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 Chancellor House (company). Any content can be merged from history. Sandstein 18:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor House Holdings[edit]

Chancellor House Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Same subject as Chancellor House (company) Rathfelder (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Should rather be merged. Firefishy (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if possible, delete if not. I agree with Firefishy above, this should be merged to the article about whatever scandal this is related to, but sadly, the article doesn't allude to this at all, nor does it link to any target article outside the Congress one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Delete as per nom's logic above. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 2 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. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ural Airlines Flight 178[edit]

Ural Airlines Flight 178 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While I appreciate the effort that went into writing this article, Wikipedia is not a news source and this event is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Bird/plane strikes happen every day. – Daybeers (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – Daybeers (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Daybeers (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bird strikes happen every day, yes, but very few result in the crash of a jet plane, and fewer still result in everyone in a jet plane crash surviving. This is a notable incident that received widespread media coverage and was featured on WP's main page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A lot of media coverage not to mention that ATC has complained for years about dumps (possibly illegal ones at that) in the area attacking birds. It could lead to new policies regarding bird management near and at the airport, not to mention the possible shutdown of some of the nearby dumps. Not to mention it is very rare for birds to bring down a passenger jet carrying well over 200 people outside of the airport resulting in a hull loss with no fatalities. - Omega13a (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is indeed a highly uncommon occurrence, and sources appear to demonstrate notability. Although it's too soon to know if there will be lasting coverage, given the currently available news sources and effects mentioned therein, it seems pretty likely that this accident and its consequences will remain notable and significant (thus fulfilling WP:LASTING and hence WP:NEVENT). ComplexRational (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A crash landing of a regularly scheduled commercial passenger airliner resulting in injuries and a hull loss meets the standards of notability. The crash has received widespread worldwide coverage in multiple independent media sources. Easily meets WP:GNG. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep per all above. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per all the arguments above. As for the nominator's rationale, people die every day too, yet the death of Michael Jackson is a stand-alone article. Why not nominating it too for deletion?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Further compounding things is the disaster continues to be discussed in Russian, for instance this article from only a few days ago: [1] It's basically the Russian version of what the Hudson landing was to the United States. Easy keep. SportingFlyer T·C 00:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like what everyone said above, this is notable especially in Russia. There's been waste dumps by the airport which led to birds being around the runway at Zhukovsky. There's also been news reports of details of the accident since the crash and it's also as similar to the Miracle at the Hudson and is even compared to the event. I think this article should be kept on Wikipedia because on how significant the outcome will be with the waste dumps, the international media, and probably new safety measures after the investigation is complete. Swagging (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is snowing Lightburst (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – unless you're proposing to delete US Airways Flight 1549, which is entirely comparable bar WP:WORLDVIEW! Rosbif73 (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Bookscale (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, similar to US Airways Flight 1549 as said above.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC).I'm surprised the consensus is so overwhelming. I nearly miss wikipedia's never ending arguments![reply]
• Snow Keep - The crash resulted in a hull loss, and in depth coverage regarding the bird strike. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Croft (Grand Torino)[edit]

Rowan Croft (Grand Torino) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The sources provided do not discuss him significantly, and I cannot find such sources through a Google search for "Rowan Croft" (about 30 results on Google News, mainly just mentions on web sites and blogs or a brief mention in an article about someone else). Searches for "Grand Torino" return the Clint Eastwood film. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. One milkshaking and a passing mention in another newspaper article don't rate an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't appear to be a suitable biographical subject; nothing encyclopedic has been written about him. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Total non-entity. Spleodrach (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination Dexxtrall (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Random youtube nobody. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are sources that mention this individual but none of them provide significant coverage. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 15:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has received non-trivial coverage in a number of Irish publications. See ^[1] and ^[2]. The article certainly needs to be improved, but deletion is premature. YoungIreland (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarify, please - how is that coverage (two mentions in the I.T. article, one passing mention in the Journal article that states his claims are nonsense) "non-trivial"? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:36, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ford (musician)[edit]

Henry Ford (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I found no information about this person. Without sources, I can't even begin to question whether he is notable or not. Vmavanti (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the article in 2003; I created it only because another editor made a wikilink from a casual mention of Ford in another article. I have no objection to deletion. Ford does not seem notable on his own and I think little more is known of him beyond the scant article; he was someone remembered as playing with a couple of musicians of some note. --Infrogmation (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices with video output over USB-C[edit]

List of devices with video output over USB-C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a list of products with a particular feature. The list is pretty big, suggesting that feature is not particularly notable or an novel differentiator among products. I don't think there's encyclopedic value in such a list, so this seems to only serve for promotion of the individual products. Many non-links, so the products themselves often aren't notable. Very few references. This broad list will never be current and will be quite difficult to support. Fails WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:RAWDATA. Mikeblas (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as well as WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ajf - this is an unnecessary list if I've ever seen one. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom a pretty useless page Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Before writing such an article, one must ask self: Who is this going to benefit from this 100 years from now? The answer is: No one. This article helps a minuscule group of today's shoppers only. The average effective life of a smartphone is only 5 years and Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the majority of this article is not about smartphones but desktops/laptops which would have a longer lifespan generally. This would not change the outcome of the AFD.Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that it is mostly about smartphones, as it list 70 of them. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laptops and desktops together make up more. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Give a few minutes to reassess.

