< 3 July	5 July >

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. It was borderline for me, but more familiar users have made good points. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noa Wildschut[edit]

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

Close to, but does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN. Won only age division in minor contests, and unsourced claim of one CD on a label, which doesn't satisfy notability requirements. Artist website and label press release not reliable sources. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my eyes, according to the rules outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wildschut is notable in two ways:

She won the Louis Spohr competition. This is an international competition, which in itself makes it a pretty major event for violinists.
She appeared on national television several times. NTR Podium did a documentary called Noa11 about her in 2012. The entire thing is about 30 minutes and already linked as a source (13:13 to 43:20). 6 years later they did another 70 minute documentary called "A Family Quartet" featuring Wildschut. Because of this documentary she appeared in the popular talkshow De Wereld Draait Door (recording) for about 13 minutes. The "Avond van de filmmuziek" concert, where she was the solist for Shindlers List has been broadcasted in its entirety on Nederland 1.

Sumurai8 (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd argue she does meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria 9. Yes, her win was in an age category not outright, but the competition is only for young violinists, and has only three categories, so I'm not sure that reduces the significance of the achievement. Is the competition 'major'? Hard to say, but it has been around for over 20 years and awards fairly substantial prize money, so I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. On top of that, there is no shortage of mentions in news sources although a Dutch speaker could probably give more guidance on how reliable the sources are and how in-depth the coverage is. Overall it's a keep for me though. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:43, 5 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. I find the arguments of the keepers more persuasive than those of the deleters. In any case, this is an instance where the broader interest of the encyclopaedia should have a bearing and deletion would lose important encyclopedic information. This close is without prejudice to a repurposing of the article as a future editorial action. Just Chilling (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Appiah Akoto[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E - a middle school teacher who was the subject of a viral video. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should be kept as it meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines buoyed by detailed references from top news sites like the BBC,Independent, Quartz,CNN, Ghanaweb among others (credible references) . He wasn't just a subject of a viral video as claimed by the the speedy deletion 'norminator' Hé came into the limelight for his innovative approach in teaching ICT which went global courting the attention of not less than 15 media houses both locally and abroad and got technology giants like Microsoft and other individuals traveling to Ghana to improve ICT education in the while being touted as an epitome of a selfless teacher and inspiration for teachers worldwide. Pambelle12 (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Literally every single reference cited here only mentions the video he made, and don't focus on him solely. While I don't doubt the subject is "selfless", or a "inspiration", Wikipedia doesn't care about that, we care if a subject is notable, which this one evidently isn't. TheAwesome Hwyh 00:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article deserves to be on Wikipedia as it follows the notability guide considering the references supporting it which are from independent credible sources.Benebiankie (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Viral video does not mean notability. I am also questioning the two users above. The creator seems to know a ton of info on this person (COI?) and the person below the creators comments has a similar writing style (Sock?). AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. TheAwesome Hwyh 00:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the media attention. BLP1E does apply, but is only actionable when there is a separate article about the one event to redirect to, and there isn't one in this case. More specifically, in WP:1E: "when an individual plays a major role in a minor event ... it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident ... the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." No prejudice against refactoring the article to be about the event rather than the person, per BLP1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Viral video does not mean notability. also the article should be about the event rather than the person. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the only article we have about what is a major event. It needs to be beefed up, possibly refocused, and might need retitling, but the key fact in this article is that the posted photos have highlighted the inherent bias in the Ghanaian education system that requires students to pass a national-level test that includes being able to identify and assemble computer components without ever seeing such equipment in order to progress to higher education, and the publicity related to the posting and reposting of the images has initiated a national discussion about education quality and funding. (All of this is taken from the sources for this article.) While people who are surrounded by computers every day may think "yeah, yeah, another viral video", this is in fact a big deal from the perspective of education in Africa. Risker (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Risker.Tamsier (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Risker. --hroest 20:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP1E of not remotely a major event. Wait until dust has settled. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Riskier, the event and subject feature in WP:SIGCOV pieces from WP:RS/P around the world, including Daily Telegraph and CNN; clearly there is more to this event regarding education in Ghana that can be developed. Per David Eppstein, WP:ONEEVENT says If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate; but also goes on to say The general rule is to cover the event, not the person, and thus article could be re-named as the event; however, as Richard is featured in everything on the event, re-naming it is not an imperitive (e.g. he is now appearing at global conferences covered by WP:RS such as this Jarkata Post). Britishfinance (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by Risker.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Risker, and the article has multiple coverages, so it passes WP:GNG. William2001^(talk) 19:40, 11 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. Unanimity that she fails WP:ACTOR and more broadly WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Gold[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Yet another porn performer bio with sourcing that falls light-years, in this case parsecs, short of what is required for BLPs, but which survived AFD a decade ago. With PORNBIO deprecated and porn industry awards standing slone not establishing notability, there's no basis for retaining this negligibly dourced stub. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources so WP:GNG is not passed. From a google search please note that there are quite a few people with this name in hockey, arts etc but with this person I only found porn sites. Regarding the book mentioned in the external links it only gives her a namecheck with a date and place of birth in a list of Texas porn stars, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual, not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article. It Fails GNG and the subject is not notable, too.Forest90 (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ACTOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator. Finnegas (talk) 20:32, 11 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. Consensus that notability requirements have not been met. To be candid, I am surprised that this page has not been G5'd. Just Chilling (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indrajeet Mitra[edit]

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

Non notable business person. Created and edited on by a bunch of sockpuppets. None of the references indicate any notability for the person, with the major publications only mentioning his name in passing, or in corporate sponsored programs Jupitus Smart 17:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vote - Not notable up to Wikipedia standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.151.75 (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, I searched google and nothing found. It's obviously fails GNG and the subject could consider as non-notable subject, too.Forest90 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I have added an A7 tag. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:24, 10 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. Unanimity that this festival fails our notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gainesville Improv Festival[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct festival; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. One local news article referenced does not provide significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google search provided the following 2017 The Gainesville Sun article 2nd article. I see already that the festival was from 2005 to 2017 which begs the question what led to its demise. I feel like this could easily be improved. – The Grid (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A small local festival. Not notable. Szzuk (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, non notable and no lasting impact. There exist non-defunct annual events in Gainesville that aren't similarly blue-linked. StonyBrook (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because its subject is not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL festival. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like fun, but sources to support notability don't seem to exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 11 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 merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players. Clearly deletion is off the agenda and opinion is split between 'keep' and 'merge'. I am unconvinced that a further relist would clarify matters sufficiently to justify the relist. Looking at the 'keeps' I am not finding them convincing and though the keeps are saying WP:GNG is met there is no explanation as to how WP:GNG is met. On balance, my view is that 'merge' best meets consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Roberts[edit]

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

Hasn't yet played a MLB game, solely played in the minors. Does not currently meet the notability guidelines of WP:NBASEBALL. Bkissin (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players. He was a first round pick of the Cardinals and is still playing in their farm system. Spanneraol (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Hasn't played in MLB yet" is not a deletion rationale. True, he does not meet NBASE as of today, but I created it because I believe he meets WP:GNG, which supersedes NBASE. Obviously, merging would be preferable to deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the Article. But merging with an Article about Golf is best option for it.Forest90 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

??? Golf? Spanneraol (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be fine with a Merge/Redirect to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players. The article in its current form is being used as a WP:OSE rationale by WP:PAID editors in Draftspace. Bkissin (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it's a very weak one, I think. You could make the argument that the 50 game suspension for a second violation of MLB's drug policy satisfies some sense of notability, as the drug issue has become more prevalent in baseball since the Mitchell Report and such lengthy suspensions aren't that common. His status as a 2nd Round draft pick might also push him up there a little, in terms of notability. Strikerforce^Talk 17:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High MLB draft pick with large contract, suspended but still active. Passes WP:GNG for the draft. the million dollar contract, and or the suspension. Non-trivial coverage can be found to support GNGTonereport (☎)(My Work) 01:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft, the contract and the suspension are not things that meet GNG on their own.. lots of higher draft picks than this guy have flamed out without making the majors and his early minor league numbers are not good. Spanneraol (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge per Spannerol. Malmmf (talk) 24:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Spannerol. If he were a top-15 pick I'd say keep, but given he was the 43rd overall selection I'd say its more appropriate to list him among other Cardinals prospects in St. Louis Cardinals minor league players. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Spanneraol. William2001^(talk) 19:44, 11 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 merge to Jugend Rettet. There were two "keep" !votes (not counting a repeated !vote by Matthiaspaul), one "delete" (the nom), and two "merge" !votes. One of the "keep" !votes (AmericanAir88) was not really based in policy (size and cost are immaterial to determine notability). Some of the arguments of Matthiaspaul were convincingly rebutted by Widefox. Taken together, I see a majority arguing that a stand-alone article is at this point not warranted, but there obviously is consensus that at least some information needs to be preserved. A merge to the article of the parent organization therefore seems to be the best solution. Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iuventa[edit]

