< 2 October	4 October >

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Etter[edit]

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

I think this article should be deleted because of WP:BLP1E. Pretty much all of the citations talks mainly about his former world record Rubik's cube solve. There hasn't been any other articles about him that talks about something else. INeedSupport ^:V 23:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep The article is admittedly pretty small. But it also talks about how he won US Nationals 2016 and his former 2x2 world records. That makes at least 3 things. One piece of information that may be added to increase the size of the article is, his diagnosis of Juvenile Athritis. Judith Sunrise (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. INeedSupport ^:V 23:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the statements by the nominator are pretty concise, and do not need more elaborating. KingofGangsters (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Clark (ice hockey)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was recently up for an AfD and was closed as keep because some editors thought playing in the inline Roller Hockey International league granted automatic notability. A discussion at WT:NSPORTS#Notability of Roller Hockey International players concluded that it didn't. He lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and also fails to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator said I see no reason to suggest that playing in the RHI meets any NSPORT criteria. Further, even if it did when challenge a person is only presumed notable under . As there is not GNG evidence to support Clark being notable for any kind of hockey playing - coverage being insignificant, local, or otherwise unsatisfactory to meet the requirements of GNG - this article should be deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) In the interests of disclosure I participated in the linked discussion at WT:NSPORT and became aware of this AfD because of the notice placed there Barkeep49 (talk)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails the GNG, and there are no pertinent notability criteria granting him presumptive notability otherwise. Ravenswing 03:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Renomination note In case there are concerns this renomination was too soon, the previous AfD was closed by ST47 with the note: No prejudice against a second AfD being opened in the near future, if the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Notability_of_Roller_Hockey_International_players results in a relevant change to the guideline. Both that talk page discussion as well as the since-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Clarke (ice hockey) ("Clarke" with an "e", also a roller hockey player) rejected the claim that a pro roller hockey player is presumed to be notable.—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG with multiple sources of significant converage from indepenent sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY also. Consensus at the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Clarke (ice hockey) ("Clarke" with an "e") rejected that a professional athlete, regardless of their sport, was presumed to be notable. Only those mentioned explicitly under Wikipedia:Notability (sports) § Professional sports people shoud be presumed notable.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, like other comments noted. KingofGangsters (talk) 02:16, 10 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Branning[edit]

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

Soap opera character who lacks real world notability. An attempt to redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2012)#Joey Branning was undone. Bringing it here for final determination. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The character hardly lacks real world notability, he was involved in some of the most prominent storylines during his tenure on the soap. There’s plenty of other characters with much less notability, not to mention how popular Joey was. His sister Alice also has her own article, whom is just as big of a character as he was. Joey is also likely to return at some point in the future, as he is part of one of the soap’s biggest families of all-time. I personally think it’s a great article and think it should be kept, there’s so many other characters that are less worthy of their own article.Soapoholic (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally thought that referring to other stuff existing is an argument to avoid at AfD. What are the WP:THREE best sources in your mind showing real world notability? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to a suitable list article. Once again folks are confusing popularity or in-universe notability with real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previous attempts to create this article have been copied and pasted from the list entry and no effort was made to show notability. This article is a massive expansion on that. I have always urged users to do this kind of work before splitting an article from one of the character lists to an independent article. I'm satisfied that the sources determine real-world notability. Also, the actor won a National Television Award for this character's portrayal. — 🌼📽️Anemone Projectors💬 10:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: on the one hand, there are 2 or three sources (with a dozen instances each) there that probably spend some time talking about this character (since he is named in all the titles), but on the other hand, they all look like primary, plot-recap coverage. There are a few interviews and listicles of sexy actors mixed in. Since I don't want to wade through dozens of soap rag pieces (with the attendant brain damage) looking to see if any of these are reliable, significant, and independent, can somebody tell me which of them aren't going to melt my brain with insipidity? Rockphed (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rockphed, my analysis before nominating is with you that most coverage is of the recap rather than notability establishing nature variety. I hope that Soapoholic or AnemoneProjectors will give examples of stronger coverage suggesting notability and thus not just a candidate for the list. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rockphed I feel your reply is rather insulting to those who edit these types of articles. Soap operas and fictional characters are already looked down upon enough, without the need for your comments about getting brain damage from reading them or the sources. Barkeep49 I went through every source and there are only two episode recaps [1] [2] (and two that are sort of previews of a scene [3] [4]). The other sources are a mix of interviews with the actor and news pieces about storylines. Some of the Digital Spy sources do quote from other news outlets and magazines, but they could be replaced with the originals. I won't !vote yet, but I'm leaning towards keep with a view to having the article thoroughly copyedited. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I did intentionally cast aspersions on the sourcing of this article, I did not mean to cast aspersions on either the editors responsible for creating it or on soap operas as a genre (though "soap opera" might be a deprecated term that originated as a way to cast aspersions on the genre). Thank you for your cursory analysis of the sources. If I stumbled on a deletion discussion about a transformer, a D&D monster, or a sci-fi author with similar sources, I would probably balk at wading through the sources despite being sufficiently interested in those topics to be less than neutral about their notability. Looking through the sources, I find the following that support notability:

Prior, Vicky (22 October 2013). "EastEnders: What will fans do when Joey Branning, played by David Witts, quits?". Metro. Retrieved 29 September 2019.
Brown, David (21 October 2013). "EastEnders David Witts to leave Joey Branning role". Digital Spy. Retrieved 29 September 2019.

