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 Yahoo!#Defunct services. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Teachers[edit]

Yahoo! Teachers (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)

Through checking all resources available, no sources turned up to support this article. The service was never even launched. A violation of WP:WEB AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Looks like the article was too soon and the project never took off.CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect This would have been a commercial service, so WP:NCORP would apply, and this fails that. There is some content at Yahoo!#Defunct_services or List_of_Yahoo!-owned_sites_and_services#Defunct_Yahoo!_services that this could perhaps be redirected to, but we don't need an entire unsourced article about a non-notable service. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unsourced piece of original work. At best, have a Redirect placed pointing to Yahoo's defunct services. Memorial service is optional. -The Gnome (talk) 05:24, 11 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. Normally, I would have gone with the redirect, but there's a cogent argument against doing so. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kismet (DC Comics)[edit]

Kismet (DC Comics) (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. Only reference is irrelevant. TTN (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: K or Cosmic entity (DC Comics), unless this character is too minor for inclusion in the former, then delete. This article is linked in prose from four non-list articles, but one of them, Strange Visitor is about an alias of this character. It, too, should likely be nominated, possibly bundled with this one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to DC Universe. I count 5 non-list, non-DAB articles that link this character, and even some of those just provide a bullet point and the character name. Not notable enough within the fiction to bee added to the List of DC characters. This target contains basic information to satisfy a casual reader. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete outright this text that's practically free of sources. We do not redirect elsewhere in Wikipedia material that's unsuitable and unreferenced; we throw it away. Wikipedia is not a depository of comics' history. -The Gnome (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Cardiff City F.C. players (1–24 appearances). As User:GiantSnowman says, a fair compromise. To be clear, the determination here is that there is a consensus that there should not be an article on this subject due to minimal notability and sourcing, but neither is there a consensus that this subject should be wiped out of the encyclopedia entirely. I have merged his information into a footnote. bd2412 T 02:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Bolesan[edit]

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

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

Article about semi-pro footballer who made a single substitute's appearance (as an unpaid trialist) for a club in a fully-pro league. Theoretically, someone could read WP:NFOOTBALL as covering such an article (I don't think it should when the player is a trialist), but the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG (a few database entries, a note about his youth coaching in Italy, a blurb on a former employer's website, and an entry in the book cited in the article leave us far short of significant coverage). There is substantial precedent for deleting similar articles; e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi. Jogurney (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The English leagues are very well documented to the point anyone who has made an appearance is in some print encyclopaedia somewhere, and it appears Mr. Bolesan has at least some notability from his "Moonlight Graham"-style appearance for Cardiff City, including having a blog named after him, and whose appearance continues to be discussed in passing. It will always be a stub, but I don't really see any reason why we should delete a properly sourced stub, as opposed to Mngadi, who we could barely verify. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Cardiff City F.C. players (1–24 appearances) . A tough one, as both Jogurney and SF make good points. I think a redirect is a fair compromise. GiantSnowman 09:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't know that page existed and that seems a sensible redirect target – but if we do redirect, I hope someone can merge the information on the page into a note for the player. Still support keeping over redirecting, though. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:NFOOTY. Was he really an unpaid triallist? Soccerbase has him listed as being at Cardiff for seven months. Also given this was the pre-internet era (at least in terms of it being mainstream), it's not surprising that there is not much online about him. I would imagine there would have been some coverage about him in the printed press back then if anyone has access to any relevant databases. Number 57 11:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the very thin sourcing we have about his single appearance, it occurred while he was on trial. Jogurney (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – barely scraping by NFOOTY, without any GNG sources, means an article should be deleted under our policies. The only reason I'm not in favor of a redirect is because List of Cardiff City F.C. players (1–24 appearances) should be renamed to List of notable Cardiff City F.C. players, and this player is not notable. – Levivich 18:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. One appearance as a substitute? As it happens, I'm interested in football history, especially the lower and out-of-the-way leagues. But I'll not be looking into Wikipedia for this! Wikipedia is not a depository of sport history. The subject, by Wikipedia's standards, is not notable enough for an article, even of stub size. -The Gnome (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NFOOTY is absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 12 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) 21:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rock with RONY[edit]