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

Really the ship is less notable then its captain. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A ship this size and cost is notable. Please consider stripping the primary reference to their webpage. This can be seen as promotional. Cheerio042 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking account blocked as a sock. Britishfinance (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What size and cost, that is such a notable feature we do not even mention it, so cannot compare it to similar vessels.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jugend Rettet. There's just no notability independent of the topic, this is about the usage of the ship / events around it so a merge to suitable article is prudent. Sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and we're WP:NOTNEWS . Widefox; talk 19:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ship has gone under recent investigation and is notable for its rescue/controversy. Also, per Cheerio, the ship's size and cost is notable. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED from Jugend Rettet, the captain or event (which we don't have an article on), and per (the blocked sock Cheerio) the notability based on cost is curious as both this and the German article don't have a cost, the notability based on size (only 32m) is an argument to avoid per WP:BIG . Widefox; talk 16:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact that Cheerio has been banned as sockpuppet account, why in the world would even in theory the cost of the ship be notable? EllsworthSK (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Jugend Rettet(changed to Keep - see below). There's a lot of in-depth international coverage of the vessel [1][2][3][4][5]. I was going for Keep, but find that almost all of the coverage is connected to the seizure event, which being already covered, suggests WP:SINGLEEVENT. (This ignores any existing ship-specific notability guidelines or usages which I'm probably not aware of.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SINGLEEVENT applies to people, not to things (like ships), however I do see your point. However, the coverage I could find is connected to sea rescue in the Mediterranean Sea, but not specifically to the seizing event on the 2 August 2017 (or consequences of it). In fact, at least three independent documentaries have been produced by reporters during guest stays on the ship at various times in 2016 and 2017. So, we have independent coverage (as far as this is possible with footage filmed live on site) and coverage of multiple events. And we have plenty of sources discussing the topic. In my opinion, this establishes independent notability of the ship as well.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The documentaries are indeed a good argument - at least two of them are largely or entirely pre-seizure. Good find. Changing to keep. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If at all helpful, there is a German Wiki page on this subject. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not per WP:OTHERLANGS. Widefox; talk 16:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful in that it provides a number of pre-summarized sources - but it's clear that there are plenty of these, anyway. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the sources there, although I see a parallel with Rainbow Warrior (1955) but just a lot, lot less notable, currently, and less iconic with the movement, easily handled in the (small) orgs topic just like Sea-Watch (ship) #1 #2 (Sea-Watch 2 actually has an article, but redirect needed fixing to target it) #3. Only time will tell if the ship will be as notable as the three Rainbow Warriors, rather than the Sea-Watches which are directly related to this. Widefox; talk 17:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am aware of (and have added to the article) at least three independently filmed documentaries (one filmed between 2016 and 2017 by Michele Cinque and others for the Iuventa cinema film, one filmed in 2017 by Tanja Karrasch for RP Online, and one filmed in 2017 by Carsten Behrendt for ZDF (there might be more). Depending on discipline, they would be regarded as either primary or secondary sources, in either case, they are independent of the Iuventa crew and Jugend Rettet. The two TV productions definitely do not cover the 2 August 2017 event at all, and most probably this also holds true for Cinque's film as he left the ship before (but I haven't seen that film myself yet, so I don't know if the event is covered or not). However, we have independent coverage of multiple events over a span of more than a year, that is, basically over the whole period of time the Iuventa was actually operated by Jugend Rettet.

We also have the 2018 forensic analysis by the Goldsmiths, London-based team of researchers around Charles Heller and Lorenzo Pezzani, which definitely covers the event.

This, combined with the many other sources available discussing topics around the ship (the ship itself, the various missions, the organization, some of the crew members, and various other topics related to this) I see WP:GNG fulfilled.

Additonally, while we don't have a ship-specific notability guideline, the Wikiproject typically attempts to cover ships longer than 30 m.

Per WP:PAGEDECIDE we are therefore free to decide if we want to discuss the ship in a separate article, or combine this into the Jugend Rettet article. Since the ship has a history before it became the property of Jugend Rettet (and which would not belong into the Jugend Rettet article) and probably it will have one afterwards, I find it more suitable to keep the ship-related info in a separate article.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is about the actual topic Jugend Rettet with the ship a central part of it, better handled with it per PAGEDECIDE. This ship was not notable before, just a fishing vessel and even where it was built doesn't have an article (I created a redirect for it). We have two sentences about previous use, easily handled in the article. Future use is WP:CRYSTAL. There's no article size reason to split a stub and a start with this much overlap per WP:SPINOUT, readers are better served without the central part of the org's topic removed, and the org/event info duplicated, just to include two sentences of previous use. Widefox; talk 00:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jugend Rettet per WP:NOTNEWS. There is not sufficient notability to the ship itself, but only to organization. Ship hasnt charted in years and just as we dont have article each of three Sea Watch ships, but only for Sea Watch organization there is simply no long-term notability that can be subscribed to this. The documentaries are not a good argument as their center-piece is organization activity, with ship being rather irrelevant. Given that Rainbow Warrior has been bombed by French special forces specifically, it doesnt hold a candle, especially in terms of notability.

Lastly, the sources of this article are atrocious. Blogspot? The crew members are not under trial and if Source 5 would be WP:RS, which it is not, it wouldnt claim it. Even if the article would be notable, which it isnt, I would be for either complete deletion or some serious re-work. Eg thereby invalidating the Italian public prosecutor's allegations. Person who added that part should go back and re-read WP:NPOV. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:59, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Rebel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability. Survived deletion in 2008 based on very low, now deprecated PORNBIO standards, and even though shw racked up more porn awards and nominations, she wouldn't have met the criteria in last year's version of that now-defunct guideline. No nontrivial independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With this many awards would assume notability within her science. Would strip the website reference secondary to WP:Promo and the weird wording of her native language. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography is a genre of entertainment, not a science. With up to 15 nominees per category, the porn award ceremonies nominate almost everybody for something. That's why they were stripped from WP:PORNBIO years ago. As the nominator states, the awards won would not have satisfied the now-deprecated PORNBIO guideline, failing the "well-known and significant industry award" test. Putting aside the less than significant award coverage, the remaining sources are the subject's website, a promotional listing and a press release. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:ENT and WP:BASIC without the support of non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. The article is a won-an-award-but-the-sources-are-junk porn bio loaded up with trivia. An independent search for reliable source coverage are brief mentions of the actress or brief quotes from her. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pornography creates awards as a method of PR driving, not to note actual accomplishment. As Gene93k points out our sources are a press release, a promotional listing and the subject's website. That in no way adds up to the level of reliable 3rd party secondary sources we expect for articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be known within the porn world, but even within that world it looks like there are no independent non-promotional sources writing about her - just the award notices. So, she seems to be known but not necessarily notable within the porn world. And it looks like she is largely unknown outside the walled garden of pornography. So, she might qualify for a porn wiki or encyclopedia (and I have no doubt these exist), but not for a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that this is a clear fail of WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guido (jazz band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability, not enough available sources for an article of substance Vmavanti (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vmavanti (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good stub. Not promotion, band not notable for more. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Not being promotional is a low bar, there's no substantive coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still run of the mill, and no reliable sources, even 13 years later. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that this list is not notable and fails WP:LISTN. Just Chilling (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Aurora, Colorado[edit]

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

List of mostly non-notable building that aren't even that tall. Does not meet WP:LISTN either as there are no sources discussing the buildings as a group. Article likely contains WP:OR and cites only one source emporis.com which is not reliable anyway. Rusf10 (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What Wiki is not. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tallest building here isn't even half as tall as the shortest building at List of tallest buildings in Denver, so I couldn't even suggest a merge to a Colorado article... These are not tall buildings and having all these articles without reliable sources covering the topic is absurd. Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not valid. Please provide policy statement on the necessary height of buildings for lists. Thank you.Djflem (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe one of the buildings may be notable on its own. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Britishfinance (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, a list of non notable buildings, and article lacks citations so WP:OR also applies. Ajf773 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfies Wikipedia:CSC if sources are there. Wikipedia:Before applies.Djflem (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- thirteen storeys is a little underwhelming. This just isn't a notable list, and that's not even considering the reliability issues outlined in the nomination. Reyk _YO! 08:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This AfD was added to the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list by user:Andrew Davidson.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no fan of the Colonel or of the ARS, but so what? Reyk _YO! 10:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - This needs to be disclosed, so if a sudden wave of keep votes come in, the closer of the discussion knows where they came from.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't seem to have happened. Thankfully, the days of the ARS being able to muster hordes of keep voters on demand are in the past. Reyk _YO! 06:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Aurora, Colorado per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Satifies Wikipedia:CSC.Djflem (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)05:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nan Aron[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Basically a gadfly without impact, built on one Washington Post profile, fleeting mentions in reliable sources, and dead or inaccessible links. bd2412 T 17:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cited by reliable sources in multiple articles including the New York Times (here, here, and here among others), this book, Time magazine, PBS... 9H48F (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The citiations are either to sources that do not show notability, or to passing mentions in articles that do not come to enough mention to pass GNG. Name dropping does not equal notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have just added an article from 2001 about her and a conservative equivalent and their role in judicial nomination confirmation processes, which describes her (then) as a key player. There are plenty of other sources in Newspapers.com, certainly enough to meet WP:GNG - I will try to add more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG, maybe her book might help if there was an article about that. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references seem to establish enough notability to meet GNG in terms of involvement in judicial nominations, esp. ~~one~~ sources added by RebeccaGreen. Bookscale (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added more references, including reviews of her first book (in the American Bar Association Journal and the Harvard Law Review) and more articles about her. The ABA Journal frequently quotes her - if the article was expanded to include more information about specific judicial nomination campaigns of hers, those references could be added too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per references found and added by RebeccaGreen. Article is substantially improved. -- œ^™ 20:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added during discussion by User:RebeccaGreen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 11 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 merge to Radius (software company). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darian Shirazi[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for multiple reasons. The article contains three claims. One is about relation to better-known people, and we know that notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). One is a simple biographical fact that is not notable on its own (the subject founded a company) and appears to be self promotion (WP:PROMO). And one is the fact that he was the first intern hired by Facebook, which seems to be of dubious importance. These facts are all backed up by multiple sources but the information conveyed is trivial coverage (WP:TRIVIAL) because it is coverage of the company he founded rather than biographical coverage (and the company has its own page already, Radius_(software_company)). Dariusk (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a paragraph in the Radius (software company) article and redirect this article there because apart from the notability issue there is minimal content for a stand-alone article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: shameless COI/SPA activity - only one edit ever made by the article creator, nearly 8,000 bytes - despite two previous noms with 100% D votes. After this is resolved, we need to look at the similar issues of notability, PR, SPA & COI for the associated companies Radius (software company) and Fwix. Rayman60 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being facebook's first intern is notable itself. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Above voter has attracted scrutiny for a possible WP:COI issue. StonyBrook (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Radius (software company), for starters, per Atlantic306. StonyBrook (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new section in the Radius (software company) article, while does not meet notability. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Osmond[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. Game of Thrones role was non-speaking in a single episode [6]. Only existing reference is to IMDb. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some references. I believe that the subject is notable. I see some non-trivial coverage. I also added an award the subject received. i hope other editors will continue to improve the article. Tonereport (☎)(My Work) 01:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when the role someone is best known for was a non-speaking part that is a sure sign they are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shoutout to the POD!MaskedSinger (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coffee cups on GOT are notable. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanibel-Captiva Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Run of the mill local C of C. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A WP:BEFORE check basically confirmed WilliamJE's suspicions. Links in the article are unnotable news events (WP:NOTNEWS) and there's not much else other than that it exists. There are any number of Chamber of Commerces around, but nothing that makes this one particularly worthy of its own article. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyday there's at least one of these!MaskedSinger (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Candidate for a WP:Permastub but theres too much text and too little notability. Also "devoted to" really begs WP:PROMO. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, nom, and Red Phoenix. Sourcing is underwhelming; we are not a directory of every little CoC. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Habibani[edit]