The first is actually a very good, in depth summary of who the character is, what motivates him, and his impact on the show, however, it is from the Metro, which is listed as generally not reliable. The second is in the same vein, but seems a little less in depth (though it is still significant, seems independent, and digital spy is listed as a generally reliable source). All-in-all, I think he lands on the line for GNG based just on the sources in the article. There are probably a few more, so I am voting weak keep. Rockphed (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much as I dislike these massive soap character biographies, it is Something We Do, for many of the high impact series. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but outside a change in general conventions - which is not a fight we are going to win - these hundreds (thousands?) of large articles aren't going away; and I don't see grounds for deleting this particular one, which is comparable in content and quality to the usual fare of this type (e.g., those on List of Friends and Joey characters and whatnot). Shelve with 3rd league Romanian footballers and hope for a sea change :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am certain that this article passes WP:GNG and the sources do not appear to be just episode recaps. There is a nice selection of sources used and probably more offline print sources discussing this fictional character. The reception section appears to be strong and sourced too, which leans me towards keeping it.Rain the 1 12:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in agreement that this article definitely passes WP:GNG. There is plenty of development and reception, and notability has certainly been established. Soaper1234 - talk 14:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the decision going to be? Surely we’ve discussed this enough?Soapoholic (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It stays open for 7 days, barring cases where there's complete unanimity and an earlier decision in one direction would obviously be fine with all participants (as is not the case here). -Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm in agreement with the majority here. Joey passes WP:GNG as he was a large part of the soap while he appeared in it, and is still talked about to this day. – DarkGlow (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think as the article stands it passes WP:GNG, and follows guidelines set out at WP:FICT and WP:SOAPS. It does need a copyedit and some of the original sources added in place of the Digital Spy ones. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep largely per Elmidae. Additionally, while Metro is generally unreliable, I can think of little reason to doubt the accuracy of their coverage of fictional characters in soap operas. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV; notable soap opera and fictional character. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Voelker Sr.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:JUDGE as a mere state-level district (not statewide) court judge. Page also created by serial copyright violater whose articles are being PCCed as we speak. I thought this was made by that person, but it was by an apparent SPA who only had edits over a three-day period. Update: On second thought, the SPA has been suspected to be a BH sock due to evidence presented by @Bearcat: in the closely-related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Xavier Ransdell. ミラ P 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. District court is not a level of office that confers an automatic pass of our notability standards for judges, but this article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over the bar: it's entirely too dependent on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, none of which is enough. I won't rehash everything I've already said, but my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Xavier Ransdell lists the evidence that Gulfstream411 was indeed almost certainly a Billy Hathorn sockpuppet. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards for notability of lawyers. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Xavier Ransdell[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:JUDGE as a mere state-level district (not statewide) court judge. Page also created by serial copyright violater whose articles are being PCCed as we speak. I thought this was made by that person, but it was by an apparent SPA who only had edits over a three-day period. Update: On second thought, the SPA has been suspected to be a BH sock due to evidence by @Bearcat:. ミラ P 21:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. District court is not a level of office that confers an automatic pass of our notability standards for judges, but this article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over the bar: the "sources" are family genealogies, a clarifying note that is not any sort of source at all, a source which gives the publisher and date but fails to provide the title of the article being referenced, and the obituary of his grandson, zero of which represent notability-supporting reliable source coverage about Ransdell. To be honest, I'm pretty sure that despite the different username, the nominator's "mistaken" initial impression about the creator of this was actually correct — it literally has all the classic hallmarks of Billy Hathorn's work, from the "local officials in Louisiana" angle to the complete and total reliance on garbage sourcing, and all of Gulfstream411's contributions were created during a period when Billy had just been released from his first copyvio-related editblock but had not actually resumed editing under his original username yet — in other words, exactly the period when he was routinely evading the first block with many other sockpuppets. And for added bonus, just take a wild guess who was the very first person to ever touch the article after Gulfstream411 was done with it. An SPI check would be pointless now, as both accounts are almost certainly too stale to definitively link anymore, but I'm quite convinced that Gulfstream411 was a Billy puppet. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards for notability of lawyers. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The biggest claim to notability seems to be having a brother who was a U.S. Senator, but notability is not inherited. I didn't see significant reliable sources to show that WP:GNG and there's no evidence that any SNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recognizing that his judicial career is very old, the only citations I can find to him are appeals from his rulings in the Louisiana Reports and SE reports. He was a trial court "district court" judge in Louisiana. Does not meet WP:JUDGE. Doesn't meet WP:GNG as far as I can tell. I don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com, and I am guessing that might be the only sources we are likely to find. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More Billy Hathorn nonsense, with the only twist being a sock created it. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 11:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PLENTY (currency)[edit]

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

This topic seems to fail WP:GNG. It's about a local currency that was issued several years ago in a small United States town in the aftermath of the Great Recession. The only sources I can locate are local news coverage (including from the regional Raleigh, North Carolina TV station WRAL), a brief mention in a USA Today article, and the currency's website. Indy beetle (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 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 Totally Spies!#Video games. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Spies! Totally Party[edit]

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

Article has zero coverage, no reviews and news. Only has the cover art and screen shots Timur9008 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Totally Spies!#Video games where it is mentioned as a WP:ATD. The game fails WP:GNG because there is no multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. I found one in Jeuxvideo.com [5] which certainly is not enough. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Totally Spies!#Video games. In addition to the Jeuxvideo review, I also found a short review on Igromania [6]. One substantial review and one brief one is close to being enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but doesn't quite get there. Nothing in the article seems worth preserving in a merge, so redirect for now with the possibility of being spun off again iff more coverage can be found. Lowercaserho (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Totally Spies!#Video games, where it is already mentioned. I agree that the two sources found in this AFD are not sufficient to support an independent article, but certainly justify a redirect to the appropriate portion of the main Totally Spies! article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:02, 4 October 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 Made in Chelsea. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Boulle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

At this point, several different editors including myself, Onel5969, Polyamorph, and QuiteUnusual have redirected this article to Made in Chelsea, Boulle's main claim to fame. This conversion to redirect has been opposed each time by Syncedits. It's time to actually settle this in the proper forum (i.e. here).

I would propose that we redirect to Made in Chelsea due to not meeting WP:GNG. Available coverage is either passing mentions, directly related to Made in Chelsea, or in unreliable tabloids such as The Sun (RSP entry). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - restore redirect. No notability outside Made in Chelsea. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nom. No notability outside the show. If the outcome is to keep the article, then its use of trivial and non reliable sources needs addressing as does the tone which is borderline promotional and certainly not balanced or neutral. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. All significant coverage is connected to Made in Chelsea (or that he dated Emma Watson). Lots of tabloid coverage gives the illusion of notability, but even that doesn't mention Boulle without adding "from Made in Chelsea". Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 10 October 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 DC Comics characters. There were two different possible redirect targets mentioned, I went with the one that was mentioned more often. I have no problem with somebody redirecting this to another target on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Impossible[edit]