Desktops have very long effective lives, but I can't say the same thing for laptops. Regardless, it seems I was wrong that the list's usefulness is tied to effective life of the device. It is tied to the device being in stock and video output over USB-C being fashionable. flowing dreams (talk page) 13:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Per nom. non useful list and not notable. Alex-h (talk) 12:58, 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. Rather than merge per the arguments raised here against the merge. If the content is needed somewhere anyway, ask at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baku (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Baku (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Stub article about a fictional creature with no real-world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Not a very active user (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another non-notable D&D version of a mythological creature. There are no secondary sources indicating any kind of real world notability for this creature. As such, there is nothing worth redirecting or merging to any other article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to appropriate D&D article. Entirely in-universe with no substance. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability. Barca (talk) 21:30, 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 as the proposed merge target has now also been redirected to a more general article. – Joe (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amnizu[edit]

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

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

Stub article about a fictional creature with no real-world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Not a very active user (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It fails to establish notability. TTN (talk)
• Keep or merge per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are no reliable secondary sources that indicate any sort of notability for this fictional monster, either present in the article or found upon searches. The proposed merger target looks to be well on its way to deletion itself, so that suggestion is rather moot. Rorshacma (talk) 01:05, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maycom Co.[edit]

Maycom Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is not fulfilled. --ChristlicheMorgenröte (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) tag and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @ChristlicheMorgenröte: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walking With my Soul[edit]

Walking With my Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to potentially be a promotional article, and several claims to notability are either unsourced or dubious. Seems to fail WP:NBOOK. WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note, though the search did bring up the similarly titled work Walk in My Soul which could have affected the results. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 14:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 14:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 14:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 14:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I searched for reviews and found none. Haukur (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Goodreads review, Daily excelsior post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukh.editor (talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC) — Sukh.editor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The fact that a book was reviewed does not mean it merits an article here; please read Wikipedia's special definition of a notable book. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete likely a WP:PROMO for the book, which fails WP:NBOOK. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, as written. bd2412 T 23:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am interpreting SmokeyJoe's statement as not being an explicit "keep" claim; if I am wrong please pipe up on my talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetic Experience[edit]

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

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

Essay, and an incomprhisible one at that. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to be original research per the essay argument as well as my own look at the page. Potential synthesis of sources as well, but I have not fully checked for this. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An essay without a clear thought in it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I approved this old lengthy draft for moving to mainspace. A number of such pages are WP:OR. I felt charitable for this one because the references use the specific term “Aesthetic experience” or very similar. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two relists we have a list of possible sources, but no commentary about their significance or even agreement that they are about the same person, so I don't a good alternative but to close this one for now as no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Khuroshvili[edit]

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

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

While accomplished, doesn't meet WP:GNG, and neither is positions or citation count (1) and h-index (1), seem to meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Was deprodded and 2 sources were added, one of which was to Google scholar, which shows his citation at 1. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a Georgian political avtivist by this name that has gotten quite a lot of media coverage by the BBC Monitoring International Reports, Russia & CIS Military Daily, Russia & FSU General News, and Military News Agency from 2006-2012 either directly or tangentially (opinions published in articles). Given that the area of activism ligns up with some of the scholarly work and interests, I am fairly certain this is the same person, but would appreciate others input. I have access to these articles through my university, so other editors with similar resources would need to comment. The articles in question are:

1. "Georgian speaker opposes government moves to encourage imports", BBC Monitoring International Reports, June 7, 2006

1. "(Corr)Georgian MPs begin examining set of constitutional amendments", BBC Monitoring International Reports, Oct 24, 2006

1. "Georgian MPs begin examining set of constitutional amendments", BBC Monitoring International Reports, Oct 24, 2006

1. "Georgian Government to Experience Two Changes", Kirtskhalia, N, Trend News. English, Nov 19, 2007

1. "Georgia toughens fight against smuggling", Kirtzkhalia, N, Trend News. English, Nov 16, 2010

1. "Georgia toughens fight against smuggling", Kirtzkhalia, N, Trend Capital. English, Nov 16, 2010

1. "Newly Independent States; Georgian parliament proposed to approve new government", Interfax : Russia & CIS Military Information Weekly, Feb 6, 2009

1. Former Georgian premier tipped as envoy to NATO, BBC Monitoring International Reports, June 22, 2009

1. "Georgian President and Prime Minister Represent New Cabinet's Composition", Kirtskhalia, N, Trend News, English, Nov 19, 2007

1. "Georgian TV reports on possibility of cabinet reshuffle", BBC Monitoring International Reports, July 10, 2006

1. "Interfax Russia & FSU News Bulletin.(Company overview)", Russia & FSU General News, Feb 2, 2009

1. "Interfax Russia & CIS Military Weekly", Military News Agency, Feb 6, 2009

If this is the same person. He would likely pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MacHeist[edit]