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

Per a previous PROD: Unsourced, no indication of notability, a cursory Google check didn't come up with any significant sources. creffett (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced. Unable to find much in my BEFORE. I'll note that the article at present has the Balochi name as "بُگٹی" which doesn't match the English title - but does match Bugti. The geography of "union council Gandoi Desert Pat Feeder canals on the right (west) side of Dera Bugti District and Barkhan in the Balochistan province of Pakistan and Halab Syria." seems unlikely as Halab (Aleppo) is quite a ways away from Balochistan.Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not finding significant coverage in reliable sources and not much minor coverage either so it does not pass WP:GNG. If good sources are found please ping me, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a good article, but (Icewhiz) is right this is not the right name for it, it's just wrong. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Britishfinance (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - Not any reliable sources, nor any indication of notability. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darrel Wilson[edit]

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

Non notable individual, article possibly started by individual in question. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as article hijacked from original subject, so reverted. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Thomas Anglicans[edit]

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

There is no such separate ethnic group known as “St. Thomas Anglicans”. The article begins by expressing these are St. Thomas Christians who are members of the Anglican Churches (specifically the church of South India). Members of an ethnic group that are members of other churches are not a separate ethnic group but the same people that have different church affiliations. I would recommend adding aspects of this article to the Saint Thomas Christians Wikipedia page and adding Church of South India to the list of churches St. Thomas Christians are apart of with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf: Hello Wgolf, I see that you a senior editor with over 100,000 edits to your credit and I solicit your guidance and advice. You had reviewed article 'Saint Thomas Anglicans' a month ago and I believe you approved it, as I see a blue tick mark in the notification that I received for the same. I created the 'Saint Thomas Anglicans' page and took a great care to ensure that is well sourced and modeled it after the existing pages for several other Indian (ethno)religious groups. Now another user has nominated 'Saint Thomas Anglicans' for deletion, to which I strongly object. I would be state my objections in this page, in due course, but I do not want any further step to be taken till the discussion is closed. I request you to participate in the discussion as an impartial moderator. Thank you. --Tharian7 (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are numerous religious, ethnic and ethno-religious groups in India (too difficult to count); a distinctive feature enriching Indian demographics. Lots of them profess the same religion and belong to the same subsect and have a shared history, yet maintain separate temples, mosques and churches, while visiting others' too. Historians would testify that this phenomenon is the result of a gradual evolution, progression and synthesis in Indian society, since ancient times. From the moment a parent group split, the child groups have had a separate and independent existence and history. So is St. Thomas Christians, who belong to several ecclesiastical traditions. The history of their divisions is detailed in the 'St. Thomas Christian' page.
As with St. Thomas Anglicans, their separate existence within the Anglican fold starts in 1836, after the synod of Mavelikara. Chronologically, this was the second split in the St. Thomas Christian community after the first major split into Catholic and Syriac Orthodox traditions. The later history of Saint Thomas Anglicans, is detailed in the Wikipedia page having the same title with ample supporting references.
There are numerous related religious, ethnic, ethno-religious, caste and sub-caste Indian groups for which dedicated Wikipedia pages already exists.
Mangalorean Catholics, Karwari Catholics and Goan Catholics descend from the same Konkani people, speak the same Konkani language, belong to the same Latin rite Catholic Church and yet each of them have dedicated, separate Wikipedia pages, each using the infobox ethnic group. We also have Mangalorean Protestants who are related to the above groups and members of the Church of South India, having a separate wiki page using the Infobox ethnic group. Strictly speaking none of these are separate ethnic/caste groups that existed for millennia together; each group evolved in the last few centuries from the same Konkani stock in south western India, due to Portuguese and British influence. Similarly there are several other related Indian Christian and other groups of the same descend, for whom there are dedicated Wiki pages, each using the infobox ethnic group. Coming back St. Thomas Christians, I would like to point out there are separate dedicated pages for Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, whose members by and large descent from the same original stock and follow closely related Eastern Catholic rites. However it is acknowledged that the infobox is 'Christian denomination', in this case.
Another example I wish to point out is that of Pancha-Gauda Brahmins. Each of these related Brahmin groups (Saraswat Brahmin, Gauda Brahmins, Goud Saraswat Brahmin, Kanyakubja Brahmin, Maithil Brahmin, Utkala Brahmin) have dedicated Wiki pages. Some use the infobox for Ethnic Group, some for Caste and some others does not use any.
Saint Thomas Anglicans are Saint Thomas Christians in Anglican tradition. The page Saint Thomas Anglicans is properly referenced and contains information about the relations of British Anglicans with the Malankara Church (Oriental Orthodox) and the later history of Saint Thomas Anglicans, which is mentioned no where else. The page has also been reviewed by a senior editor Wgolf. Moreover, using the wrong infobox, is no reason to delete a page; it can be replaced with the correct one and may be removed too, as there are several Wiki pages that do not have an infobox. --Tharian7 (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tharian7:
  Hello, I actually think this is a great article with fantastic content but I do not think “St. Thomas Anglicans” constitute as a separate ethnic group. Within the St. Thomas Christians you have Syrian Catholics and Syrian Orthodox but they still constitute as St. Thomas Christians, not two separate ethnic groups (it should be noted that these two groups after separating in the 17th century, created distinct cultures amongst themselves but they are still considered apart of the larger St. Thomas Christian tradition). In this same way, I feel that Syrian Anglicans, like Syrian Catholics and Syrian Orthodox, are not a separate ethnic group but instead apart of the St. Thomas Christian/Syrian Christians of Kerala ethnic group. By creating a separate wiki page I feel that they are being separated from the actual culture that they are apart of it. Instead of doing so, perhaps content from this page should be added to the main St. Thomas Christians wiki page. The issue is that pages such as Syro Malabar Catholic, Syro Malankara Catholic, etc are actually Churches, St. Thomas Anglicans are not a separate church nor ethnic group but instead St. Thomas Christians who have membership in Anglican Churches, again why I feel this page should be deleted and added to the main St. Thomas Christians wiki page. Using this same argument pages could be created for “St. Thomas Catholics” and “St. Thomas Orthodox” but they don’t exist for the reason that they are not separate groups but instead one ethnic group apart of the same tradition that simply have memebership in different churches. Thomast48 (talk)
  - I really do not understand how the contents of 'Saint Thomas Anglicans' page projects them as a separate ethnic group, distinct from the larger St. Thomas Christian community. There isn't even one sentence or word in the article that would explicitly or implicitly, lead any reader to that conclusion. Perhaps, someone who just glances at the infobox, without reading content would. With respect to that, I have already given several examples, where the Infobox for ethnic group was used in Wikipedia, while the content wasn't just about ethnicity but also religion, sub-sect, denomination, vernacular etc. If more examples are needed, those could be easily cited for many religious, ethnic and language groups.
    In my previous post, it was acknowledged that the pages for the closely related Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Catholic denominations use the infobox for Christian denomination. Those pages are dedicated to explain the separate histories, evolution and existence of those groups of Saint Thomas Christians, who split from their parent group and joined each of those denominations. Along with that the ecclesiology of those denominations are also added, just as in the 'Saint Thomas Anglicans' page. The same is true about the Malankara Orthodox group and it is true that a 'Saint Thomas Catholic' page or a 'Saint Thomas Orthodox' page would be redundant and uncalled for, as their respective individual denominational pages would serve the same purpose.
    It is not right and proper to merge the contents of 'Saint Thomas Anglicans' with that of the 'Saint Thomas Christian' page. The Saint Thomas Christian page is about the Saint Thomas Christian community as a whole and is not dedicated to a single subgroup or denomination. Each subgroup including Saint Thomas Anglicans are briefly mentioned in it. It has been like that for years together, with links to the respective individual pages for each subgroup or their Churches, for anyone who wants to know their detailed separate history, existence, ecclesiology, denominational family etc. The detailed history of Saint Thomas Anglicans or Syrian Anglicans isn't mentioned any where else; hence a separate dedicated page is necessary and warranted.
    Perhaps one valid scenario where-in ethnic distinctives could be attributed to Saint Thomas Anglicans, would be in the context of the global Anglican Communion which has peoples of several ethnicities and languages, in its many provinces. For example Church of South India, has in it, people from various ethnic and linguistic backgrounds like Mangalorean Protestants, Telugu Christians etc. just like Marathi Anglicans and Anglican Bengali Christians of the Church of North India. All individual Wiki pages dedicated to these groups use the infobox ethnic group, as with Mangalorean Catholics, Karwari Catholics and Goan Catholics who are all Latin rite Catholics of Konkani descent. Likewise, Saint Thomas Anglicans are Anglicans of Saint Thomas Christian descent. However the purpose of using the infobox ethnic group was not to hightlight this or to project Saint Thomas Anglicans as an ethnic group distinct from Saint Thomas Christians; that should be immediately apparent to any one who reads the content. The article merely details the origin and history of Anglican Syrian Christians, as one of the many groups that splintered out of the original Saint Thomas Christian community. The infobox ethnic group was used, only because it is used widely in Wikipedia in similar articles. --Tharian7 (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Director: An impartial senior editor has to arbitrate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Thomas Anglicans. Could you drop by, please? --Tharian7 (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons for the recommendation to keep
- Very well sourced article with ample 3rd party references.
- Contains detailed history of the association of the Malankara Church in India with British Anglicans, mentioned no where else.
- Contains details abut the origin, evolution and existence of Anglican Syrian Christians, mentioned no where else.
- Anglicanism is distinct from other denominations of St. Thomas Christians. Individual Wiki pages exists for each of those denominations, detailing the separate and distinct later histories of St.Thomas Christians who joined them.
- St Thomas Anglicans distinct from other Anglicans in India like Mangalorean Protestants and Marathi Anglicans, discussed in detail in my above posts.
- The contents of 'Saint Thomas Anglicans' should not be merged that of the 'Saint Thomas Christian' page. The Saint Thomas Christian page is about the Saint Thomas Christian community as a whole and is not dedicated to a single subgroup or denomination.
- If the infobox ethnic group is unsuitable for this page, it could be changed. I have cited many examples in my previous detailed posts where the same infobox was used in similar articles like Irish Catholics. Using the wrong infobox is no reason to delete an article.
Footnote: The Nominator for deletion himself testifies above, on 15 June 2019 that "this is a great article with fantastic content". --Tharian7 (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomast48: It is a disgrace and irony that I, who is very much in for keeping this article has to persuade the Nominator on this; but it looks like you have not completed the 3rd step of nomination, in a week. If you want to press on with your nomination, check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and notify users who monitor AfD discussions.--Tharian7 (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tharian7: Hi friend, I do stand by my opinion that this is a great article but as I have stated I believe that the content belongs in the main St. Thomas Christians article. My reason again is simply because separate pages do not exist such as “St. Thomas Orthodox” and “St.Thoams Catholics” but instead content relating to St. Thomas Christians who became Catholics and or Orthodox simply remains on the main article because they are not separate groups/communities/identities/etc even tho they have some distinct features, I feel that this is the same for St. Thomas Christians who became Anglican. I have not responded because I have already established my position on this and I understand yours, it is simply a difference of opinion on the basis for the article itself. I’ve simply been waiting for an admin to respond.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion never made it on to the logs, so I'm going to add it to today's log
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Iffy★Chat -- 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination makes no sense to me. The article makes no claim that STAs are an ethnic group though this seems to be what bothers the nominator. It describes, thoroughly, their evolution as a religious community. This is one of the best-written articles I’ve seen come to AfD. It’s well-researched and well-sourced. The fact that one editor thinks it ought to be merged does not seem to be good grounds for bringing it here. This should be discussed on the talk page. I see @Tharian7 appears to have deleted his account and I hope this is not a sign that a new editor has become frustrated and given up after all the work they’ve put into developing this article. Mccapra (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Saint Thomas Christians. No reason to lose the content. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As you can see, the Saint Thomas Christians page is about the community as a whole, with each phase in their history and ensuing denomination(s) mentioned briefly, along with the British phase and Saint Thomas Anglicans. Any further addition of contents from Saint Thomas Anglicans page is not advisable as it would tip the balance.--Tharian7 (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge This article seems like synthesis to me; it discusses the intersection of two topics but does not establish notability of this independently. Reviewing the sources I do not see a single one that refers to the phrase "Saint Thomas Anglican". Reywas92^Talk 21:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Frykenberg 2017, p. 303 calls them Anglican Thomas Christians. You need to do more than scan things with a phrase matcher. Others seem to call them "Syrian Anglicans", with quotation marks in some cases. Uncle G (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason given for deletion. Any suggestions for merging or rearranging material should take place on the article's talk page. Thincat (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a valid, well-sourced article about a religious minority. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As mentioned by Jo-Jo Eumerus, all "delete" opinions are mere assertions of non-notability, which isn't that strong of an argument without a discussion of the proposed or existing sources. Sandstein 07:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Rich[edit]