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

Non notable character, fails GNG, only primary sources. Any attempt to retain the unsourced info would face the same problem. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: D - minor character with no real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep. Is this the same Doctor Impossible that appears in Soon I Will Be Invincible? Because if it is, the character has escaped from DC Comics into a generic character. All the characters in this novel are based on, or are pastiches of, DC Comics and Marvel characters, so it has to be at least related. This Doctor Impossible is discussed at length in Superhero Bodies: Identity, Materiality, Transformation (ISBN 0429663803) in an out-of-universe context. SpinningSpark 21:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: is there something in the character description that makes you think they might be the same, or is it just based on the name? I don't have an answer, but I'm inclined to think they are different, and the name is generic enough to be the sort seen in multiple different uses. The DC character was created in 2006, and the book was published by Penguin in 2007. I don't think DC would let another publisher use the same character. This isn't really good criteria, but the Doctor Impossible article also has a hatnote saying if you're looking for the character associated with the novel, then go to the book page... -2pou (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason other than the name and that the whole thing was inspired by DC/Marvel characters. SpinningSpark 19:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party sources, fails GNG. TTN (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: D.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And Redirect to Soon I Will Be Invincible. It does not appear that this character has any relation to the character from the far more notable book, as suggested above. However this space would be far better used as a redirect to the book's article. The List of DC Comics characters: D is a bloated, unsourced, completely useless block of random, out of context names (it includes such "important" DC characters as "Dennis", "Dennis' father" and "Dennis' mother" among others), so a redirect there would not be particularly useful to anyone. Rorshacma (talk) 04:26, 8 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Wah-Nee[edit]

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

Run of the Mill Summer Camp. The NYT may be reliable, but it is mentioning a common trope at summer camps: Color war. The article is promotional and goes against Wikipedia's goals. It is also written by a user with no other edits outside of this article, hinting at a web-host violation. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two additional sources: [7] and [8]. MB 14:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources in the article and the two sources mentioned here only shows part of the information shown in the article. Because of that, a whole lot of information in the article are unsourced. I cannot find any other sources about the camp. INeedSupport ^:V 23:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Except for the color war article, I found only passing mentions (a school football team does a retreat there, a running club offers a running camp there, and the camp is appealing a sound ordinance). Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 10 October 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) 19:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B. J. Hermsen[edit]

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

Not a notable individual. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator.-- Yankees10 16:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career minor leaguer who has yet to even reach AAA level. Coverage is routine transaction reporting and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 17:09, 8 October 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 Gondulph of Maastricht. Sandstein 09:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palatina of Troyes[edit]

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

This is an extremely obscure person, about whom nothing is known but the name of her non-notable father, the name of her notable husband, and the name of a possible child (whose placement as her child is somewhat speculative). One cited source (Faris) only gives her passing mention, while the other (Stuart) has been excoriated in scholarly genealogical publications for its abysmal inaccuracy. This is likely never going to be more than a genealogical entry without the slightest additional reliable biographical information. Merge to her husband's page, Gondulph of Maastricht. Agricolae (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gondulph of Maastricht per nom. Notability is not inherited (most of the time). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There’s no need to bring an article to AfD to propose a merge. Mccapra (talk) 00:21, 10 October 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 and redirect to Ohio University. Tone 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George V. Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs[edit]

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

No in-depth, significant coverage independent of the article subject; page is promotional and directory-style. I originally redirected the page to Ohio University (where this school is already briefly mentioned), but an IP address rejected that, and so I'm bringing it here. I would be happy with either redirecting to the university article or outright deletion. Neutrality^talk 17:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blank, redirect, and salt. Totally promotional and university departments don't normally get their own pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 6 October 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 09:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ann-Sophie Qvarnström[edit]

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

The reason I think it should be deleted is because there's obviously not any significant coverage of her all. Her claim to fame is to have made maps for Swedish role playing games in the 1980's, but she's not received much coverage/mention outside of the occassional blog or forum post. Thoug the article might look well-sourced at a first glance, the only sources that seem to meet RS guidelines (a handful of articles that supposedly appeared in local newspapers) are not formatted properly and not verifiable, i.e. "Nya Kristinehamnsposten, 13 July 1990", "Kuriren, 3 July 1984", "Bergslagsposten, 2 July 1984" and "Jönköpings-Posten 12 July 1993". It's impossible to determine if whatever coverage she might have received in these articles would classify as "significant" - my guess is not. There's plenty of references provided as evidence that Former Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden Maud Olofsson often wore jewelry designed by Qvarnström but none of those actually mention Qvarnström but merely depict Olofsson wearing jewelry (supposedly made by Qvarnström), which obviously isn't relevant. I was able to find only one verifiable RS (not included in the article, but from Google News) where she is very briefly mentioned:

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/inloggad/bland-mutanter-drakar-och-demoner/

"Den frilansande illustratören Ann-Sophie Qvarnström, i dag silversmed, anlitades ofta av för att rita främst kartor. Hon var också en hängiven spelare.

– Man måste komma ihåg att det här var långt innan datorerna slog igenom på bred front. Rollspelen gjorde att vi kunde bygga egna världar utan begränsningar. Det var så långt vi kunde komma på den tiden utan datorer, säger hon."

Google Translate:

"Freelance illustrator Ann-Sophie Qvarnström, today a silversmith, was often hired to draw mainly maps. She was also a dedicated player.

- You have to remember that this was a long time before computers broke through on a broad front. The role-playing games allowed us to build our own worlds without limitations. That was as far as we could get at that time without computers, she says. "