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

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

Original version from 2006 defunct as of 2016. Current Website is a marketing front end by native advertising company StackCommerce, which no longer provides any of the same functionality or features of the original, other than using the name. No longer has any notable coverage. Previous AfDs were from over a decade ago, so arguments then are now less relevant. Leflyman^Talk 18:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't feel like making sure that the article is actually up to snuff, but it seems to be properly referenced and well written. We do not delete articles just because the thing they are about no longer exists. Rockphed (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: nearly all of the content is based on outdated references from the site itself, including by its original co-founders John Casasanta and Phil Ryu-- which, as primary sources do not meet reliability or notability. Other references that appear are synthesis, many which do not even discuss the article's topic, but have been selected by previous editors to create an Original Research narrative. Entire sections are such OR, particularly the Criticism and series of MacHeists, which include numerous unsubstantiated claims, such as in MacHeist II: "However, over the course of the stunt, many people in various communities became concerned they would be targeted or vulnerable."

Beyond that, comparing a defunct niche commerce site-- which now exists purely for Google juice marketing-- with historical entities is a ridiculous comparison. We don't keep articles for non-notable, short-term promotional content nor list merchandise sold, like a sales catalog, which is what the "MacHeist" sections are. This article has sat fallow for years-- the last actual changes prior to mine were in 2014-- and won't be further improved, as the previous commenter acknowledged: "I don't feel like making sure that the article is actually up to snuff." As noted at the Notability guideline for Web content: "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves."--Leflyman^Talk 10:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• On looking at the sourcing, I agree that none of it is reliable. I did, however, find a source on Macheist ^[1] in the first book from the google books link above. There seem to be another 2 books with information about Macheist. If the preview is to be believed, all three books have at least enough information to support an article here (though not neccesarily this article). The one in my reference has enough information to support an article for certain. Rockphed (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do not think the previous deletion discussions were handled correctly. The first one should have been a delete close (based on weight of arguments and appeal to policy. Most of the keeps were "it's important" while the deletes were "there are no sources!" The second was bad from both directions and was just a straight vote. Rockphed (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saby Bhattacharya[edit]

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

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

unsourced promo, dubious notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as sources currently cited in the External Links section don't seem to meet criteria at WP:MUSICBIO (though I couldn't access 'Tihai3 performs at Darebin Music Feast'). Meticulo (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That source is archived, here. It has the subject as a member of the group, which appears at the named festival.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - zero evidence the subject passes WP:MUSICBIO, for example, a tour of Australia and New Zealand - not even a a Northern Territories debut. The Darebin music festival is so small it's not even cited anywhere in Wikipedia. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Punting the salt question to WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Angel Henderson[edit]

Jordan Angel Henderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I tagged the article for speedy deletion but the tag was removed without any reason given. Article is an WP:AUTOBIO and WP:PROMO for a non-notable musician. GPL93 (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Still no evidence of any notability. Does not satisfy criteria for WP:SINGER. Sources are adverts, regurgitated press releases and little else. Searches still find nothing better. Fails WP:GNG.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I note also that the user removing the AfD template on more than one occasion, Avibrown800mtwominutes self identifies as the agent for the article subject here.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, clear vanity page creffett (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Can't find any significant coverage. Schazjmd (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given this is a likely vanity page that has already been deleted via AfD once this month, I believe WP:SALTing the article space should be considered. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with nominator and comments above that there is nothing to suggest that the subject of the article comes close to meeting notability standards. Also the article does not really read like an encyclopedic entry and as noted could be a vanity page. Dunarc (talk) 22:53, 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) 13:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hendley[edit]

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

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

The article has been recreated after being deleted under WP:A7. It fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. A Google search returns no coverage from news or books. The provided sources either are not WP:RS or don't have in-depth coverage or are not independent. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing found in a search to support even GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Artist does not meet GNG or NARTIST at this time. After searching for reliable sources, I found on his gallery website that his first one person show was in 2018 (and it was at a commercial for-profit gallery, not a museum). So it may be TOOSOON. On the other hand, I did find that he is in this collection[2], but that is not enough to meet the criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: that was a good find on the collection. I note that the site for the collection says "We hold material created by CSM staff and students over the last one hundred years, and have collected from degree shows for the past two decades." which means that the criteria for inclusion in it is having a graduating show in the school. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good research, @ThatMontrealIP: That info puts the collection into context. It's not the same as a museum specifically selecting an artist's work for their collection. It seems that staff and former students can give a work to the collection. There is a big difference between these two types of acquisitions; that collection doesn't really count. Netherzone (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stacia Pierce[edit]

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

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

Promotional bio of a subject with very doubtful notability. Tagged for notability since 2010. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No proper evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep based on sources brought forward in the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mulatto (rapper)[edit]