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

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

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

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

A user has been repeatedly trying to get this article deleted through PROD, citing their belief that the creator of the article is the same person as the subject himself.

I don't know if that's the case, but I would argue that the subject is not notable; although I don't care one way or the other if the article is deleted, I'm placing it here so we can stop the conflict and resolve this issue. Rockstonetalk to me! 17:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rockstonetalk to me! 17:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rockstonetalk to me! 17:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. This looks like it was pushed through with a set of sources that reference back to a single source.--Jorm (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have indef'd users Trufeseeker and Cameoskulk for violating WP:Harassment. Diaozhadelaowai has been indef'd for violating WP:PROMO. Sasquatch t|c 21:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you; I think that was a good decision. All three of them have had problems... I'm starting to think Trufeseeker just made an account to hound Diaozhadelaowai, it does seem really suspect.. Rockstonetalk to me! 21:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable, it's basically quackery and spam. Praxidicae (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nathan Rich is a notable author and researcher of Chinese/American issues. And he has a work history that is listed on the hollywood work database: imdb.com -[7]. Ginjanglez (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not a source for notability.--Jorm (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After finding reliable sources following a Google search, I went to the article to improve it and discovered it is fully protected and I am unable to do that. Re: notability, the subject was featured in A&E's documentary series Scientology and the Aftermath, he wrote the book Scythe Tleppo: My Survival of a Cult, Abandonment, Addiction and Homelessness, and the subject attended a controversial school of which The Hollywood Reporter featured the subject. Subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. If the article could be improved upon and editors were not locked out, the article could be improved and reliable sources added. While the article may be full of POV, it can be fixed and it does not necessarily mean the subject is not notable. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the Rolling Stone source and it is purely a description of the show and not really of the person. I cannot find a single published review on his book. Notability does not transfer from the school to the pupil. At best, I think what you have laid out is perhaps a case to leaving it as a redirect to Leah Remini's docuseries. Sasquatch t|c 15:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Rolling Stone article is a review of the film and is clearly not "purely a description of the show," as you put it. The title of the article, "Children of Scientology: Life After Growing Up in an Alleged Cult," indicates that. The article goes into great detail about children of Scientologists, including interviews and statements from the subject. Also, the subject attending the school is not the only thing covered in Rolling Stone about the subject nor are other reliable sources featuring the subject. Saying it does not make it so. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My name is Aaron Smith-Levin. I was on the same Scientology & the Aftermath show that Nathan was on. After the show aired he started a YouTube channel which now has about 220,000 subscribers. After starting the YouTube channel he published a book about his time in Scientology. Because I got to know Nathan through the show, and because I have published about 15 hours of interview with him for my own YouTube channel (Growing Up In Scientology) we have stayed in touch, and I am aware that he has been mentioned many times in pieces by various notable US media outlets in relation to the scientology stuff. Examples are: Hollywood Reporter ([8]) & Rolling Stone ([9]). After the Scientology stuff, Nathan published a Dolce & Gabbana parody video of a Chinese D&G ad, and this blew up, went viral and so then Nathan got mentioned in a bunch of other press for stuff having nothing to do with Scientology. Examples are: CNN ([10]) Associated Press ([11]) HuffPo ([12]) Then, as Nathan's YouTube channel started to focus more on Chinese issues, he really started to blow up over there and has over 1 million subs on Bilibili and Weibo and I know he has been interviewed by several of the major Chinese sites, like TenCent and Weibo. Asmithlevin (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC) — Asmithlevin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The pieces I've seen related to scientology solely mention the fact that he was on this series. I'm not sure that's enough to pass WP:GNG as notability is not inherited between the show and subject in all cases. The parody video, while I'm sure it went viral and got some coverage, is also not enough in my eyes to make the subject notable. I don't see having a single viral video in 2019 being enough to pass WP:GNG. Sasquatch t|c 20:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be more than a small handful of new-or-low-activity users who have found their way here. I suspect this discussion has been canvassed.--Jorm (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of the dialogue on this page is to determine whether Nathan is a notable person. My input provided links to articles from mainstream media to support the argument that he is. Instead of acknowledging the links as being valid evidence, you raise yet another objection not to the information itself, but to who is providing it. It would be easy to just do a Google Search for NATHAN RICH and see how much content there is of people writing about him and talking about him. How do you expect anyone to come and contribute information to this dialogue if they are not invited to do so? Asmithlevin (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When a lot of new users show up to an AFD, it certainly looks likes stealth canvassing has occurred, which may legitimately factor into how arguments are weighed. Sasquatch t|c 20:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This article seemed to have been vandalized since I last edited on it (e.g. mention of his book deleted etc.). Clearly not a strong case/definite borderline. The Rolling Stone interview is very recent (June 2019), and even though he is not the sole subject (which would have made it a stronger case), it is a large article and he features in a major section of it. He also appears as more than just a passing mention in other pieces from the Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath series (e.g. Inquisitr [13] Hollywood Reporter [14]). Even from these sources, a larger BLP article could be written about Rich's experiences in Scientology. I would think that a casual reader interested in Scientology would expect to find something about this character and his bio details. I see that he also appears in various Chinese news sites, like this: [15]. Britishfinance (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have also only just realised that his three references to Tony Ortega's website are probably better quality than I had assumed. Ortega seems a notable journalist and author on Scientology, and in this context would probably be considered decent RS. Britishfinance (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nathan Rich appears to be a great thinker in somewhat controversial fields. The recent invitation to take part in the Coffee with Ren Huawei CEO might be a sign of some notability besides what already in the vandalized article. A-Bee-Honey (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Appearing in a segment of a single episode of a series and self publishing an autobiography does not make him a notable person Xiaoyun64 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC) — Xiaoyun64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: Not notable at this time. May be notable later. --云间守望 - (Talk with WQL) 10:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have read all the comments on this page, as well as re-read the Wikipedia guidelines for notability; I believe this page qualifies for retention, though I understand how others might not consider it so. In the area of Scientology watching, Nathan's work has contributed to the body of knowledge about the treatment of children in the church, a topic of increasing coverage. As Britishfinance has noted, Tony Ortega is a professional journalist (not a former church member with an ax to grind) who's been writing about Scientology for more than two decades; all Scn watchers would consider his coverage "mainstream" in this sense. I do concur with AuthorAuthor that the page does need fixing (I consider it weakly written), but that doesn't make Nathan not-notable. SJFriedl (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even after discarding some low-activity/SPA accounts, it seems like there is room for disagreement on notability. Not helped that a lot of arguments are blithe "he's not notable" arguments. So I think more discussion is warranted here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I took another look at this with an eye to how an outsider to the subject of Scientology-watching would look at it, mainly at how the references contribute to notability. I've been following Scientology for a long time (but was never in), so this is a space I'm familiar with. I hope formatting like this is OK:
- Refs 1, 8 and 11 are coverage from Tony Ortega, the most-respected journalist covering Scientology; I deem them high value.
- Ref #2 (Rolling Stone article) is likewise high value: it's not just rehashing the show, but provides original coverage of a retreat of former Scientologists and their experiences, especially about the treatment of children in the church.
- Ref #9 is high value also because Scientology itself decided that Nathan was notable enough to create an attack site that is far more than a casual dismissal of claims.
- Refs 3 and 4 (Inquisitr and Hollywood Reporter) articles get low weight because they seem to be rehashes of the show and don't really provide new coverage (though THR would have more weight due to its wider readership)
- Ref #12 (Mace Kingsley) gets no weight at all because there's an actual Wikipedia page for it; this reference seems gratuitous and should be removed.
- Ref #5 ("Aunt Julie") has no weight at all; linking to a non-famous family member provides no notability.
- Ref #7 (Adam Carolla podcast) gets at best medium weight because it's mainstream popular media, though being a book tour interview reduces that weight some. Maybe this is low.
- Ref #6 (Surviving Scn Radio) gets low notability weight because all those folks know each other and are not really independent sources
- Ref #10 (link to the book) - I don't know how much a book contributes to notability. Surely some?
- Ref #13 (Presence in China) - I don't know anything about this, but it appears to be something. SJFriedl (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before this page was vandalized and locked I believe there were closer to 40 references. Is it possible that it can be reverted to that state so that someone (or you) can provide commentary on the value/weight of all the references that were there previously? Asmithlevin (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject worthy of a well referenced stub, not this thesis of self glorification Cheerio042 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A well referenced stub would be a keep on WP; note, Cheerio042 just joined Wikipedia today and their first 18 edits have been !votes at AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I follow what's going on, but user Cheerio042 has been blocked for alleged sockpuppetry; perhaps that factors into the discussion here. SJFriedl (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced article that proves the subject passes GNG Lightburst (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been other cases where a writer/article-subject made thinly-veiled attempts for years to obsessively control the content and/or tone of their WP page (Rachel Marsden comes to mind), and this is also the reason that the Rich article was brought here. To me this is a strawman argument to avoid the convincing claims of notability presented in some of the previous comments. StonyBrook (talk) 04:25, 5 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. Sandstein 07:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mullvad[edit]