Rock with RONY (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)

A lack of sources and cited information leads to a failure of WP:NTV. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources as per WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. No sources, no verifiabliity, no notability, no place in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 05:36, 11 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. While some editors advanced an argument around notability being demonstrated by some sources, including Money Logging, a consensus of participating editors feel those sources either are not reliable sources or otherwise do not present significant coverage of Murray. Murray may merit inclusion in some other articles but there was no consensus among either keep or delete participants about a merge target. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamilah Taib Murray[edit]

Jamilah Taib Murray (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 meet WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E may apply as all coverage that does exist is directly in connection with one court case as pointed out by Onel5969, who had nominated this for PROD. The initial editor responded by insisting that the subject is notable because they are very wealthy. Being very wealthy is not a criterion listed in WP:NBIO, and is no indicator of notability, which is predicated on significant coverage in reliable sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is no longer exclusively about OECD NCP and conflict with BMF. Though "being very wealthy" is not a criterion as per WP:NBIO, Mrs. Taib Murray is a public figure active in philanthropic circles, and has been at the centre of controversies surrounding her wealth for many years. This ongoing issue has resulted in articles in all major media in Canada (Globe & Mail, National Post, CBC, etc.), as well as numerous court cases.^[1] She has been the subject of ongoing reporting by journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown, with significant coverage in Sarawak Report^[2]. Mrs. Taib Murray has even risen to the level of parliamentary discussion in Canada^[3]. Less wealthy, less controversial, and less newsworthy Canadian businesspeople such John E. Irving and Thorsten Heins, among many, many others, have pages devoted to them - exclusively due to their success in business. The fact that Jamilah Taib Murray controls a global empire worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and is engaged in ongoing litigation as to the origin of this wealth, which according to former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is derived from "probably the biggest environmental crime of our times,"^[4] makes her a worthy candidate for a page. Jamilah Taib Murray is also a member of one of the most politically influential and wealthy families in Malaysia, being the daughter of the "politically exposed person" Abdul Taib Mahmud, with her two siblings Sulaiman Abdul Rahman Taib and Hanifah Hajar Taib each having pages devoted to them.

Above comments made by Hoagy23

The Sarawak Report includes some significant coverage of the subject, although it's mostly in the context of the activities of the rest of her family. The other sources not so much. If you can find more coverage like that, I'd be fine with voting keep here. I would note that Abdul Taib, Sulaiman Taib and Hanifah Taib are/were politicians that meet WP:NPOLITICIAN; the same cannot be said for Jamilah, and notability is not inherited. That having been said, arguments make a decent case for having an article about the Taib family. The independent notability of Jamilah Taib Murray is still in question. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, notability is not inherited. Also, most of the notoriety of Jamilah Taib Murray comes from the BMF campaign. However, she has put herself into the public eye as the result of her extensive philanthropic activites, as well as her legal actions.^[5] Other organizations, notably Global Witness and OECD Watch, have included mention of Jamilah Taib Murray and Sakto Corporation in their research on corruption related to logging in Sarawak.^[6][7]

Articles about Jamilah Taib Murray have been written in the Toronto Star^[8], Ici Radio-Canada Télé (the French language outlet for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation^[9], Financial Post^[10], and The Globe and Mail^[11], among many others. To have one of the wealthiest women in Canada, active in philanthropic circles, who has generated so much media coverage and controversy from multiple sources, to be ignored by Wikipedia would seem odd. She is, in my opinion, far more noteworthy than many other Canadian businesspeople who have pages devoted to them.^[12]

Above comments made by Hoagy23

Ok, let's look at these additional sources.