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

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

So she won a reality show... ok cool? The sources are desperately unreliable. I just see 0 evidence of notability as a recording artist. Trillfendi (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The page is necessary, she's a notable artist. Will find better/reliable sources. Please remove from AFD. (WP:N) NEGUS1010 (talk) sankofa 03:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ILIKEIT is not grounds for speedy keeping. Absolutely the hell not. Trillfendi (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is necessary and the artist is notable. per:^[1][2][3] NEGUS1010 (talk) sankofa 05:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t vote twice. Trillfendi (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as does have reliable sources coverage such as The Source, XXL Mag, AllMusic bio, Hot New Hip Hop which are all rs as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and others. Winning a tv reality show is also a claim of significance that is backed up in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Atlantic306 Ceethekreator (talk) 13:15, 2 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. – Joe (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Saathiya[edit]

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

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

No claims of notability made. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:29, 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. – Joe (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Alliance[edit]

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

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

References do not meet WP:ORGCRIT and subject fails WP:NCORP. CNMall41 (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The references fail WP:ORGCRIT in one way or another. Either the sources are primary, not independent of the subject, or there isn't significant coverage. — Kstone999 (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unable to find multiple reliable sources where significant coverage exists. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No sources at all have been found to establish notability nor is there sufficient consensus for IAR.  JGHowes  ^talk 21:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Institute of Research & Technology[edit]

Sagar Institute of Research & Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I find no evidence of WP:N, no coverage of the sort required for WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ORG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." Largoplazo (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I've read that piece of rubbish many times. It has usually been ignored in the case of degree-awarding institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "I've read the guidelines that represent a consensus of the community. We shouldn't follow them because I don't like them." Also, I'd be interested to see the data that support your claim that the explicit guideline on this very topic, which was obviously singled out for mention because there had been disagreement on it and people felt very strongly that an explicit statement was necessary, is nevertheless usually ignored. I would guess that the sentiment you've expressed ("rubbish") illustrates the motive for including that very specific guideline that clarifies that "degree-awarding tertiary institution" is not to be taken to suffice for a finding of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• May I suggest you read other related AfDs and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. That is the consensus of the community on this particular subject, established over many AfDs. And also consider WP:SYSTEMIC and ask yourself whether an article on a similar college in the United Kingdom or the United States would be deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would feel the same (I think I have expressed the same feeling in at least one deletion nomination for a U.S. institution, though I can't swear to it) about schools in the United States. There are scads of commercial degree-granting tertiary institutions in the U.S. that, if they received no note in WP:GNG-level sources, wouldn't merit inclusion here any more than commercial operations that aren't educational institutions. Giving an education for money is just a type of commercial service. Largoplazo (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It wasn't helpful to your case to raise WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which says to avoid raising WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in deletion discussions. It points to this RFC which concluded, among other things, that "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning." So, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Outcomes based. That is the community consensus on that subject. Largoplazo (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You should note that the RfC (which is in any case highly controversial) referred only to secondary schools and not to tertiary institutions. Please don't try to extend it to something it quite clearly did not cover. SCHOOLOUTCOMES merely summarises precedent for keeping these institutions. It is shorthand for saying that precedent has been established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You can call it "precedent" or not, but the RFC found that that shouldn't be raised in deletion discussions, yet you raised it, and now you're raising it again. Note that while the scope of the discussion as initiated was secondary schools, the second bullet point of the outcome says that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the arguments-to-avoid, not that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the arguments-to-avoid with the proviso that that applies only to secondary schools. Regardless of the initial scope, the finding was essentially that it's circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is fallacious argumentation. It isn't fallacious and to be avoided only when the subject is secondary schools. It's just as fallacious and to be avoided when the subject is tertiary schools. The example in arguments-to-avoid refers to a secondary school, but the overall commentary isn't so restricted. The consensus was "Circular reasoning should be avoided in RFDs." Raising WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is circular reasoning. Largoplazo (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• By your reasoning then, all claims of precedent are circular reasoning. So also by your reasoning there is clearly no valid precedent on Wikipedia, so we should obviously go back to long tedious discussions on every single AfD even if a precedent has clearly been established. That seems like a real step backwards, but if that's what you think then that's what you think. Your prerogative. Mine to disagree with you. The closer's to decide between the arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You're digressing. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't say "Do not raise WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in the context of secondary education." It says (paraphrasing) "Do not raise WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES." Whatever reasoning led to that result is the reasoning of the people in the RFC. But that was one of the conclusions: Do not raise WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in deletion discussion. If you want that to change, begin an RFC to change it. Largoplazo (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unable to find any significant coverage - besides facebook and linkedin could only find listings that included the Institute; no reviews or writeups or other evidence of notability - article created by SPA - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think we are having problems finding information on this university because they are primarily in India. Their graduates and professors seem to publish plenty (since I can't even find sources on them because the search results are clogged with papers). Will try to find more sources later. Rockphed (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm also finding lots of books and papers by their academics. I even found articles on some of their class studies: "Sagar Institute of Research and Technology students get familiar with Crompton and Greaves brand", 21 July 2014, The Times of India and "Sagar Institute of Research Technology and Science students learn pharma unit basics", The Times of India, July 4, 2014. I'm not finding anything on the university itself which might be because it is just one arm of various Sagar Institutes that are all related to one another. Perhaps an article on the parent organization itself would be more sensible?4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find any sources. I haven't checked local language sources (which probably won't show up for an english search), but absent someone with local language skills, I don't think we are going to find any sources. The extent of sourcing in the current article amounts to "there is an accredited institution with this name", which violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Rockphed (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp and time-honoured precedent as evidenced by thousands of AfD closures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Necrothesp raised WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES—which says to avoid raising WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in deletion discussions, on account of it amounting to circular reasoning. Largoplazo (talk)