All in all this article seems like a vanity project. 110.165.186.42 (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor—above text is copied from nom's request at WT:AFD. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 14:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to expand on that. I suspect this vote has more to do with wikihounding after a needless spat involving the Svante Thunberg AfD than the notability of this person, but to each their own.110.165.186.42 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's probably notable enough, but the article is crap. It was my very first attempt to translate an article from sv-wiki to en-wiki, so newbie-me had no clue about how things were done here. When prompted by other editors to expand the meager first translation, I went about this in a journalistic way intead of in an encyclopedic manner. Qvarnström was my test subject. Later, when I learned that you should not write articles about people you know well or are close to, I dropped this article completely. These days I know how to write good articles in a proper way, so if this is deleted, you'd be doing me a favor since this article is just an embarrassment to me. cart-Talk 16:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your vote. If she's notable enough, the article shouldn't be deleted, though. Currently her notability isn't established in the article, and I haven't been able to find any evidence on the web of her supposed notability, so I believe that assessment ("she's probably notable enough") is wrong. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong, of course. 110.165.186.42 (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far we have a comprehensive delete nomination, an unsupported keep !vote, and a delete !vote that claims the topic is probably notable. So... I'm relisting this in case another editor desires to search for independent, reliable sources that would establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with User:W.carter that she's notable enough, but disagree that the article should be deleted – just fixed and pruned. The nominator has rightly pointed out that most of the references should simply be removed: in many cases they don't support the statements made. I've started working on it, removing some of the worst examples, and starting to replace them with something better. /Julle (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on a search for English sourcing. The story might be different for Swedish sources. I can't find mush of anything, but have the sense that she might be notable in Swedish. There are many mentions of the illustrations, but nothing in-depth in English. I trimmed some of the promotional language in the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I get the argument here. If there's not adequate English sources available (and I doubt there are, I mean, why would there be? I'd expect all valuable sources to be in Swedish; I didn't even start looking in English when I started adding better sources to this article yesterday), there shouldn't be an article on English Wikipedia? Our only policy around non-English sources are that English sources are preferable when decent sources in both English and other languages exist. /Julle (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just giving my opinion based on what I see in English. It so happens that I do not read Swedish.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator and I speak Swedish. There is nothing available online that speaks to her notability in either Swedish or English. She does simply not meet WP:GNG.2001:240:2403:E03E:F418:CEDE:B75D:3119 (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt your assessment! I was just putting in a little conditional to my assessment. This is for the closing admin, as it can be useful for assessing the consensus.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the editors that accepted this article, based that on the third notability criteria in WP:ARTIST: "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.", rather than on what was written about her. Qvarnstöm did do the map illustration in more than 20 of the first roleplaying game modules in Sweden. That is why I wrote "probably notable enough". She is listed among the creators in most of the articles about these games on sv-wiki (list). The second part of that criteria is also covered since there is a book about all the creators of those games, including Qvarnström. The link to Expressen provided by the IP editor above is an article about that book. cart-Talk 18:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which can be supported by e.g. Bland mutanter, drakar och demoner by Orvar Säfström and Jimmy Wilhelmsson, which I've cited in the article. Of course there's not going to be much when we search online – this is about someone who's mainly notable because of work done in the 80s, which means that most of the online hits will be passing mentions, listings, blog posts and message board posts. These aren't what we should base the article on. But there are printed sources too. /Julle (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that creating a handful of map illustrations for a tabletop role playing game in any way qualifies as "co-creating" the game, just as a regular illustrator hired to do an illustration or two for the same game couldn't be called a co-creator of the role-playing game. (nominator) 163.49.211.209 (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point here is that she didn't create a handful of illustrations for a role-playing game, but was – if I understand Bland mutanter, drakar och demoner correctly – a recurrent face among the creators that dominated the Swedish role-playing scene, and thus played her part of defining it in Sweden during the 80s – the golden age of role-playing games in Sweden – and early 90s. /Julle (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: 163.49.211.209 are you the same person as 110.165.186.42 and 2001:240:2403:E03E:F418:CEDE:B75D:3119? All three of these IP addresses seem to geolocate to the same origin. This is one of the challenges with non-registered users, it is very difficult to assess how many different voices are contributing to the discussion, and who to respond to. Netherzone (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All IPs have explicitly identified as the nominator. /Julle (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve the article. There seems to be enough evidence that the subject of this BLP made major contributions in the seminal period of the 1980's Swedish role-playing scene as per Julle. Netherzone (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. BOZ (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Midnight Snack[edit]

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

Well it looks like the party is over. Edit warring may be wrong, but Koavf's fundamental objection to this article is correct: it is nowhere near meeting WP:GNG, and virtually the entire article would appear to be original research. I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources online, and was only able to find mere-mentions on Google Scholar. The single citation in the article neglects to include a page number, and is not a book searchable online, so it doesn't help us much either (and one source wouldn't be enough for WP:GNG anyway). Redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography#1940–1958: Hanna-Barbera/MGM Cartoons per WP:NEPISODE If significant coverage in reliable sources can at some point be found, we can always restore the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 08:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 08:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 08:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RELIABLE, WP:SOURCE, WP:NOTABLE: most of our bedrock policies. See also: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 ^[1] I want to make explicitly clear that this applies to other "articles" like (e.g.) Tom and Jerry: The Mansion Cat. Somehow, we are having a referendum on whether or not articles need to have sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @7&6=thirteen, SonicClub, and Visokor:. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animation#Lots_of_unsourced,_non-notable_articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There seems to be no sourced info worth saving, so deletion with a new redirect seems like the best idea. TTN (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some coverage of the cartoon's history is covered in these books, [9], [10]. This reference says this specific cartoon won critical acclaim, which would imply that significant enough criticsm is out there to warrant an article if we go back into publication archives. This book attacks this cartoon for being racist.4meter4 (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is enough to sway me to keep, particularly the coverage in the first source and the assertion in the third source that significant critical acclaim exists. The book criticizing the racism unfortunately cuts its free preview 2 sentences in to its discussion of Midnight Snack in particular, so I can't verify that there's significant coverage there, although there very well may be. These sources are also all RS that establish that The Midnight Snack introduced several important elements of Tom and Jerry cartoons, which would likely make the cartoon of academic interest and thus is an indication of possible further coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 3 October 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)} 17:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the identification of reliable sources coverage detailed above which means the subject has been shown to pass WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Nadwiyya Edavanna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable Islamic seminary. Kutyava (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. University-level institutions are usually considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How the University-level says about the Islamist seminary. Kutyava (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No apparent justification given for listing as terrorism related (I’m only here because I follow that category), neither the university page or the page of its founding party contain any mention of terrorism. That tag was added by the nominator and is the first tag so unless they have a really good explanation I think we have an inappropriate use of AfD to push a personal agenda. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with this. It does look rather bad. I am rather puzzled why the nom added Terrorism, but not Islam, which is an obvious delsort category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everything smells bad, as Eastmain noted "University-level institutions are usually considered notable” as for the first deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamia Nadwiyya Edavanna there literally wasn’t one, not a single comment and the nominator is a blocked sock of a banned user. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have included the discussion on the list of terrorism because the seminary is run by an Islamist organization based in Kerala. Kutyava (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a valid reason, Islamist =/= Terrorist or even anything close. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG. I could find no sources on this institution in the English langauge. Perhaps there are foreign language references, but until they are produced, the assumption is they do not exist.4meter4 (talk) 21:29, 2 October 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)} 17:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .--SalmanZ (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV; nothing else apart from a couple of trivial name-drops as to Jamia Beevdi. Both in English media as well as vernacular. ∯WBG^converse 17:46, 10 October 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 and redirect to Radisson hotel. Tone 17:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Rewards[edit]

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

Is this loyalty program notable enough to be in Category:Customer loyalty programs? We may also want to redirect it to Radisson Hotel. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 16:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 16:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Radisson hotel; the rewards program is a part of Radisson, so it can be mentioned in the main article on Radisson, but it is cloying to have an article about the rewards program alone.TH1980 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect. Promotional dreck and likely covert advertising that has no redeeming value. MER-C 17:09, 6 October 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. Renaming and/or addressing POV in content should be handled outside of AFD. RL0919 (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Najran attack[edit]

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

I nominate this article for deletion. The whole article is not factual and quite biased since the Saudi-led coalition and Yemen's Information Minister Moammar el-Eryani both denied the Houthi claim, and stated that the video is a fabrication of reality, an attempt to mislead the international media and to "promote fake victories". I had to add the Saudi-led coalition and Yemen's Information Minister Moammar el-Eryani statements since there is no mention of them at all. But I believe there is no reason for this article to remain. Do we create independent articles on Wikipedia based on fabrications, especially that major news outlets like the BBC^[2] and the Guardian^[3] have stated that this incident cannot be confirmed? --Cosmopolitan268 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Wales, Jimmy (2006-05-16). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l. Retrieved 2007-01-31.
^ "Houthi rebels video fails to prove Saudi troop capture claim". BBC. BBC. Retrieved 2019-09-29.
^ "Houthis claim to have killed 500 Saudi soldiers in major attack". The Guardian. Retrieved 2019-09-29.