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

Same reason as with AirVPN (AfD disc.) and AzireVPN (AfD disc.): the service doesn't meet the criteria in WP:NSOFT/WP:GNG. While VPN services are notable as a phenomenon, a lot of the small providers simply haven't been covered enough to be notable by themselves. Redirecting Mullvad to Comparison of VPN services might be an idea, though, since I still believe Mullvad is relevant in the context of a comparison of VPN services, but I guess that may be a controversial move. --Stempelquist (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single review in PCWorld doesn't qualify it for WP:CORP notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are other WP:RS reviews beside PCworld. thebestvpn does hands on test reviews. Unusually for a 14 eyes jurisdiction no information is required to register and using Bitcoin to pay you should be relatively anonymous. A keep is possible given Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Retention of VPN Products and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureVPN. Its important people check widely for sources not just what is in the article. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: thebestvpn.com and similar sites are affiliate marketing blogs -- I wouldn't count those as reliable sources, since their only purpose is to earn money by redirecting potential customers to VPN services. In short, their "reviews" are commercials in disguise. --Stempelquist (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I'm not mistaken I'd note the AfD nom. is also the article creator ... a little unusual. Actually I added the notability tag so quite unusual. I've increased the article content a little to bring it beyond stub but I've no made a good job of it ... certainly not up to the PureVPN article standard. But it is beginning to bring out some of the aspects that mkae it stand out from some other VPN providers and it has WP:SUSTAINED over 10 or so years.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Masum Reza^📞 00:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: At a glance, I'm seeing three articles from PC World (all by the same author), an article from Tom's Guide, and an article from TechRadar that are independent of Mullvad, which puts me on the fence about WP:GNG. I'm aware Tom's Guide and TechRadar are both owned by Future plc, but they seem to be editorially independent of each other. The biggest question I'm confronted with, however, is: "What does this article do that Comparison of virtual private network services doesn't or can't?" Because outside of a small bit of history, I'm seeing very little. Disclaimer: I made an edit to the article about a year ago, and I'm enthusiastic about privacy software, but I'm in no way affiliated with Mullvad. Note: If kept, the article should be improved, for example by removing the blatant advertisement from the lead section. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the lede and what is present is supported by the body and also added more content and references. With Techradar and PCworld reviews plus use of The One Privacy Site and TheBestVPN comparison sites we meet WP:GNG and these are all referenced on the article. I observe the points of given on [16] with a lot of comparison sites but this article is using the ones mentioned performing real tests. The Comparison of virtual private network services article is good but tables suffer on mobile devices (at least mine) and can be hard to keep updated (I'd not that article was also created by Stempelquist). There may be issues about what VPN's are eligible for inclusion the table ... it looks as if it was VPN's with article's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AzireVPN and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirVPN were deleted for example meaning those should be removed from that article. From the discussion at Retention of VPN Products this is above the keep threshold.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC) I'd also note this pentest report from Cure53 I've just happened across.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"From the discussion at Retention of VPN Products this is above the keep threshold." Except 1) That was a discussion between four random people on WikiProject Computing, 2) one of those people – the person who started it and proposed the criteria – is you, and 3) the other three editors disagreed with your point, for example saying your criteria are "a somewhat bad idea" and "not going to mesh with existing notability criteria". I would hardly call TheBestVPN a reliable source, as while they're not currently partnered with Mullvad specifically, they make their money by partnering with a number of VPN providers using affiliate links, and That One Privacy Site (the source I added), while I would call it "reliable" for personal use, is questionably reliable for Wikipedia, insofar as it's a personal site. Mullvad, Azire, and Air still belong on the comparison, as they're still large VPN providers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they warrant their own separate articles. That the tables on the comparison article don't work well on mobile for you specifically (they work just fine for me) likewise doesn't mean a VPN provider warrants its own article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I beleive cited coverage [17], [18], [19], [20] is sufficient, in sum, to meet WP:GNG. ~Kvng (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To much substance for too little notability. Would stretch further without the website plug. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of original programs distributed by Amazon#In development. Sandstein 07:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings (2021 TV Series)[edit]

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

The film right has recently been bought by Amazon Studio with planned 2021 release date but have not commenced principal photography, or in production nor casts have selected - see HERE. Fails WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. Article can be recreated once the info is available with IRS. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect. There has been a plague of Amazon and Apple TV series articles - all of which share the same theme - they were announced as an idea, or a director driven TV series, but no actual work as begun. Redirect this, like all others, to the relevant Amazon section. --Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Lord of the Rings (2021 TV series), and convert to redirect as per Gonnym – i.e. move to the correct disambiguation under WP:NCTV first. Also, the relevant guideline is WP:TVSHOW more than WP:NFF... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Agree with the above. Too early now but soon enough will be notableMaskedSinger (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As Above Cheerio042 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment In the past, many projects in this fase have not managed to reach actual production and distribution. While it probably will be produced, filmed and broadcast, it's too soon nowCharlenePho (talk) 16:20, 9 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. Sandstein 07:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North Hudson, New Jersey[edit]

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

The best I can tell, this is a made-up designation. I have never heard of anyone referring to these towns collectively as "North Hudson" and I cannot find any reliable source that does so either. Since North Hudson is not a legal designation, WP:GEOLAND requires "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After some research, the term "North Hudson" appears to be a term for the general region, possibly a colloquialism, such as the sewerage authority and the fire authority. I don't see significant coverage of the definition of the region in any of the sources, and many of the sources in the article don't even use the term, making much of the article possibly WP:OR. Happy to review any sources I may have missed. SportingFlyer T·C 03:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Poor nomination ...the best I can tell,I have never heard not important). As correctly stated above, it's a common historical and contemporary term used for northern part of Hudson County, New Jersey, both officially and colloquially, (similar to Central Jersey) for example:

North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue

North Hudson County Railway

North Hudson Community Action Corporation

North Hudson Sewerage Authority

North Hudson Park

North Hudson Hospital

North Hudson Campus] of Hudson County Community College

Hudson County Schools of Technology North Hudson Center

NoHU

North Hudson Islamic Center

North Hudson Academy

etc, etc, etc Djflem (talk)