• See my comment above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Williamson[edit]

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

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

Non notable activist. The references are mostly articles about events in which she was one of the many people who appeared, or one of the people who signed a petition. and her name is included along with others. Some of them are statement she herself has made. Some of them are reports on local election campaigns. All of this is essentially her own publicity. The reasons why news sources print her name is because of the perceived importance of the causes she has associated herself with, not of her.

Almost all the citations are local. It's true that San Diego is an important city, but if she were actually notable , there would be much wider coverage.

I have supported, and still support, the view that we should include articles on all major party nominees for national office, though this has never been generally accepted as consensus. But this is someone who has never won the primary for a party nomination, and that nomination would have been for only a municipal office; this would therefore fail even myvery loose criteria.

It would therefore be reasonable to ask why this article was written. It wasn't apparently written by the candidate herself, or an advocate for her, both of whom, while they would have had a conflict of interest, would be in a somewhat excusable situation. Rather, it's paid for, and written by an undeclared paid editor (who has made it plain in other AfD discussions--discussion which are now taking place for every one of his articles---that he was in fact a paid editor.) And worse--he used illegitimately the excuse of a Women in Red campaign to insert the article. WiR is important--we need very much to expand the coverage of notable women. it shouldn'tbe perverted to support advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I do not believe that this isn't a notable subject for a Wikipedia article. Several news sources have run articles on her specifically, singling out either her activism or her bid for office, Tasha Williamson is one of only 3 candidates running for the San Diego mayor's office in a campaign that has 3 Democrats and no Republicans, and she has been an anti-violence activist for years, even winning a California Peace Prize for her efforts. She founded an organization that has worked with San Diegan survivors of gun violence for 11 years, and has worked with several other orgs. She was also the spokesperson for several families who lost loved ones to police violence, which seems like something which has a cumulative notability. If it is agreed that she is still not notable because she has not made much impact outside of the greater San Diego area, then so be it, but it is not as if she is some random person. I would say that a San Diego mayoral candidate is automatically notable, regardless of who won a Democratic party endorsement, but that is neither here nor there.

Regarding my status as a paid editor, I did in fact declare that I was paid by for revisions before I was asked to declare it, as can be seen on my user page's revision history, so I really do not appreciate being accused of not declaring that I am a paid editor. I never in any way associated Tasha Williamson's page with Women in Red either, even though I subscribed to WiR, I did not link Williamson's page to the project or in any connect the two. I didn't use WiR to "support advertisements" and the recently AfD pages which I was recently paid to edit were about a man, Tom Wheelwright, not one of the red-linked women nominated for article creation on WiR.

I will accept whatever judgment is collectively made regarding this page, but I don't think it deserves to be taken down. At the very least there should be some way to fold it into existing articles, rather than just getting rid of it.KoenigWrites (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I just went through and fixed the reference list in the article (there are no longer multiple references to the same source or references to wikipedia). Assuming that the article is at all accurate, this woman is most notable for being a mayoral candidate, and general policy is that politicians require significantly more coverage to get an article than non-politicians. Most of the sources are places where she got quoted and identified as the spokesman for an aggrieved party. She may also have done some local advocacy stuff, but I agree that the only local sources do not support notability. Rockphed (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Passes WP:GNG for her work as an activist but not as a politician. Her Peace Prize win was significant enough that she was the main subject of several articles acknowledging her work as an activist/ founder of the active non-profit San Diego Compassion Project, including the national news article "TCWF Honors Unsung Heroes With 21st Annual California Peace Prize", PR Newswire, 10 September 2013 (the text of which mainly is about Tasha Williamson and her work as an activist) . That in conjunction with all of the news articles already cited in the article are enough to just barely pass WP:GNG. On a side note, it would be helpful to create a notability guideline specifically for activists.4meter4 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge The subject's notability is borderline but is enough for a start and it's only going to get better, as more is written about her. The arguments about paid editing and WiR are irrelevant as it doesn't matter how we got here; we're just here to consider the subject. Myself, I started the similar page Erica Garner. I don't have any particular axe to grind but my experience there indicates that having such an article is not problematic as it's been quite quiet since the initial fuss. The key policies are WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE which indicate that we should prefer a constructive outcome to deletion of all this content and its history. If we wanted to park this in some broader topic then List of African American activists is a possibility but, personally, I think we're better off keeping things as they are – the current version has a reasonably neutral tone and respectable format and it would be significant effort to boil this down into a list entry. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify This extremely promotional article needs to be rewritten entirely. I only vouch for the keeping side multiple San Diego-related sources did profiles. Trillfendi (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG based on her activist work. There is no requirement for "significant coverage" to include sources from different places. feminist (talk) 05:02, 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 no consensus. Academic Challenger (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Biological Sciences[edit]