It is better to read Guardian and BBC again, it was written that there was no independent confirmation from Saudi Arabia, pay attention please, from Saudi Arabia, There is full coverage of attack in RSes!Saff V. (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I agree. We can include this inside another article and say the the Houthi movement claimed to do so and so, but to create a whole new article? Nah. Most of their claims sounds like propaganda to me at least so I don't think this deserve a whole new article. We can include it as part of another article and end it with that. But saying 2000 Saudi troops were killed or captured when the whole civil war article only says 1-3000 Saudi troops died is though provoking... Anyways, I don't care but theres very good speculations on the houthi claims as their videos and images they show were inconclusive. However its notable to mention that the Houthis claimed to do this or that. I recommend merging it with an article about the Saudi Yemen border war or another article. best wishes! Graull (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Cosmopolitan268 please familiarize yourself with the deletion policy. The attack got a lot of coverage. The Houthis have captured and showed Saudi soldiers, Western-made Saudi-paid arms and vehicles. We can't remove an article because the Saudi is in the denial phase. Remember that the Saudi has previously denied the Khashoggi was killed inside the embassy yet it turns out he was killed inside the embassy. That is not a reason to remove an article. Catherine Shakdam from Next Century Foundation said that there is no reason to doubt the Houthi statement asserting that the videos and the images which the Houthis have shown, confirm the Houthi statement.[11]--SharabSalam (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it's very simple and clear to understand, the Houthis claimed to have captured Saudi soldiers, the Saudis themselves denied it from happening, Yemen's Information Minister denied it from happening, international media outlets denied it from happening, and referred to it as one of many attempts by the Houthis to convey fake victories . Therefore, this article cannot be independent based on "claims". It should be mentioned in another article. It's Wikipedia after all, do we base entire articles only on claims? If this is the case, then you'll see billions of articles like these, only then, Wikipedia won't be as trusted as it has always been. With regards to Khashoggi's murder, the officers involved wanted to cover it up, so they reported to the government that he left the consulate. Days later, the government released that he indeed did not leave the consulate and was killed inside it. Let's leave politics affiliation aside, it's Wikipedia that matters here. --Cosmopolitan268 (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopolitan268 the media didn't deny it from happening, they said they couldn't independently verify the videos. The Saudi and Hadi government are biased, the attack has been covered by lots of independent media outlets. That means it is notable enough to gain an article. You didn't provide any reason why this article should be removed. All you are saying is that it didn't happened because the Saudi said it didn't happened. Lol, we should have removed the article of Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi when the Saudi was in the denial phase.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that just the dispute between both sides about whether this event had taken place as described, or at all, is worthy of the page being kept. Disclaimer: I am, in fact, the editor who first added mention of this onto Wikipedia, but I did not have enough information at the time for a stand-alone article. El_C 16:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to September 2019 Najran incident - it is certainly a notable topic, though its nature is not yet fully confirmed by independent sources.GreyShark (dibra) 20:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the renaming, I was thinking of "Operation Victory from God".--SharabSalam (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 01:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The incident is clearly notable. Whether the attack actually happened as claimed is doubtful, and this is made clear in the article. (I support renaming to a non-PoV title such as "2019 Najran incident".) Maproom (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom how is the name a POV and how is "2019 Najran incident" a NPOV?--SharabSalam (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam: calling it "attack" means that there was an attack – which is currently the view of only some. Calling it "incident" covers the possibility that there was an attack, and also the possibility that there was just a lot of publicity about a claimed attack that never really happened. Maproom (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, I would say that "incident" also implies that the Houthi claim is true. The name also seems to imply that there was an event that took place in Najran which is the point of view of the Houthi movement. Therefore I think the name "Operation Victory from God" is more neutral and descriptive.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Althougt,"incident" doesn't support by RSes, "attack" backes by reuters, bloomberg, aljazeera. As well as I agree with 2019 Operation Victory from God (at least for redirect).Saff V. (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The description and even the title can be discussed and improved, but the thing happened and is clearly notable, so it is not an AfD matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator didn't notify the creator of the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cosmopolitan268: why don't you notify me? @El C: I wonder if you give advice to the nominator for not notify me for deleten my created article?Saff V. (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename - This is an article about a military offensive, as such it should be renamed Narjan offensive (2019) or something similar.XavierGreen (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to which source,have been "offensive" proposed?Saff V. (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Full coverge in RSes such as reuters, bloomberg, aljazeera,BBC, timesofisrael.Also, there is no independent confirmation that it didn't happen.Saff V. (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no independent confirmation that it didn't happen — you realize that proving a negative is not how confirmation works. El_C 07:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned that there was no independent confirmation from Saudi Arabia, It is not true because Saudi Arabia has not reacted about the attack, it didn't happend. In other words, Full coverage in RSes such as reuters, bloomberg, aljazeera confirmed the attack have been occurred, however, it is against Saudi Arabia's willing!Saff V. (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian is now investigating the Houthi footage which shows their vehicles getting destroyed in a humiliating way (Houthis use lighters to burn Western-made vehicles).[12]. Also that they are not verified is old news. Now Houthis have released footages of Saudi soldiers speaking to the Camera. TBH, it's not news, the Houthis have been doing this since the war started e.g 2017 but it got attention due to the Persian gulf tensions. Do you think a dictator family state would be able to rule Hijaz and Najd without the western support? Doubt!

Anyway, the article needs updating will try to do that when I have time.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any sane person see the Houthi footage will know it verifies everything they said as the expert I mentioned above said.