• #5 is coverage of the case against Sakto, but doesn't really have any information about Taib Murray other than that she owns Sakto with her husband and that she is Abdul Taib Muhammad's daughter
• #6 is some sort of primary source report, which at any rate barely mentions Jamilah Taib Murray.
• #7 does not mention Jamilah Taib Murray.
• #8 is an opinion piece, and thus likely should not be considered reliable coverage of the subject, as its coverage comprises claims made by an NGO against Taib Murray
• #9 only mentions Taib Murray to quote her website's comment on allegations against the company Sakto. All other coverage is focused on her father, Sakto or La famille Taib
• #10 is a mere-mention of Taib Murray, stating that she and her husband are the proprietors of Sakto
• #11 is paywalled and I can't access it so someone who can access it will need to provide relevant quotes.

I still don't see enough coverage to meet GNG. I think that we have coverage that could make useful additions to Abdul Taib Mahmud, and possibly enough content to write an article about the Taib family or Sakto, but we're rather thin on coverage of Jamilah Taib Murray specifically. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sakto is a private company owned by Jamilah Taib Murray. I suppose a person could simply start a company and hide behind its name, and therefore avoid any acknowledgement/scrutiny, but that would seem to be an odd way for Wikipedia to understand the biographies of individuals, and their roles in the world. So, all an individual has to do in order to ensure that Wikipedia will ignore them is to create a private company name, call it 'X', and suddenly all of the corporate activities are magically unrelated to that individual, and of no general interest. However, if that individual starts a private Canadian company and names it after him or herself, as is the case with Irving Oil, then James K. Irving, Arthur Irving, John E. Irving (who warrants an entry, apparently, because he "gained a reputation as being the most reflective of the Irving family" and "was a strong supporter of the arts in Atlantic Canada"), as well as Sarah Irving (who, other than being the granddaughter of K.C. Irving, and stupendously rich, appears to have led an unexceptional life), then that person is of biographical relevance. The interest of numerous NGOs, as well as global media, particularly in Asia and Canada, in the nature and activities of the corporate interests of Jamilah Taib Murray, and their provenance (inclusive of Sakto, Cahya Mata Sarawak Berhad, Ridgeford, all of which are mentioned in the Wikipedia entry, and have caused some controversy in the media), is in my view of far greater interest than the grandaughter of an oil magnate, who has accomplished little of her own volition. Perhaps if Jamilah Taib Murray had named her real estate business after herself, as was the case with Campeau Corporation, she would have been more easily identified, and deserving of an entry, as is the case with Robert Campeau, who is notable only for the rise and fall of his real estate empire.

I leave it to the editors, but to suggest that the corporate interests of Jamilah Taib Murray, and the controversy surrounding their provenance, including court cases in Canada and Switzerland, and mention in Canada's House of Commons, is of lesser merit than Kathleen Andrews, "a British-Canadian bus driver and transport manager," and is therefore of no interest to the readership of Wikipedia, is frankly baffling.

It should also be noted that Wikipedia is lacking in female business leaders in Canada. With a proven net worth of over $250 million, and an active role as a philanthropist,^[13][14][15] Jamilah Taib Murray would seem to warrant an entry as much as Mina Lux. The fact that Jamilah Taib Murray herself avoids scrutiny as to the origin of her impressive wealth does not, in my view, disqualify her.

Above comments made by Hoagy23

If a person is covered by RS only in the context of their affiliation with a company, the general procedure is to write an article about that company, and then redirect the founder/executive/etc's name to the article about the company. The only reason I haven't suggested writing an article about Sakto is because it wasn't clear from the information cited here that the company met notability guidelines either. Having just done an internet search for Satko Group, I'm now fairly confident that it would meet notability guidelines and would encourage you to write that article. As for all the other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. From glancing at the article for Sarah Irving, I would vote to delete that too, but that's not an argument to keep this article. Robert Campeau, on the other hand, has citations to long and detailed biographical profiles. The issue isn't whether someone is only famous for being affiliated with one company: the issue is when all coverage of a subject is in connection to news reporting about a company. Find me an article like this about Taib Murray and I'd be happy to vote keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, particularly on a Sakto page, though that is only one of her corporate entities, among many. One oddity is that in the Swiss court case which the Wikipedia page covers, Jamilah Taib Murray names herself with her husband, along with Sakto itself, in the lawsuit. Legally, she directly ties her interest and reputation with those of Sakto, which makes sense, as she is the owner. Otherwise, she keeps a low profile, with the exception of her philanthropic activities, which might in and of themselves warrant her entry, as she is very much a part of "high society" on Ottawa - the Ottawa Business Journal alone has nine entries^[16]. It is of note that her legal woes are of interest to the press in Asia, too.^[17] I will defer to the community, and hope this page stays up, as I still find it odd that such a controversial and public figure, of such immense wealth, active in many philanthropic enterprises, embroiled in numerous legal battles, is somehow excluded from relevance/interest, yet one of her companies - itself a product of her wealth and activities, yet otherwise simply a real estate company - might warrant entry. In her philanthropic activity she clearly wants to be "known" along with Sakto.^[18][19]