Journal of Biological Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable predatory journal Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to MIAR this journal is included in several databases, including Scopus. Currently no time to look closer at this, what makes you say that it is predatory? (It started way before we had predatory journals - but may have become one since). --Randykitty (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a journal published by SciAlert.net/Medwell. If it's in Scopus, Scopus erred. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Forgive my ignorance, but could you explain in more detail how this makes the journal predatory? I'm not finding much about the publisher through a quick Google search. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  SciAlert.net is one of the worse predatory publishers out there. You can check "Science Alert" and "Medwell" in https://beallslist.weebly.com/. Googling will give you results such as [3] and [4]. Not to be confused with https://www.sciencealert.com/. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, thank you. I didn't find these results since I searched "Science Alert" rather than "SciAlert.net". – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It looks like this is a failure of WP:NJOURNAL. Although a journal listed in databases like Scopus would normally be kept per criterion 1b, the links presented by Headbomb show that the Journal of Biological Sciences is a predatory journal that shouldn't be indexed by these databases to begin with. (I should note that I'm not too familiar with the publication practices for academic journals, so I'm willing to reconsider my !vote after more discussion.) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Further analysis of the SCOPUS listing on MARS shows this journal isn't listed in SCOPUS. (see here). The publisher is also listed as predatory on Beal's List. This means the journal has no value for the academic community in terms of contributing to its discipline because the peer review is faulty. Steve Quinn (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the SCOPUS preview page it shows no metrics for this journal [5]. Steve Quinn (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It pains me to disagree with the above !votes and to !vote "keep" on this one myself, but the fact remains that this journal was listed by Scopus, which makes it a clear meet of NJournals. Note that it has since been discontinued, but also note that notability is not temporary. I think it would set a bad precedent if we would basically argue that "listing in Scopus makes a journal notable, unless we don't like it, because then Scopus was mistaken". Of course, our article should mince no words about this journal being predatory, using the sources provided by Headbomb. --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NJOURNALS. My university library system marks their journal articles as peer reviewed (I am at the University of Oklahoma which is one of the "Big Ten" research universities). They were listed in SCOPUS. I think the assertion that it is a predatory journal is inaccurate.4meter4 (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with Randykitty that we should not be rejecting pages because we don't like them. Nor should we reject a page that meets NJOURNAL because we think that SCOPUS made an error. We rely on third parties to make these judgements, not on our own feelings. Regardless, it still fails GNG; the article is bereft of any information other than the journal's existence. Note that even NJOURNAL says It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. SpinningSpark 12:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Predatory does not automatically equal not notable. If predatory, describe how in the article. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Randykitty. Wiki-notability is not temporary, and having been listed by Scopus in the past is traditionally enough to qualify, so by that standard, we'd be done. The question then becomes, is it possible to say anything else about the journal? And there, I think we can expand the article at least a little bit by talking about the publisher, so I come down as a "keep" (though a merge/redirect might also be suitable if a target could be identified). In borderline cases, I tend to think that we better serve the scientific community by documenting that a journal is predatory, rather than erasing our mention of it because it is predatory. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per SpinningSpark. If the only thing in the article that can be referenced to a reliable independent source is that it appears in an index or whatever (and mind you, not a third-party statement that it appears in an index, but simply citing that index), there shouldn't be an article. Agricolae (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As some of my previous !votes have been discounted for not explicitly naming a policy: Fails WP:GNG. I also agree that WP:NTEMP is not applicable to this situation - it was never notable. Agricolae (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NTEMP once notable always notable. Wm335td (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The journal was not notable even while it was listed by Scopus, so WP:NTEMP is irrelevant here. There are good reasons why WP:NJOURNALS is just an essay, and not a guideline. In complicated cases we should rely on official WP policies and guidelines such as WP:GNG. I feel that having been listed in a single selective index like Scopus is insufficient in cases like this one, and WP:GNG does require significant coverage by multiple sources. In biology specifically, which is the topic of this journal, for journals that are genuinely notable I would accpect to see them listed in the WebOfScience and probably PubMed. Neither one has ever indexed this journal, and it never had a JCR impact factor. I don't think we should disregard the fact that the journal is published by a predatory publisher. Similar to WP:FRINGE cases, we should treat such journals with greater scruitiny. Predatory journals basically function as expensive self-publishing platforms; they receive little coverage, their articles get minimal citations, and the journals are generally ignored by the scientific community. We should not keep WP articles on such journals just because the journals exist. In any case, the bottom line is that WP:GNG is not satisfied here. Nsk92 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging DGG for their expert opinion. --Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 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 07:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco D'Agostino[edit]

Francisco D'Agostino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPROF. (Note, while this may say fourth nom, the previous noms were for a Venezuelan by the same name). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: my research was cursory, but under the listed name I mostly get results about the guy we deleted last time. Under "Francesco D'Agostino", I mostly get results about the assistant coach to the Italian men's soccer team. After parsing through those two lists I might find information about an Italian jurist who consults with the Papacy on abortion and family law. There are 3 articles reviewing one of his works listed as references in this article, but I think that points more to that article being possibly notable than to the author being possibly notable. Rockphed (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppo F1[edit]