Also I want to note that western media is biased because their regimes are part of this war and they are anti-Iranians.per UN report They hate Iranians.(see for example, the U.S regime is denying access to medical resources for Iranians). For example they said Houthis could have not be behind the attack on Abqaiq and Khurais; it's Iran, Why???? Because the attack was sophisticated. How sophisticated were the few Bedouin Arabs who went to the U.S. took three airplanes and drive them to the twin towers. That's a much sophisticated attack, why isn't there someone saying a state was behind the attack?--SharabSalam (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that the Western is asking for evidences when they have accused Iran of many things in the past few months with literally no evidences at all. It's like a prostitute lecturing people about dignity.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it needs to be strongly noted in the lead section that the event is unconfirmed by everyone outside the Houthis. Most reliable sources report the claim, but nothing outside Houthi propaganda channels report it as fact. Juxlos (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename The attack took place according to the Houthi statements and Aljazeera, the latter a RS according to WP:RSPSOURCES. This event could lead to a Cease Fire and possible Peace in the conflict Must Keep, do not mind to delete. It may be a error.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 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 Bánh tét. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ansom_chek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ansom chek

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

This page should be deleted for many reasons. Firstly, ansom chek is simply the Cambodian word for a Vietnamese banh tet. There already exists a wikipedia page for banh tet, there shouldn't be a separate page for ansom chek. Secondly, the page is a total stub with no information, unlike the page for Banh tet which is larger. Thirdly, the information is inaccurate - it gives the false impression that ansom chek are a Cambodian food when it's just a Vietnamese banh tet. This page is an unnecessary duplicate. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bánh tét. Title is useful as a redirect, and I don't see the harm in keeping the history. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per C.Fred. Rockphed (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per C.Fred (talk) --SalmanZ (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per C.Fred Apples&Manzanas (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Munaf Ahmed Husain Mullaji[edit]

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

Article does not demonstrate how individual is notable per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The subject is mentioned in some of the references but it's not a significant discussion. I am unable to find anything significant on Google using various versions of his name. ... discospinster _talk 14:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Subject has not done anything notable, neither has extensive coverage in reliable media. Some of the links are of self published articles. IE states a one liner that Munaf Ahmed, an official of the Ahmedabad Waqf board". This is not a notable post. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rockville Stone Chapel[edit]

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

Potentially in violation of WP:Notable, bearing only two sources. Stainless Steel Stalinism (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Stainless Steel Stalinism (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a documented historic site, designated California Historical Landmark #779. Many/most editors recognize that historic sites listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places or in the higher ranks of U.K. listed buildings are presumably notable because of their historical importance and because of documentation being required by those programs and available. The statewide California Historical Landmark system is another high-ish level of historic site recognition, higher than strictly local programs. There are books and files and so on.

This site in particular has a long history already reported in the article, including now-historic-to-us preservation efforts, because of its previous historic importance. The article could be developed more, including to switch its infobox to use more template:infobox historic site with its striking gold/yellow coloring when applied to CHL sites. But that is not of AFD concern. --Doncram (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep clearly satisfies WP:NBUILDING. Polyamorph (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was WP:BEFORE even done? I have found sources that discuss this chapel that is more than a passing mention, and this was within 5 minutes of me searching.[13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Under first point of WP:NBUILDING. Nominator may wish to retract this? ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and might i say snowy, although it would probably quickly melt outside of the chapel:)), meets WP:NBUILDING, and a big congratulations to Olef641 for their first article(?). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i note that the nominator is a brand new editor (hi Stainless Steel Stalinism) (started editing on 27 Sept), nomination appears to have been made in good faith, and with a bit more experience (including reading all the, at times confusing, wikihelp pages/guidelines/policies:)) will continue as a net positive to WP. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As contributor, I of course am voting to keep the article. I have found a couple more sources, which are fairly reputable, including the newspaper of the nearest city, Fairfield, CA. I hope to integrate additional information into the article in the next few days, but, as you probably know, writing takes more time than it looks like it should, so it may take a few days. olef641 09:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep per User:Doncram's comment. Notable but the article requires expansion. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes my standards for historic church buildings -- listing on California's historic register, listing in at least two reputable travel guides, and notable for its weddings. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly satisfies WP:NBUILDING other reasons mentioned, notably a landmarkDjflem (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm ba-a-a-ck. Note the expanded and improved article now up on the site. I hope this meets with Stainless Steel Stalinism's exacting standards.olef641 01:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nilanjan Roy[edit]

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

District President of a Party and not elected members of parliament are not notable. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL. Non notable politician who lost an election. Election candidates are not notable. So far only WP:NOTNEWS type coverage of election in sources. No notable public office held. He lost the election and loosing does not make him notable. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this doesn't even attempt to demonstrate that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 02:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyama Prasad Haldar[edit]

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

He was a candidate in General Election. Ok but, he wasn't elected. This article doesn't have sign of notability. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL. Non notable politician who lost an election. Election candidates are not notable. So far only WP:NOTNEWS type coverage of election in sources. No notable public office held. He lost with a huge margin of 2,03,974 votes. But loosing does not make him notable. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL not elected and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:49, 11 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soumitra Ghoshal[edit]

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

Booth level presidents aren't notable politicians. I think, it should be declined on draft. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL. Non notable politician who lost an election. So far only WP:NOTNEWS type coverage of death found in sources. No notable public office held.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, as well fails WP:VICTIM.Goldsztajn (talk) 06:53, 11 October 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ziyad Hanna[edit]

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

Lacks notability via GNG. When considering as an academic, the number of papers and citation count seems to fall short - not surprisingly because he is more active as a business executive than as an academic. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, either general or as an academic; the cited sources are either trivial passing mentions or routine career announcements. Statements about key achievents are unsourced. Huon (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His academic accomplishments (including his citation record on Google Scholar in what is a high-citation field) fall short of WP:PROF, and we have no evidence of WP:GNG for his business accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 3 October 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 09:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project management vision (PMV)[edit]

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

The subject appears to fail NCORP. Current sourcing is all directory listings and social media profiles, nothing approaching WP:CORPDEPTH; I searched, but couldn't find any RS giving significant coverage. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does not seem to fail NCORP. Current sources are not private directory listings. They are the offical records of respective Australian government authorities who accredit and certify^[1] vocational training institutes in the country. However, the LinkedIn profile of the CEO^[2] is provided for proof of this professional's existence and resume in the industry. User:Vegetagz6

I didn't not say that they were private directory listings, just that they were directory listings - which they are. The fact that they it's a government directory doesn't change that, it's not significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. A LinkedIn profile is neither independent nor reliable, and adds nothing to notability. There are still no reliable, independent secondary sources giving significant coverage - NCORP calls for multiple such sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally understand the point you are convey as an editor. However, vocational training institutes in Australia are not like universities to get significant news coverage . For example, please see [Wikipedia article]. It's also a similar vocational training center. If you go through its reference list, you can see only one citation is from a newspaper article (a website called Communitynews). All the remaining references are from the state government's websites itself (who also owns the institute). This would not discredit the aspect that the institute is one of the popular ones in the country - forming the backbone of Australia's vocational education infrastructure. That is the same case with PMV as well. For more third-party citations, the only ones possible are from regional or national conferences^[3]. In such a brochure^[4] from a recent conference, more details about PMV, and third party descriptions about its CEO may be found.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegetagz6 (talk • contribs) 14:01 3 October 2019 (UTC)

References

^ "Training Provider Details". Department of Employment, Skills and Small Business - Australia.
^ "Jatinder Ahuja Profile". LinkedIN.
^ "Hazardous Areas WA Conference - Perth, Australia".
^ "Brochure HAWAC" (PDF).