Above comments made by Hoagy23

• Keep sufficient coverage if you include Lukas Straumann (2014). Money Logging: On the Trail of the Asian Timber Mafia. Schwabe AG. pp. 26–32 inter alia. ISBN 9783905252705.. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  

• Delete This page appears to be directed at perpetuating negative media about a private citizen. That negative media is the very subject of the Swiss defamation lawsuit referenced by the page's author, and it is ongoing. The subject's "notoriety" is based almost exclusively on the allegations of the defendant to the lawsuit (the Bruno Manser Fund and its Executive Director Lukas Straumann) and those who have repeated those allegations (such as Timothy Wilson who is cited in the article). The book referenced by Farmborough above is specifically addressed in the lawsuit as one of the acts of defamation. In addition, this page ignores an earlier lawsuit brought by the Bruno Manser Fund (making the same defamatory allegations) against the subject. The lawsuit was dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on February 7, 2017. In that decision, The Honourable Justice Dunphy found that the Bruno Manser Funds allegations were based on "speculation and conjecture".^[20] The fact that a private citizen is taking firm and appropriate legal action to address defamatory allegations does not raise their profile to the standard of notable. This page should be deleted. --Wellput (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wellput, I assume a "not" is missing from somewhere in the last two sentences? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]
• Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that your edit history (or rather, lack thereof) is a bit suspicious. If you had voted in opposition to me, I would likely be opening a sockpuppet investigation right now. As I'm fairly confident that you are not secretly me in disguise, I have to ask if you have any relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Your arguments appear to be sound, but your familiarity with additional details about the subject not previously mentioned in this discussion is further evidence of a possible relationship with the subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful references and comments. I now know the meaning of sockpuppet. My apologies for getting a few things wrong - as you correctly note, I am new to this, and created the account only to address the material that is the subject of this page. The attempt to use Wikipedia as part of a publicity campaign against a private individual concerned me. Regarding COI, I now know I ought to have declared this in providing comments on the deletion discussion. I specifically avoided suggesting edits on the actual page as I saw that as problematic. To clarify, I am not being paid to comment/edit, but I do have an existing relationship with parties mentioned in the page. I will refrain from providing more detail out of fear of retribution from the proponents. I have attempted to be factual and avoid bias, recognizing that it is difficult to do so. The facts to which I refer are all in the public domain, and available on the BMF website and the website ^[21] maintained by legal council to Sakto Corporation, which addresses the legal dispute in question. I do hope the page in question is deleted. Wellput (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that Wellput has a personal relationship with Jamilah Taib does not negate the facts behind his/her argument, but it might affect objectivity. The entry covers more than the lawsuit. It also addresses the fact that Jamilah Taib Murray is an active philanthropist, with public records indicating that her provable net worth is ~$250 million, making her the wealthiest woman in Ottawa (if not in Canada). Though wealth alone does not warrant an entry, she has used her resources to promote numerous causes, and remains an active - and very public - figure in Ottawa's philanthropic circles. Wellput is correct in pointing out that the legal action stems from one source, though I believe it is incorrect to state that the lawsuit dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on February 7, 2017 was against "the subject." In fact, that lawsuit was to retrieve financial records from private corporations, and not Jamilah Taib Murray. I found this after taking a quick look at the website Wellput referenced, which as noted is maintained by Sakto Corporation’s legal counsel in Canada, noticia LLP."^[22] I am sympathetic to Wellput's concerns, but is the entry itself defamatory? It may be that Jamilah Taib Murray would rather not have such matters spoken of, but it would appear that the controversy surrounding the origins of her fortune has been commented on by the former Prime Minister of Britain, and raised in Canada's House of Commons, and has received extensive coverage by investigative journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown. This along with Jamilah Taib Murray's wealth and philanthropic activities, in my view, makes her a person of biographical interest. Should her defamation suit succeed, then that of course will be part of the public record, too, and should be included in the entry. It should also be noted that her father, Abdul Taib Mahmud, (the man who gave her the money, apparently, to start her business) has been accused of corruption for many years, and the history of these accusations - as well as the important fact that, to date, there have been no legal findings - is maintained as part of his biographical record on Wikipedia._signed, Hoagy23