It's actually not a poor nomination at all - this isn't a legally defined place, and the fact that it gets used to identify businesses and a regional fire and rescue service doesn't mean that we should have an article on WP:SYNTH grounds. Many of the sources in the article are WP:SYNTH. One source used to show the population density of North Hudson, [21], supports calling the region the "Gold Coast" and doesn't use the phrase "North Hudson" at all. Another source, [22], calls it "West New York." [23] discusses North Hudson Park, but not North Hudson. There's no source I've seen yet which actually defines this place. A similar geography AfD which comes to mind is the "East Minnesota" one. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the best I can tell,I have never heard as a basis for nom make it a poor one. Please provide a definition of a legally defined place.what is a legally defined place? Please explain North Jersey, Central Jersey and South Jersey, and New York Harbor providing their proof of their "legal definitions" to back up your argument about "legal definitions". Please provide any Wikipedia policy that you can demonstrate that "legal definitions" is in anyway a criterium.Djflem (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a legally defined place is its official name or at least one that the government recognizes. I don't know how else to explain it to you. That certainly is not the case here. While the examples you give are not legal names, they are in common usage and there is plenty of "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" to support that. I've never heard anyone use the term "North Hudson" before and you can only give one example of where a reliable source has actually used the term to describe the same thing as this article (as opposed to a fire department or hospital).--Rusf10 (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to explain. "Legally defined' is non-criteria, hence irrelevant, as pointed out. Government (legally) named/affiliated organization are: Hudson County Community College North Hudson Campus, Hudson County Braddcok-North Hudson Park, North Hudson Regional Council of Mayors, North Hudson Sewerage Authority, North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue, Hudson County Schools of Technology North Hudson Center, North Hudson Community Action Corporation Djflem (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Legally defined" is neither non-criteria nor irrelevant at all, WP:GEOLAND holds here and this is an "informal place" and therefore must substantively pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the uses above appears to actually define a real specific place of "North Hudson". These are all simple routine geographic indicators that they're located within the northern part of the county but do not establish that it exactly encompasses the five cities mentioned in the first sentence as an actual "collective name", other than their sharing a fire department. The Sewerage Authority does not cover the same set of cities and the CAC is all over the area, suggesting this is largely synthesis. What doesn't already duplicate Hudson County, New Jersey could be merged there. Reywas92^Talk 08:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such geographical designations are quite common – West London; Upper East Side; South Jersey, and many more. As this region has a railway and a fire service, it is obviously not "made-up" but is, in fact, reasonably official. Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As seen:

"Jersey City, Hudson River Waterfront Transportation Corridor Improvements, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System (HBLRTS), Hudson County, Bergen County: Environmental Impact Statement". 18 June 1996 – via Google Books.
Sullivan, Joseph F. (22 September 1974). "Site of New Hospital Disputed" – via NYTimes.com.
Dawn, Summer (24 June 2015). "Is Hudson County home to some of N.J.'s worst places to live? Report says yes". nj.com.
Villanova, Patrick (14 August 2018). "Want to be a firefighter in North Hudson? Here's where to start". nj.com.
Cunningham, John T. (18 June 1994). This is New Jersey. Rutgers University Press. p. 100 – via Internet Archive. north hudson townships.
Ph.D, Reed Ueda (21 September 2017). "America's Changing Neighborhoods: An Exploration of Diversity through Places [3 volumes]". ABC-CLIO – via Google Books.
North Hudson Regional Council of Mayors
Meals on Wheels administered by the North Hudson Regional Council of Mayors
Audit North Hudson Regional Council of Mayors

Djflem (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is really just WP:SYNTH. You cannot make the argument that just because an organization (such as a fire department or hospital) is named North Hudson that means its an actual designation. Of all of your sources, only one newspaper article actually seems to refer to the towns collectively as "North Hudson" [24] which means at best this is a neologism, which is also not allowed as per WP:NOTNEO--Rusf10 (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try this: A neologism is a relatively recent or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language. But thanks for pointing out that your nominamation rationale The best I can tell, this is a made-up designation. I have never heard of anyone referring to these towns collectively as "North Hudson" and I cannot find any reliable source that does so either. is invalid. Djflem (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously did not read what I wrote, I said "at best this is a neologism". So yes, it basically is made-up (see WP:SYNTH). You're going to need much more than one or two newspaper articles to prove otherwise.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read your attempt to try to cite a non-applicable policy.Djflem (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in Wikipedia policies WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE it and further explained Wikipedia:Broad-concept article, specifically WP:DABCONGEO there is no reason for deletion of a place name of a defined region that is historical, contemporary, and defines numerous names based on geography of the place where they are located.Djflem (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't parrot the same stupid links Andrew D. always does - just because weren't not paper doesn't mean whatever the hell you want to write is immune from deletion or change – an alternative to deletion is to preserve content in a merge, and Hudson County, New Jersey already has or can contain all of this information. The key point is that sure, people call the northern part of Hudson County North Hudson, but that doesn't mean it is its own entity that needs its own geographic and historic description. Most of the sources in these sections refer to either specific towns in the area (and not necessarily the same set you've defined it as) or to Hudson County as a whole, and to combine them in this way is WP:SYNTHESIS.

For example, you have the line "and North Hudson became the 'embroidery capitol of the United States'": besides the misspelling, the Times citation refers specifically to West New York, not North Hudson. Another line says "Simultaneously middle-class and professional Cubans...re-located to the area[19]...leading to the nickname "Havana on the Hudson"." Why did you deliberately obscure the fact that your citation says "Union City is more than its old nickname, "Havana on the Hudson," suggests"? So much of this article synthesizes content that is already at the county or city articles, and while this region may be called North Hudson for the convenience of collecting several smaller cities across the Lincoln Tunnel, just as they efficiently consolidated a fire department, it's excessive to artificially integrate their "Character" and geography separately from the rest of the county when independent sources do not discuss these sections together under this name. Reywas92^Talk 19:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated...the key point is that sure, people call the northern part of Hudson County North Hudson. Thus the name for the northern part of Hudson County is North Hudson. Agreed?Djflem (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Montemarano, Mike (27 December 2018). "North Hudson Year in Review". (includes, Secaucus, bringing Wikipedia:DABCONGEO into play)
Heinis, John (24 January 2018). "Report: West New York, Union City among top 30 poorest towns in the state". Hudson County View. Djflem (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "North Hudson" is a legitimate term for a collection of nearby and overlapping communities, it is not a neologism. North Jersey or Upper East Side are perfect comparisons. ST47 (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof that backs up this assertion? I've lived in New Jersey most of my life and I have never heard this term.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 having heard of term is not Wikipedia criteria; but now they have, so its unclear why ignorance of it is repeated.Djflem (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revison Article has been revised (Revision per 25 2019) to be continued. Djflem (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even the ivote delete participants note acknowledge:

"After some research, the term "North Hudson" appears to be a term for the general region..." (SportingFlyer)

"The key point is that sure, people call the northern part of Hudson County North Hudson..." (Reywas92)

Find two proper sources that actually define the term and I'll change my vote to a keep. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer:

Dia, Hannington; Writer, Staff (13 May 2018). "Meet neighbors in North Hudson". Hudson Reporter. Retrieved 23 June 2019. "Only in NoHu," a group for people in North Bergen, Weehawken, West New York, Guttenberg, and Union City – all in northern Hudson County.

"North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue". Retrieved June 25, 2019. Covering the North Hudson towns of Guttenberg, North Bergen, Union City, Weehawken and West New York

Varone, Curtis (2014), Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services, Fire Enginering Books, ISBN 9781593703479, North Hudson's Residency Requirement

"NJ Employment Discrimination in Hiring North Hudson County Firefighters". Castronovo & McKinney. 2011. Retrieved June 24, 2019. ...comprised of five towns in northern Hudson County – Guttenberg, North Bergen, Union City, Weehawken, and West New York

Heinis, John (15 December 2011). "Court rules North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue residency policy discriminates against blacks". nj.com. Retrieved 26 June 2019. ...as of 2000, the population of North Hudson's member municipalities North Bergen, Weehawken, West New York, Guttenberg and Union City...

"Disparate Impact Case Turns On Battle Of The Experts". Workplace Class Action Blog. 15 December 2011. Retrieved 26 June 2019. North Hudson fire department was formed in 1998, and it was comprised of firefighters from five New Jersey municipalities, including Guttenberg, North Bergen, Union City, Weehawken, and West New York. North Hudson maintained a requirement that all firefighter candidates must live within the five North Hudson towns to be eligible for hire...

"Jersey City, Hudson River Waterfront Transportation Corridor Improvements, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System (HBLRTS), Hudson County, Bergen County: Environmental Impact Statement". Federal Transit Administration. 1996. p. Waterfront Study Area Districts Figure 4.5 (map). Retrieved June 30, 2019.

Djflem (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HEY. Current version (after revision) should be basis for any discussion. Above references should be addressed. Djflem (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Essex, (a distinct part of Essex County, New Jersey) which the Wikipedia community has overwhelmingly decided is a place, both North Hudson and West Hudson are recognizable distinct regions. To keep one and not others is inconsistent and diminishes Wikipedia's validity as a encyclopedia.Djflem (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I scoured it and can't find anything promotional or COI. When you've got a well written, encyclopedic article that is well references, in the absence of COI or Promotion or this just being made up, I would give the benefit of the doubt that people call it that in that area and commonly see it as such. Cheerio042 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's not promotional or COI does not mean it should be kept. What reason do you actually have for it to be kept? I can assure you that people in that area do not commonly use the term "North Hudson" since I lived near that area. You must come up with examples of reliable sources that use this term in reference to the area.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As editor said, "When you've got a well written, encyclopedic article that is well references, in the absence of COI or Promotion..." Rustof10 claims & assurances are of no import here. Reliable sources are found in the the article and above. Rustof10 has chosen not to review them and continues to base their argument on personal experience or lack thereof (The best I can tell; I have never heard of anyone...;I can assure you that people in that area...;). Wikipedia:IKNOWIT is a compeletely invalid, but they keep repeating it, rather than addressing the references provided. When is Rusf10 going to address the facts? Djflem (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just repeating first-hand WP:OR doesn't make for a convincing argument in a WP:NOR environment. (Also please excuse my repetition:) StonyBrook (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What editor said above:"I scoured it".... "When you've got a well written, encyclopedic article that is well references, [sic] in the absence of COI or Promotion..." it would seem that you need to specifically state what is OR. Please do. Djflem (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This quote from before I can assure you that people in that area do not commonly use the term "North Hudson" since I lived near that area. Sounds pretty OR to me. StonyBrook (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StonyBrook:If I'm wrong, then find actual sources. Everything presented so far represents WP:SYNTH (ie. there's a north hudson fire department, park, sewage authority, etc. so there must be a "North Hudson"). And @Djflem: please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. You now have more edits in this discussion then everyone else combined!--Rusf10 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: You're Wikipedia:NOTGETTINGIT. The references are in the article and above. Please address them.Djflem (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate I think there is merit to have this article about a place name that doesn't exist as a legal entity, even though it isn't as widely found in the sources as say North Jersey or Lower Manhattan, but I would nevertheless want to see it placed at ~~North Hudson, which in turn should go to North Hudson (disambiguation)~~ North Hudson (New Jersey) because the current way is simply non-standard. StonyBrook (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StonyBrook: Yes, that would be correct way to disambiguate & make standard.Djflem (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-sourced article about a definable place. "Importance" is not the same as notability, which this passes. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

West Hudson, New Jersey[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Hudson, New Jersey, I have never heard of anyone using this term nor can it be found in reliable sources. WP:GEOLAND requires "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly absurd: none of the sources provided even use the phrase "West Hudson". Lack of definitive google results seems to fall under WP:A11. Reywas92^Talk 08:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added:

"Bird's-eye view of the West Hudson towns--Harrison & East Newark, Kearny & Arlington, N.J." Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

Jersey, The (9 March 2012). "West Hudson St. Patrick's Day parade to traverse through Harrison, East Newark, and Kearny". nj.com.

