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability concerns. Page has been unreferenced for a decade, but Dutch sources suggest an award of this name was given by a magazine in 2009 and 2010 [21] power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Never seen a one sentence article before. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unsourced and not notable. SL93 (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's an award by a defunct Dutch magazine. It received very little exposure outside the magazine. Good catch, power~enwiki! gidonb (talk) 04:19, 7 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niranjan Nirankar Swaroop[edit]

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

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

I am unable to verify anything about this; the one reference (to a web discussion board) doesn't mention the term. Other Google hits are copied from Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per not meeting any notability criteria. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:V.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:06, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington City Golf Championship[edit]

Lexington City Golf Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. This is strictly a local event without any SIGCOV on its own. Rogermx (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local amateur event of relatively low status. It includes a handicap division as well as a scratch division. There is only one blue link among the winners, a golfer from Lexington. Nigej (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nigej...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:39, 4 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mutation Sensation[edit]

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

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

Notability concerns. This appears to be an art project, no secondary coverage found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think this could probably be speedied, actually. Essentially no coverage, hard to figure out what the subject of the article even is. Gilded Snail (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. Some of the sources are dead or shallow. It's unclear if this is an art project, a recycling drive, or both. What does "evolutionary" mean in this context? Ongoing? A test run? Iterative? Under construction? Bearian (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the subject has not received significant attention in reliable sources. The article itself is incomprehensible, even for people who are well-versed in International Art English. I'll miss it as one of its more egregious examples, but it has to go. Vexations (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 12:53, 1 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karem Amin[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. ... discospinster _talk 16:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The links provided do not demonstrate notability, nor do the movies listed appear to be notable. --kingboyk (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above , he is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:33, 3 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. Seems like the article was improved during the course of the AFD and now there are good keep arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Aurangzeb Khan[edit]

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

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

Unsourced biography for over 10 years. No content other than titles he was supposedly given. Google Book Search finds one result (The Punjab Under Imperialism, 1885-1947) that has a trivial mention of him, and doesn't verify any of the article content. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The title sounds significant enough that a well-sourced article about him would probably be keepable — but it's not so "inherently" notable that he would be exempted from having to have any referencing at all to verify the article's content with. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added the reference referred to by OP and a couple others, in particular establishing that he was awarded the title, though the reference has 1894 rather than 1892. It is a significant title. It was not unusual for European reports at the time to refer to such administrators as Munshi (secretaries and translators employed by Europeans) rather than by the honorific Chaudry. Relatedly, if kept it should probably be moved to Aurangzeb Khan (administrator), or some such, without the honorific. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Khan Bahadur probably qualifies under WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't withdraw this, but I'm fine with a keep+rename after the additional sourcing+info found by the 24. IP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 13:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it now has enough citations. No objection to suggested move. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all references seem to work and the article seems to have historical value also. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:37, 4 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Miller (Maryland politician)[edit]

Ron Miller (Maryland politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant, in-depth coverage; he has had a career in government, business, and the military, but nothing that meets the notability threshold. This is the second AfD; the first, eight years ago, resulted in no consensus. Neutrality^talk 15:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - very many people are "prolific writers" in politics. This is so poorly written as to be on the cusp of being deleted for editing alone. We have routinely deleted bios of also-ran politicians. The "keep" votes in the first AfD focused on coverage in the Washington Post. Pinging DGG, Frankie (inactive since 2016), and American Eagle, who all were "keep"s in the last AfD. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearian. My understanding of notability has evolved over the years. American Eagle (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My opinion has been the same for the last 12 years, that in a two party system, the candidate of the losing party in the general election for a national office s should have an article. This does not apply to primary elections Nor does it apply to a State Senate, which was his position he actually ran for. When it does apply , if looked for properly, there's always going to be enough material, such the coverage leading upto the election will be similar. Not doing this is introducing a deliberate bias into Wikipedia in favor of incumbents. That's not a political bias towards one party or another, since which party wins the seat will vary. But it's a bias in favor of the Establishment, whatever the establishment may consist of that year. In the past, my view has not usually been accepted, but I still think it's the properly encyclopedic position.

Since this does mot apply to him, this is a case where it does meet the GNG without any ambiguity--the Washington Post is one of the the two most important newspaper sources for US politics, and there are four articles there.

There's an important reason for deletion which we did indeed not pay that much attention to 8 years ago: the articles is expansively promotional, essentially a campaign advertisement. It could possibly be rewritten, but I doubt anyone is likely to do so. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, as legitimately important as the Washington Post may be as a source for political coverage of Congress and the White House, it is still not a magic free pass to the "more special than other unelected candidates" brand of notability just because he happens to have been an unelected candidate inside the WaPo's local coverage area. If a person doesn't have a strong notability claim that would pass WP:NPOL in the traditional way, then they're not magically more notable than everybody else who's done the exact same things without getting into Wikipedia articles just because they live in Metro Washington and thus got their purely routine local campaign coverage in the WaPo instead of the South Podunk Intelligencer. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this is not demonstrating that he has preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy. It is far, far too dependent on primary sourcing that is not support for notability at all, such as his own campaign literature and his own writing and staff profiles and/or press releases from his own employers, and even the minority of the footnotes that actually represent reliable source coverage still features glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people — so while there are a couple of sources left that are both reliable and substantively about him, there aren't enough of those to make a person notable just for being an unsuccessful candidate. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. However, he may meet WP:NPROF as the interim dean of the Helms School of Government at Liberty University. --Enos733 (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Deans, interim deans, associate deans, etc. are generally not sufficiently high-rank positions to qualify for WP:PROF#C6. XOR'easter (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about WP:PROF#C6. My meaning was that there should be evaluation of the subject under WP:PROF to determine whether the subject might qualify as an academic. --Enos733 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A varied career, but insufficient evidence of notability in any field. --Tataral (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Monkey (zodiac)#Years and the Five Elements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Water monkey[edit]

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

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

Potentially non-notable mythological creature. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]