Hoagy23 has made very few contributions in Wikipedia besides the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. The subject of the contested article is, per WP:GNG, simply not notable. The arguments presented so far in favor of retaining this piece of vanity text I will paraphrase as follows: "Her father is rich and famous and has a Wikipedia article of his own and gave her the money," which, among other things runs contra WP:INHERITED; "Wikipedia has articles about bus drivers, so why not about a businesswoman philanthropist", an argument explicitly dealt with by WP:WAX; "Wikipedia should have more articles abour women leaders," yet Wikipedia is not an advocacy forum and that includes the advocacy for gender equality; and so on.

The purported sources are little more than standard, celeb advertorials and obscure name-drops: Rosguill has already dealt with most of them, above. As to the book Money Logging: On the Trail of the Asian Timber Mafia (Schwabe, 2014), proffered as evidence of independent notability, a closer look shows that the book mentions Jamilah only when mentioning her father's family and progeny. There is no merit here. -The Gnome (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - actually, I don't buy the "private citizen" argument. She owns a significant corporation and has very publicly put herself about in the Ottawa area. Having said all that I simply don't see the significant coverage that is needed so it fails to meet WP:BIO. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:06, 12 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MADTEO[edit]

MADTEO (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 musician, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC - no chart placings or major signings Ceethekreator (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think, the number of releases on discogs' profile speaks for itself, the article should stay.--༄U-ji (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: ༄U-ji (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

We don't measure notability on Wikipedia by volume of releases, but by whether the subject has been discussed in-depth by reliable independent sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, a feature on Resident Advisor, collaboration with Sensational, and a double album on Sähkö Recordings plus the steady production for years are good enough.--༄U-ji (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, none of those things count for notability on Wikipedia unless they have been discussed by independent sources. The Resident Advisor profiles and biographies are uploaded by the artists themselves, anyone can make a page – some of my friends have RA profiles. Richard3120 (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not the profile, I'm talking about, but the feature by RA editor Will Lynch.--༄U-ji (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MADTEO is pretty well known in Germany, not only Berlin, where I come from and where he played several times in well known locations in the last years, including the Berghain. He toured in eastern Europe, too, and is without interruption active for more than twenty years!--༄U-ji (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There even is a Google info box applied for him. Don't say, everyone can have that – I haven't got one ...--༄U-ji (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The additional sources, I added inbetween, should be "in-depth discussions" by notable sites and writers. I could have added some more, but I didn't want to overload the weblinks section.--༄U-ji (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sähkö Recordings was label of the month for Resident Advisor in june 2019.--༄U-ji (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to add some text for the biography during the day. Madteo is also playing a number of dj- and livesets in Japan this year – invited by the trendy experimental rock band Kukangendai: [1], soto.kyoto.jp--༄U-ji (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I just added a section biography, and set music as sub-section.--༄U-ji (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the sources provided do not show that MADTEO "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician" per WP:MUSICBIO - no charted records, awards or any other indications of notability as outlined in the guidelines - Epinoia (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I am the author of the article) Some of the sources obviously show-up in-depth discussions of the music, and they are absolutely independent, even bluemarked, so: reliable. The article does meet more than just one criterium of WP:MUSICBIO. If you measure it following charts only, you could delete a bunch of articles, which are accessable. That is not asked.--༄U-ji (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking off double !vote. -The Gnome (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. Wikipedia is not the place where one can find anyone and everyone in the music business. An editor asserts that subject is "notable in Germany," which simply asserts notability but makes no difference as to the English-language lack of source-supported notability. Let's graciously say WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO: "1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." This already would be enough, and is given. Notability for me was a point, because I live there. Tours in Europe, USA, Australia, Japan ... what else do you want?--༄U-ji (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure publications, such as fabriclondon, deejay Germany, or Mntothat, do not as Wikirequired sources pass. Listings in list-everything directories such as Discogs and sound recordings in upload, file-sharing websites such SoundCloud do not either. This is simply not a notable musician per Wikipedia standards. -The Gnome (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't that obscure, I mean. And there are more, which you just do not mention. WP:MUSICBIO says: "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." (emphasis by myself). There it is, so what? I have the feeling that you are over-interpreting the WP:MUSICBIO rules.--༄U-ji (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:MUSICBIO but we've already presented our views and I think we should be leaving now and allow other editors to have their say. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn - duffbeerforme has finally presented sources, Subject clearly meets NACTOR and GNG. (non-admin closure) –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 14:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sara West[edit]