"West Hudson: A Cradle of American Soccer". homepages.sover.net.

Shkolnikova, Svetlana (27 June 2018). "World Cup an obsession in soccer-loving New Jersey towns". AP NEWS. Retrieved 20 June 2019.

Djflem (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just like North Hudson, New Jersey, this is a quadrant of Hudson County. Various institutions of the region are named for it, such as West Hudson A.A., so it is a reasonable broad topic. Deletion is quite inappropriate per our policies WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typical "nothing can be deleted" argument. All the policies mentioned are meaningless when the topic does not even pass WP:V. The existence of an obscure soccer team from the early 20th century is completely irrelevant here. Find a source that actually refers to the towns themselves as "West Hudson"--Rusf10 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hudson County. It barely passes Notability IMO (and barely notable is still notable), with the archived source here stating that New Jersey boasts its own self-contained soccer culture in West Hudson, the western section of Hudson County between Newark International Airport and the Meadowlands, an urban island bounded by the Passaic River and New Jersey Turnpike. (emphasis mine) and the archived Portal Bridge source here stating that The area now occupied by the ‘West Hudson’ towns of Kearny and Harrison. Having said that, I think the article as it currently is is full of padding and would be better off in the main Hudson County article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep historical and current colloquial name for the western part of Hudson County.Djflem (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is not a colloquial name. Having lived in New Jersey, I have never even once heard anyone use this name. And if it is historical as you claim, then you should have no problem providing sources. (and not those that just refer to some obscure soccer team)--Rusf10 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having lived in New Jersey, I have never even once heard anyone use this name. Rusf10 having heard is not a criterium, you know? But now you have.

Added to artcle:

"Bird's-eye view of the West Hudson towns--Harrison & East Newark, Kearny & Arlington, N.J." Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

Jersey, The (9 March 2012). "West Hudson St. Patrick's Day parade to traverse through Harrison, East Newark, and Kearny". nj.com.

"West Hudson: A Cradle of American Soccer". homepages.sover.net.

Shkolnikova, Svetlana (27 June 2018). "World Cup an obsession in soccer-loving New Jersey towns". AP NEWS. Retrieved 20 June 2019.

Djflem (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the North Hudson article, this article's badly WP:SYNTH. The region on its own doesn't pass WP:GNG as the only clear definition comes from an article on the history of soccer. It's also not legally defined per WP:GEO. SportingFlyer T·C 05:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That claim disregards this historial map "Bird's-eye view of the West Hudson towns--Harrison & East Newark, Kearny & Arlington, N.J." Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA., making it untrue.

What does the link Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates have to do with 'legally defined'?, which is not expressed anywhere? have posed question at here too.Djflem (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meant WP:GEOLAND, sorry. That map doesn't define the term "West Hudson." SportingFlyer T·C 02:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional contemporary uses not used in article:

Clara Maass Medical Center West Hudson Division

"West Hudson Archives". Hudson County View. West Hudson byline

Mota, Caitlin (30 August 2017). "Here's how much Hudson County's 12 mayors make each year". nj.com. Santos has been mayor of the West Hudson town for 17 years

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Hudson, New Jersey. ST47 (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY @Rusf10:@SportingFlyer:@Reywas92:Referencese which need to be addressed:

"Bird's-eye view of the West Hudson towns--Harrison & East Newark, Kearny & Arlington, N.J." Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

Jersey, The (9 March 2012). "West Hudson St. Patrick's Day parade to traverse through Harrison, East Newark, and Kearny". nj.com.

"West Hudson: A Cradle of American Soccer". homepages.sover.net. The name West Hudson refers to the western part of Hudson County, lying between the Hackensack and Passaic rivers as they flow southward toward Newark Bay. A century-and-a-half ago, the West Hudson area was all a single municipality, Harrison Township, named in 1841 for recently deceased President William Henry Harrison. In 1867, all but the built-up southwestern tip of the township seceded from Harrison and took the name of Kearny, named after local Civil War hero Gen. Phillip Kearny. In 1895, a tiny area along the Passaic River (but a crucial area to soccer history) seceded from Kearny and became the borough of East Newark, which sometimes has been mistakenly referred to as being a part of the city of Newark.

Shkolnikova, Svetlana (27 June 2018). "World Cup an obsession in soccer-loving New Jersey towns". AP NEWS. Retrieved 20 June 2019. Other towns don't have the history of Kearny, Harrison or their fellow West Hudson community of East Newark

Daniel Kleinwith guidance from Cynthia Harris and John Beekman (December 10, 2013). "The Paul F. Franco Collection(1724-1975)" (PDF). Jersey City Public Library. p. 2. Retrieved June 25, 2019. Newspaper clippings from the Hudson Dispatch's "From By-Gone Days of Old Hudson County" feature...illustrate some of the history of Jersey City, Hoboken and the North Hudson towns...Not or hardly represented in the collection are the West Hudson municipalities of East Newark, Harrison and Kearny.

Quinnoct, Bill (October 7, 1973). "East Newark Finds Its Name Confusing". East Newark, which celebrated its 75th anniversary three years ago, was established as a municipality in 1895. From Colonial days until 1710, all of West Hudson came under the jurisdiction of Newark. West Hudson, which also includes the Towns of Harrison and Kearny, then were made part of Bergen County until 1840, when Hudson County was created...All of West Hudson took the name of Harrison after President William Henry Harrison and retained that label until 1867 when the northern section of Harrison became Kearny. East Newark was part of Kearny until it moved for a separation in 1895.

Comment As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Essex, (a distinct part of Essex County, New Jersey) which the Wikipedia community has overwhelmingly decided is a place, both West Hudson and North Hudson are recognizable distinct regions. To keep one and not others is inconsistent and diminishes Wikipedia's validity as a encyclopedia.

Djflem (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term West Hudson has significance--mainly demographic today, but resulting from specific historic events and geography not mentioned in the article. Give me a week or so and I can edit to explain/cite and otherwise improve. Cjschopfer (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it's disappointing to see some sources added here that do not support what they purport to (The Medium article "The Rise and Fall of American Soccer" says ...working class communities in the industrial West Hudson region of New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia... Huh?) along with others that only refer to the established towns in the region, not West Hudson, there is still just enough coverage of this name, especially in some of the technical sources, to prove that this is a place. The article should be moved to West Hudson. StonyBrook (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This is a well-sourced article about a definable place. "Importance" is not the same as notability, which this passes. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Walston[edit]

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

Possibly notable for a high school baseball player, but the statements about college or professional baseball have no indication of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks WP:TOOSOON. Can be covered via inclusion at Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players if and when warranted by minor league accomplishments. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a bit early to be included here.. i wish you would stop posting all these articles when they can be merged. If he signs with the Diamondbacks he should be merged to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players and if he doesn't sign he should be redirected to List of Arizona Diamondbacks first-round draft picks. The results should be known soon. Spanneraol (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only noticed them because their birthdates were added to the appropriate year article, which I have on watch. If headers on these articles were added so that people wouldn't do that, I would appreciate it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per non-trivial coverage. MLB First round draft pick with multi-million dollar contract passes GNG. User:Lightburst 13:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete as it's clearly too soon. Refund in the future when there is a career to speak of. Trillfendi (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Malmmf (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MLB First round draft pick. Unless you're saying the way the diamondbacks play they're not notable anymore either I guess :) . Cheerio042 (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"First round draft pick" is not sufficient for notability. Never has, never will. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon, play in the major league first. Reywas92^Talk 21:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge definitely no delete, merge as per usual with first round picks that are not yet notable.-- Yankees10 21:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge doesn't need to be deleted as he has plenty of WP:RS. He has more notability than most baseball players similar to him. Ayepaolo (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niiu[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. A news aggregator app that lasted 18 months, shut down, restarted a couple of years later, then shut down again. Some of the refs look good but they are mostly based on launch publicity and coverage is not sustained. I haven’t been able to find anything that would take the notability tag off. Earlier PROD declined over notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The tagging for this was disrupted in the early 2010s though I tnink the tags have benn consistently in place since 2014. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Non-promotional, seems written in good faith. Would give benefit of doubt unless you see some COI. Cheerio042 (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:22, 10 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. Insufficient coverage to show he meets WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Kaelin[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NPROF and does not meet WP:GNG subject has mostly trivial passing mention coverage.Lightburst (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Google Scholar link in the article nicely provides a few alternative search queries, but adding up the results gives an h-index of only 13. Six papers are in the triple-digit range, but they're all collaborations, and in none is Kaelin the lead author. I'd have a hard time shaking a pass of WP:PROF#C1 out of this. Of the references currently presented, [25] and [26] are from Kaelin's employer, so they'd be fine for fleshing out content but they don't really indicate the world-at-large paying attention. The only independent source that goes into any detail about Kaelin's own role in the work is Ed Yong's piece [27]: Christopher Kaelin and Xing Xu focused on the region that Eizirik had identified ... Kaelin and Xu sequenced the gene in Kgosi, a captive king cheetah ... Kaelin got in touch with Ann van Dyk, the woman who first identified that king cheetahs were a mutant version of the regular ones. Having your work written up by Ed Yong is a nice feather in one's cap, but in this case, I'm not convinced that Kaelin himself stands out personally. Without something else, it's hard to make the case that we need an article about Kaelin himself, instead of writing about the research in the appropriate articles (on genetics, developmental biology, reaction-diffusion models, etc.). XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: XOR'easter, I started the article, and I also nominated it for deletion. I now believe that it may be WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article on this subject. Your suggestion about inserting the research in the appropriate articles is intriguing. Lightburst (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced. WP:Sigcov in WP:RS. Meets WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are about the research results, not Kaelin himself – perhaps key findings can be mentioned at bengal cat but here it's just a WP:REFBOMB. Quotes by Kaelin is NOT SigCov on Kaelin's biography. Does not appear to pass NPROF as an academic. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I tend to give benefit of the doubt if there's no WP:PROMO, no promoted website, and I don't have to read about his girlfriend and three cats Cheerio042 (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His research has not reached the point of being impactful in his field, so he fails Academic notability guidelines 1, and no other academic notability guideline does he even come close to passing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon but time may change that. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Kaelin's work certainly has potential and as he says himself (as quoted in the article) this could be basic research leading to cures for diseases in the future. But, unfortunately, I'm not seeing significant impact of his research in the genetics field or its potential in the medical field. He only has passing mentions in magazine articles that refer to him and his team's work. Being an expert is not sufficient to pass WP:PROF or WP:PROF#1. Also, I agree this is WP:TOOSOON for a this as a Wikipedia article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:06, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart G. Nagler[edit]