Oppo F1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no clear evidence for meeting notability--routine reviews only, DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep C'mon. It's the first phone in Oppo's F series. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article includes references which proves notability. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 15:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If it's thefirst phone in Oppo's series, a merge should be possible. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Seriously? Not sure how reviews are WP:ROUTINE here, reliable sources choose to cover them after all. Besides what is found in the article (Times of India, TechRadar reviews), there are WP:SIGCOV reviews in Stuff (magazine) [6], Deccan Chronicle [7], Mint (newspaper) [8], Firstpost [9], Businessworld [10], CNN-News18 [11], YugaTech [12], Digit (magazine) [13], The Indian Express [14] (there is a reference from this site, but not a review), PC Magazine [15], Computer!Totaal [16], International Business Times [17]... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Jovanmilic97. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn I still think it wouldbe better merged, but the consensus seems clearly against me. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 2 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. The one "keep" does not make an argument. Sandstein 07:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dune stalker[edit]

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

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

An extremely minor fictional creature with no notability. This one is minor to the point that there are barely any primary sources on it, let alone reliable secondary sources. Searches come up with a couple more primary sources, and then results for a few other things that happen to be called a "dune stalker" without any relation to this D&D creature. Rorshacma (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 2 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 07:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ixitxachitl[edit]

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

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

Non-notable fictional creature. Every source being used is primary, aside from one youtube video which, for obvious reasons, is not a reliable source. There is no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that would indicate any sort of notability for the monster. Rorshacma (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability in secondary sources. Non-notable pure gamecruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No real world notability. A redirect to the list would be okay, but it looks like that list might not survive it's own AfD.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 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 07:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Todd[edit]

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

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

Deprodded without rationale. Obviously doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:BASKETBALL. And coverage of him is routine sports coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article on a high school basketball player seems WP:TOOSOON to me and requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL to claim he's notable. Many high school stars fail to become WP notable and I'm not seeing that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:27, 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 moved to draft. bd2412 T 03:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias le Fèvre[edit]

Mathias le Fèvre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Most of the sources here are promotional. All of the sources that seem to be interviews are in fact just paid articles by suit companies. Once promotional sources are discounted, there's not much left. From those, I see no WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, this article was previously declined as an AfC, and entered mainspace by its author sidestepping AfC. Those problems combined make me believe the article is both problematic and non-notable. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep: Additional sources has been added to the article to prove notability. The subject is notable within its industry. This argument is supported by a social media following over 150,000 followers on its Instagram profile, several industry relevant press features, interviews and work references with notable industry relevant brands. The sources that were marked as promotional has been deleted and replaced with other non-promotional sources. Being a new author on Wikipedia I want to give my sincere apology for any sidesteps in regards to AfC. This was unintentionally and I will make sure that this does not happen again. "JoshuaAnderson15 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject has indication of notability through multiple reliable non-promotional secondary sources. Evidence: ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]} Richard flemming78 (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuaAnderson15 -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - article was already rejected by AfC but was moved outside of process to article space despite not quite being ready. After closing the sockpuppet investigation I've given the author some advice on finding more sources like the detailed writeup in The Gentleman, but clearly they need more time to work on it and make it a good encyclopedia article rather than an advertisement. The other sources provided are pretty bare, but a model getting somewhat prominent coverage in many independent sources seems to suggest that notability is there, we just need to find more complete information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per Ivanvector _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This feedback is much appreciated. I believe that I will be able to find more complete information about the subject through deeper research. I will just need more time for this. JoshuaAnderson15 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per Ivanvector and Rosguill. I found this by trying to clean up the inevitable daily glut of pages that are in mainspace but were still filed in Category:Pending AfC submissions — an error which usually results from situations exactly like this, where the creator submitted it to the AFC review queue and then immediately moved it into mainspace themselves without waiting for the AFC process to finish. If it hadn't already had an AFD template on it, accordingly, I would otherwise have moved it straight back into draftspace on "out of process move" grounds — so that's the correct resolution to the AFD process too. No, the sources here aren't enough yet — but the creator does have the right to some time to find more, which is exactly what draftspace is for. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 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. Sandstein 07:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Fever (film)[edit]

Yellow Fever (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I found no significant coverage. Non-notable short film with no notable actors that was released to a college student film festival. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most results on a GSearch come up with another film of that title released in 2017, and there are no results for this one except for the article and IMDb. Fails NFO. Created by an SPA. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vorkosigan Saga planets[edit]

List of Vorkosigan Saga planets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Repository of some previously deleted articles or others that no fan even wanted to create stand alone entries for,all failing WP:NFICTION. The list also fails WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Most of these are mentioned only in passing, the major ones already have their own articles (which is a separate issue), and ones like Athos are one-shot/novel deals. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- immense sprawling wall of fancruft with hardly a source to be seen. Reyk _YO! 10:01, 2 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 07:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Brandt[edit]

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

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

Could not find any sources in either print or online, beyond his own Forbes contributions (which are conveniently listed at the bottom of the article). So in summary: all facts stated in the biography are sourced from text this person wrote himself. Could not find even very minor mentions of Brandt elsewhere. He is therefore not notable per Wikipedia guidelines and this article should be uncontroversially deleted. PK650 (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some mentions in passing, but overall, seems to fail WP:NBIO and this entry is also written partly, at least, as an ad. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (not including any apparent self-authored or sponsored content). Appears to easily meet WP:NBIO "Basic Criteria" requirements.