One of the problems the project faces is the large number of existing articles with long-standing problems. It's therefore not considered a good argument to point to another article and say 'this is like that one' - see WP:OTHERSTUFF - we treat each case individually, on its own merits. If you can find sourcing to show that this company meets WP:NCORP guidelines, I'll change my view. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my previous response, I have added some new references from technical conferences and proceedings. That's all I can provide. If you believe that even more third-party sources are required to depict the notability of "regionally popular" training institutions, then you shouldn't change your view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegetagz6 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetagz6, I'm on mobile, so might be missing something, but I can't see where PMV is mentioned in either of those sources. If it's just a self-authored blurb about a conference they're attending though, I can't see how that would be independent or significant coverage. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the sources provided are enough to verify the information provided, they do not meet the necessary depth required to prove notability. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS, clear WP:PROMO. This is not a TAFE and cannot be compared. It is a private company offering post-secondary training services - there are approximately 5,000 of these registered training organisations in Australia. Wikipedia is not WP:YELLOW.Goldsztajn (talk) 06:38, 11 October 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Lamb (professor)[edit]

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

I don't think he meets NACADEMIC or GNG. There's almost no secondary coverage and he doesn't meet any of the obvious NACADEMIC criteria, no named professorship, significant reviews of his books, etc. While it's true that he's occasionally been cited by the media, I don't think that's enough to make him notable. Here are Google Scholar results; no publications make 50 citations. Zerach (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation counts too low to meet WP:PROF#C1; no other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this should be added to the Scotland-related deletion discussion list. Dunarc (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage I believe is needed to meet WP:GNG. My search didn't find evidence that he meets any criteria of WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 22:47, 8 October 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Das (Bobby)[edit]

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

He isn't elected as MP or MLA. Losing candidates are district level politician aren't notable. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL. Non notable politician who lost an election. So far only minor election related coverage in sources. No notable public office held. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — a person has to hold a notable office, not just run for one, to be notable as a politician. But this makes no credible claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him an article independent of the candidacy itself, and is referenced entirely to raw tables of vote totals rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic literature[edit]

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

In fact an article without content, as the main part is lifted from Early Irish literature without acknowledgement and the only source is not about Gaelic literature The Banner talk 09:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had disambiguated it based on Slavic literature, which is also a disambiguation. I would still lean towards disambiguation over deletion because "Gaelic" can either mean Scottish Gaelic or an archaic term for the Irish/Manx languages. Zerach (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – either as a WP:DAB or as a WP:SIA (which is what the article in its current form effectively is). 'Gaelic literature' is a likely search term, and it needs to point somewhere. It would be misleading to redirect it to only one of the three languages. Gaelic is ambiguous, and is a DAB page.

IMO the article would be most useful in the form of an SIA, which could (1) give an overview of the histories of all three branches, and (2) include links to related topics which would be out of place on a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Narky Blert as the concept of WP:SIA, (which is new to me), seems a good and helpful one for such topics. Andrew D. (talk) 11:45, 4 October 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 09:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Grabka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not seeing what makes the subject encyclopedic. 10 years ago AfD was kept 'because sources were presented'. The closing admin clearly didn't check them, for example the NYT review is not of her work but of a play she was one or many dancers in, and she is mentioned there in passing. No other refs are present, nor can I find anything else. Pl wiki article is likewise empty of any claims of significance or good refs. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopedic notability.--Darwinek (talk) 22:33, 3 October 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 09:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Novotek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD from 10 years ago concluded that it's notable because WP:LISTED. But now our understanding of this is that listed companies are likely to be notable, but being listed is not enough. Yet in all those times nobody bothered to expand this sub-stub beyond the single sentence. I can't see any sources, through maybe some exist in Swedish, but anyone bringing them here please be aware that we need in-depth independent coverage, so press-releases and business as usual coverage (acquisitions, mergers) generally will not count for much. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Swedish WP article on this company (here) doesnt have much more and is unreferenced. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We kept this a decade ago because it was listed on the Swedish stock exchange? Where is that in notability criteria? Bloomberg says it has 119 employees but little else. Reuters has a few press releases, but little else. There's a UK pharmaceutical manufacturing company with the same name and they are coming up in searches before this firm. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still non-notable the second time around. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 5 October 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. @Piotrus: has made the request to withdraw. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jascha Silberstein[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Prodded 10 years ago, survived an AFD in 2007 due to arguments WP:ITSIMPORTANT with nobody citing a single source. 10 yeas later, the article is still effectively unrefenrenced and makes on claim that would suggest the subject passes WP:NMUSIC. WP:BEFORE did not find anything but I admit I am not an expert in finding music-themed sources. Can anyone rescue this by finding proper sources? Ping users who participated in the prior discussion: @Philippe, Jeepday, Gwern, Fundamentaldan, Pharamond, Capitalistroadster, Cedlaod, Quarl, and DGG:. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 506 results for him on Newspapers.com. Some, of course, are simply performance announcements, but there are others which are reviews, feature articles when he was first appointed, etc - certainly many which can provide sources for the information in the article. Probably there will be more reviews in journals, too. I'll try to add some. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This convoluted nomination appears to use the basis of WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC as the reason to delete, but it was never stated. While the seven sources in the article are behind a paywall, it seems to be relatively well-sourced and easily passing WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have started adding sources and also listing his recordings. While the article was unreferenced at the time of nomination, it clearly stated "He recorded albums for London Records and the Musical Heritage Society." WP:MUSICBIO#5 is "Has released two or more albums on a major record label", so there was a clear statement of notability already in the article. So far, I have found that he released 5 albums on London Records and 2 with the Musical Heritage Society, and that's only up to 1975. The sources I have added so far are from Newspapers.com, but the discography is free to access on WorldCat [18]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exercising AGF for the multiple paywalled reliable sources coverage which back up criteria 5 of WP:NMUSIC with multiple album releases on a major label, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Rebecca's additions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Sources have now been added to verify claims made, and argument for passing NMUSIC seems solid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:51, 5 October 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 09:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong Dragons[edit]