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

Non notable businessperson. The only decent ref is a small obituary note in NYT, not enough to impart any lasting notability Jupitus Smart 02:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 02:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 02:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination; article is also barely a stub, if that.TH1980 (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half of the references are from MetLife and the article is only a stub. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 11:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure what the above are talking about. This is a good WP:Permastub for a dead guy that is non-promotional. This is the reason WP:NOTCLEANUP was written. Cheerio042 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The obituary is a paid one placed by the family and is not a RS. A businesswire press release also does not establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Prieto[edit]

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

Non notable business person. References are from associated sources and a search does not yield any better independent ones Jupitus Smart 02:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 02:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be creator likes to create poorly sourced pages. Take a look at John Elmer McKeen MaskedSinger (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTCLEANUP. TH1980 and MaskedSinger stubs are a very important part of our encyclopedia!!! We don't need to delete every stub. If it's promotional, then it's got to go, but otherwise leave these small pieces of relevant encyclopedic information alone please. Cheerio042 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Non-relevant encyclopedic information. Just a businessman among millions. Just a pseudo biography with business listings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Handy Andy (tools)[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability, only cited source is a dead link Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 02:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. When you search it on Google, you only get eBay or amazon. The link is also a dead one. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 11:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yea this article dies with the link unless someone can research it deeper. Cheerio042 (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this appears to have been popular line of toys in the 1950s and 60s(?), lots of pikkies at gimages (and have a look at this brilliant set here made of real wood and metal!), and i am sure that they will be covered in books about vintage toys/games (and no, i do not know which ones:)) but unless there is an editor out there with the knowledge/willing to improve this article, it is an extremely reluctant delete from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added toys project to the talkpage so that editors with the expertise/interest may provide their assessment of notableness of this article. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are e-commerce websites. A cursory BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) finds nothing else redeeming. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [28] is a cool source, but unfortunately it's an advertisement. Can't find anything better source-wise, though it does pass WP:V. I'm a reluctant delete too, but only on "I like it" grounds, so have to give it a full delete. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Sadeghi[edit]

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

promotional article; possibly Conscious uncoupling is notable,but that doesn't show notability for the person claimed to have developed the technique under a different name. The content is a partial duplication of the Conscious uncoupling article. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reformatted by Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I actually couldn't disagree with you more david, but I think it fails WP:PROMO the way the second half is written. Obviously written by someone close to the doctor or just really buying into the mantra. Paltrow actually gets enough in print that without the promo he could fly as a stub. Cheerio042 (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can add enough to show notability , wouldn't that be better? DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. It may be that a properly NPOV article cold be written about this ~~snake oil salesman~~, excuse me, "healer to the stars." We are, however, not a free BILLBOARD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional tone is extremely concerning here, and there's not a lot to establish notability of the doctor himself. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:14, 11 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv C. Mody[edit]

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

Non notable business person. No proper references, and nothing better obtained on searching apart from one line mentions or puff pieces Jupitus Smart 02:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 02:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 02:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 02:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. The article was created by a 2-day account with a likely conflict of interest. The article is a copyvio of this site, from which the image seems also to have been derived. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination. Not on my wiki! MaskedSinger (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a fan of stubs but there's nothing to hold onto here. WP:TOOSOON Cheerio042 (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Synchron, Inc.[edit]

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

Not yet notable. The lead implies that they produce a device which would, indeed, make them notable. They have not. They have just announced the planned start of the first human trial. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTALBALL. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice for future recreation. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Available RS do not indicate the company passes the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wolfson for now. The sources found from Google all indicate that they are creating a device that is not even finished yet. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 11:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it meets GNG but there's a cubic ton of promotional BS hidden in that thing as well as a website they are itching to improve their SEO with on google. Not in our encyclopedia you don't! Cheerio042 (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overwhelming Keep consensus. Closing a day early under the WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. D. Kenamond[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NGRIDIRON, or at least ought to fail WP:GNG. Endymion.12 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Endymion.12 (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I also want to note the second reference here, the book reference - he appears to have written the book, so it can't count towards notability. SportingFlyer T·C 03:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all due respect to Mr. Kenamond, he does not have enough sources to establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage exists for this coach. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep Per work on the article. SL93 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a good stub. I don't think we can fault the fact that there are no internet articles from 1970 about him. Cheerio042 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coach at a tiny school is not a notable position. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep normally we keep head college football coaches, especially from that era. There was much less disparity in the levels of the programs in 1900s through 1920s. I'm not shocked that it is hard to find online sources, but there's certainly verification that the article is real.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation needed. Preposterous to assume automatic notability for anyone affiliated with very small programs, especially seeing we don't even have an article for either team's football programs in general. I doubt there is even much in terms of newspaper sources from that era unless you have evidence it's any more than the equivalent lack of coverage today. Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a typical outcome. Research tends to require offline sources that lead to online archives and just takes some time, but AFD "greases the wheels" and researchers turn it up--and recent article improvements point to that. In 1900s and even 1920s, all of college football as at the "same level" (the NCAA didn't create divisions until 1956, and the NAIA wasn't formed until 1937 and only played Men's Basketball until 1952). As for the lack of team articles, hey Wikipedia is not being written in an orderly fashion. The essay WP:CFBCOACH covers a lot of the details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions by @Cbl62: demonstrate notability, Wikipedia:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY, and there should be articles about the programs.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UCO2009bluejay and Paulmcdonald. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several references regarding the subject and created sections for readability (still needs work). The subject receives more than trivial coverage or passing mention in several references. The coverage of a Coach in 1906 exists and that is quite surprising. It is however admittedly: thin. In any event the subject passes WP:GNG The subject went on to become a college instructor and administrator and then a short stint as the Head football coach of a college. The subject even has a building named after him at Shepherd College. Also went on to serve as a judge. WP:NOTTEMPORARY The subject was notable enough in his time, and once a subject is notable it is always notable. WP:NOTPAPER WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 18:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sourcing and improvements made to the article made since this AfD was opened. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not yet convinced that every college football coach at every small college is sufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone Wikipedia article, but I am persuaded here that Kenamond's various roles as a college dean for 24 years, state court judge for four years, and head football coach for a total of eight seasons at two colleges are enough. It is always hard to find coverage for persons whose era of significance pre-dates the Internet era (in this case by several decades), but there is some non-trivial coverage cited in the article, and I am persuaded that a search of hard copy newspaper archives for West Virginia would turn up a lot more. Cbl62 (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and additions by Cbl62 and Lightburst. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well sourced. WP:NEXIST. WP:Not paper. Nominator ignored Wp:BEFOREand WP:PRESERVE. Well covered by WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced article and the consensus is that the necessary sources to meet WP:GNG have not been produced. Just Chilling (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Datong city re-education through labor[edit]

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

Article may fail both WP:V and/or WP:NOTE. Article consists of only two sentences, of which most content was from an original edit in 2006. The re-education through labor program ended in 2013 yet is still presented here as if it is extant. There is little notability to this former prison aside from a 1980s New York Times article relating to what one can assume may be this prison, but may not be. The only source is a dead link to an Italian laogai-related website. For these reasons, I advocate for this article's deletion, since it has little to offer in terms of actual information at all, and has barely been changed, let alone updated since its creation in 2006 or the end of the re-education through labor program in 2013. Khu'hamgaba Kitap^talk 00:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any Chinese sources? Mccapra (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some searching in Google News and Books for articles mentioning "劳改" and "大同市" but drawn a blank for any meaningful results. I'd normally lean keep on something like this but in the absence of any real sources (other than possibly the book "Laogai Handbook 2007-8", which does appear to exist but which I don't have access to) it seems likely this will end up with delete. FOARP (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail to assert notability based on general notability guideline. If the article only contain meta information about the facility, then it may be best to compile a list instead of a set of individual articles. Viztor (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly worth a mention in a list of Chinese prisons? Cheerio042 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination, fails both WP:V / WP:NOTE. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:57, 5 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.