1. "AP revisits owners from recession years". Assocated Press.
2. "Bitter Presidential Race Breeds Workplace Tensions". Wall Street Journal.
3. "The Kavanaugh Effect". Wall Street Journal.
4. "Banks accused of Short Sale Fraud". CNBC.
5. "Subprime Loans". National Public Radio.
6. "Larry King Live (owners youtube)". CNN.
7. "News In Japanese (owners youtube)". Tokyo TV.
8. "Cover Story". REI Ink Magazine.
9. "Strategic Defaults" (owners youtube)". FOX News.

Comment @Ljswiki: First of all, please remember to sign your name with four tildes. You appear to have an interest in trying to promote the article subject. Tell us why this is an encyclopedic article rather than another one of those annoying ads that makes encyclopedia readers want to hit the X button on their browsers. How has this person actually contributed to the field, and why is he of encyclopedic rather than promotional interest? Passing mentions in better-known news outlets don't count, and definitely not YouTube videos. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and is borderline blatant advertising. Passing mention in news articles. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:21, 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 redirect to Vorkosigan Saga. Sandstein 07:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cetaganda (fictional empire)[edit]

Cetaganda (fictional empire) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nicely developed, but in the end, fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Vorkosigan Saga. Does not have notability in its own right. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga. I would agree with the above merge, but there is virtually nothing to merge which comes from a reliable source. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barrayaran Imperial Auditor[edit]

Barrayaran Imperial Auditor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Extreme level fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION by a mile, not eligible for prod so we have to tackle this here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG. TTN (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It has miles and miles to go to achieve notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not to mention the first section is "What is an Auditor?". ミラP 20:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Colony[edit]

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

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

Fictional locaiton, seems to fail WP:NFICTION. Like a lot of other elements from this fictional universe... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional delete. As it stands, this article is a gross breach of WP:IN-UNIVERSE and WP:NOTPLOT. However, I did find A Breath of Fresh Eyre: Intertextual and Intermedial Reworkings of Jane Eyre which has an in-depth out-of-universe discussion of the social culture of Beta Colony in comparison to the social difficulties of Jane Eyre covering half a dozen pages. I think it would be WP:UNDUE to base an article entirely on one writer—we don't know if this is an outlier crazy idea or generally in line with feminist thinking. But I also found Lois McMaster Bujold: Essays on a Modern Master of Science Fiction and Fantasy which has some brief out-of-universe talk about Beta Colony (see note 6 of Regina Yung Lee's article). I'm willing to withdraw my delete if there is someone willing to run with this and turn it into an encyclopaedic article. SpinningSpark 12:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting finds, but I can't get sufficient view of the books to confirm there's in-depth coverage of the location/society (if I could I'be happy to withdraw this nom). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Piotrus: What gbooks will serve is often context related. Try doing your own gbooks search with the search term <Bujold "Beta Colony"> rather than following the direct link. Both the results I linked should come up on the first page. SpinningSpark 08:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nice finds by Spinningspark. However I don't believe the brief mention in note #6 on page 48 of the Essays reference is in-depth enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 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 07:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mindwipe (Transformers)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable fictional character. The only reception is completely trivial, and probably not a reliable source. TTN (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Next time just follow these instructions. Trillfendi (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a particular fan of them. Compared to how little traffic these AfDs get, the multi-AfDs on the same topics several years ago got even less, to the point of being relisted 3 times with no comments. TTN (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable enough for a redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wreckage (Transformers)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable enough for a redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broadside (Transformers)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WPNF. Couldn't we do a mass nomination for those Transformers? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yes, probably a multiple AfD would have been in order. No real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable enough for a redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 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 07:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Smart (life coach)[edit]

Ralph Smart (life coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I am unable to find significant discussion of him in multiple reliable sources. Original version of article was quite promotional before it was put under control by other editors. ... discospinster _talk 00:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 00:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 00:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He is a Tai Lopez wannabe. He has no press coverage from reliable third party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonstephen0 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can’t find any evidence of notability. In addition, although ‘psychologist’ isn’t a protected title, he only holds a Bachelors degree and any use of that term might be taken to imply a level of professional expertise that the subject does not have. Mccapra (talk) 02:26, 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. bd2412 T 03:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DJ ILJANO[edit]

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

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

Promotional piece. Sources given are also poorly-written promotional articles in "news" sites of dubious reliability. ... discospinster _talk 00:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 00:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 00:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sign showing his notability for Wikipedia inclusion 10MB (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Interviews, puff pieces, and tabloids. These are not reliable sources on which to build an article. Rockphed (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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