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

Not notable unsourced article. Does not play on a Fully professional league and does not meet our general notability criteria. Besides a couple of routine mentions, the only in-depth coverage I could find was local, from the Geelong Advertiser. I tried doing a redirect to another article with questionable notability, the Bell Park Football Club but it was reverted. The article seems to be promoting that organization, as it is full of inline links to their webpage, which is against WP:EE. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - your reference to WP:FPL is wrong. That relates to association football leagues (and is used for player notability), not AFL. Giant Snowman 09:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @GiantSnowman: I know that we don't have a notability guideline for teams and therefore only GNG applies, I was just pointing out that it is not a fully professional team for which coverage would probably be much easier to find. I am basing the nomination on the lack of in-depth coverage. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NORG applies, although for future there are established notability guidelines for soccer teams at WP:FOOTYN. Giant Snowman 10:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GiantSnowman. I did miss that part. I will keep it in mind for the future. For this case it clearly fails both as well. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note explicitly that FOOTYN is not a Guideline like NFOOTY, it's merely something useful that might help guide you, as it has never been formally adopted by the broader community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:NAFL does not cover clubs; players are only notable if they played in the AFL (VFL before 1990) or AFL women's or had major achievements in a state league. FIDA clubs fall completely outside this ladder. Unless Australian football is contested at the Special Olympics or similar national or international competitions (and this club competed at one), the only notability standard for this article is WP:GNG. Coverage of the team, based on what I see, is minimal. The one thing that might help the article is Be Dragons, the TV programme produced about the club, but even then I would argue that it is the programme that is notable, not the club. If an article were created for Be Dragons, then this page could be a useful redirect to that article. However, I do not see anything that indicates that this club is notable enough for an article about it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normal delete on unsourced grounds with a caveat that if sources are found that pass WP:GNG, the article may be recreated. (Also note this is an article about an Australian rules footy club, NOT a soccer-football club, so WP:NFOOTY/WP:FOOTYN don't really work here.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After being blocked, the author used a puppet evading the block to continue editing the article. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gwsforlife) The original username of the blocked puppet was "Bell park dragon's" which indicates that the article might have been created with a WP:COI. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:44, 10 October 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 09:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kal[edit]

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

Likely fails WP:NBIO. Sources are limited to press release and their rewrites, effectively annoucements of some stages of his career - in other words, business as usual. Said coverage is also local, limited to outlets like The Detroit News. The article titled Neal Rubin (2007). "Red Wings broadcaster refuses to let his dream die". The Detroit News. seems like it might have been an in-depth piece but the link is dead, and I couldn't locate a copy in Internet Archive or eleswhere. Even if it is an in-depth piece, and assuming coverage in Detroit News is sufficient (we generally want something less local than a city-wide paper) we would need one more good source to satisfy GNG requirement for multiple in-depth pieces. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet the basic criteria to be considered notable. Simply put, Ken Kal's career as a broadcaster has not received significant coverage, recognition or accolades beyond the Detroit region. Drdpw (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 3 October 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) 06:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Woodbridge[edit]

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

This was incorrectly tagged for CSD by an IP editor who said "... please delete at request of Peter Woodbridge, to whom this page refers ..." [19]. I declined this request per WP:NOTCSD as "Article subjects do not have an automatic right to have their articles deleted". However, I believe this BLP fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC and am nominating it for deletion with the request that the closer observe WP:BIODEL which provides for deletion at the subject's request if any result of the AfD other than consensus to Keep occurs. Chetsford (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests major impact on the field (award, write-ups, etc.). GScholar search shows average citations - co-authored article with ~150, then ~50, and less, not a single single author piece in the top 10 most cited works. Concur likely fails WP:NPROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the articles referenced seem to be about the YouTubes for Coventry, not really about him. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 7 October 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 09:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleen Plaza[edit]

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

Small WP:ROTM shopping center with 1 anchor grocery store and about a dozen small stores. Refs are some routine local coverage. Does not meet GNG. Shopping malls with articles typically have multiple anchors and 50, 100, or more stores and have significant community or regional impact. MB 02:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. MB 02:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MB 02:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing suggests this passes WP:NORG or WP:NGEO, coverage is limited to press releases and their rewrites (business-as-usual). However, I'd encourage closing admin (if this is to be deleted) to take a minute and add an entry to the wv:Canberra (just copy paste text to a new listing in the Buy section there). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so a "redirect" to Kaleen (and maybe listing it under a renamed (from Churches and schools to "Facilities") section is out of the question? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how listing it in Kaleen is appropriate. If we commonly listed non-notable shopping centers in articles on places, a big city could have hundreds. WP is not a directory of trivia. If there were a case that this shopping center is particularly significant to Kaleen and aided the understanding of that topic, a case could be made. That is a discussion for the talk page there. MB 14:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

although, as a gazetteer, readers may expect to see general (not necessarily standalone notable), information about locations within it? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Kaleen. The content has reliable sources but is not notable enough for its own article. Merging and redirecting means it can easily form part of the article for the suburb. Bookscale (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. WP:ROTM shopping center with only routine coverage. Acnetj (talk) 20:41, 9 October 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 09:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green slime (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Completely non-notable fictional creature. The only non-primary sources here are all being used in the "Creative Origins" section, which is entirely WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, as the sources in question not only do not discuss D&D, they also predate the game by a century or more. Even if that section wasn't just entirely original research, noting the creatures origins do nothing to establish notability without reliable secondary sources actually discussing the creature, and there are none. Rorshacma (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable gamecruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Would it be possible to merge this with Dungeons and Dragons? Vorbee (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely non-notable. There is nothing to merge. TTN (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage in secondary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 06:12, 10 October 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 09:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Murdock[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. No top tier promotion fight and have not worn a top tier promotion title. Fails WP:MMABIO CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fighter fought in Bellator multiple times and has been called to UFC, but due to his suspension, he was replaced. In the worst case, he marginally passes WP:MMABIO. --Chelyx (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bellator as top tier promotion is from 2009 to 2015. Pls see WP:MMATIER. During 2009 to 2015 subject had fought only 1 fight under the promotion. To pass MMABIO, the subject needs at least 3 fights under top tier promotion. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters since he has only 1 of the required 3 top tier fights. Given his 20 month suspension, it will be quite some time before he can meet WP:NMMA. The coverage is typical sports reporting for his fights and listings in databases. There's nothing to show his coverage is atypical and meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:19, 8 October 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.