Sara West (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 actress, cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 20:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly passes WP:NACTOR for me with major roles in the Peter Allen miniseries and the Don't Tell film. The article needs work though. Boneymau (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One film doesn't equate to meeting NACTOR. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 22:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for that irrelevant fact. How does that relate to what Boneymau actually wrote. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft delete At this time there isn’t notability for a Wikipedia article. Trillfendi (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as said above. (disclosure, article originator.) Significant roles in Don't Tell (AACTA Award, AFCA Award, FCCA Award nominations) and Peter Allen: Not the Boy Next Door (Logie nomination) are good for NACTOR. Add main cast in Winter (TV series) to make a third. On stage Babyteeth (play) makes a fourth. Dead Lucky (TV series) may be a fifth. More sources [2], [3] [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Good for GNG. Multiple major award nominations is good for ANYBIO. Nomination and delete !vote are clearly judging on the current state of the article and not the notability of the subject (Mea Culpa, I thought a major award nomination was sufficient. But apparently not so. Not even being an Oscar nominee is good enough. That needs to change.). duffbeerforme (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add Bad Girl (2016) to the list of significant roles in notable productions. [14] [15] [16] [17]. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Nomination and delete !vote are clearly judging on the current state of the article and not the notability of the subject"- That's utter bullshit, The article only states she's been in one film - I searched on Google News for her and that film and this was all that came up!, It's not my fault you can't properly write and source BLP articles on creation .... maybe you should do that in future and it'll save everyone's time being wasted

There's a delete !vote present so cannot withdraw however the sources finally presented indicate she does indeed meet NACTOR and GNG. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 09:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You continued to stick with the claim of nothing past one film after Boneymau pointed out the tv series. Why would you do that if you were judging the subject on their notability. On another point your nomination claims no evidence of notability even though there was a properly sourced claim of notability, a nomination for her country's top acting award. How is that not evidence? I also reject your claim of inadequate blp sourcing, there was nothing in the stub that was not reliably sourced. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed .... I misread what Boneymau had said and I thought that was obvious in my reply!?, Up until your !vote I thought she'd only been in one film (because that's all you bothered to include in the article), IMHO an award is not in itself a warrant to an article ...., You could've included a lot more information and certainly a lot more sourcing instead of creating hopeless stubs and expecting everyone else to do the work for you. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 11:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per duffbeerforme, clearly meets GNG. Bookscale (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 5 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Garcia[edit]

Amy Garcia (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 regional TV presenter. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Funky Snack, please state your reason(s) here for the AFD process. IE Primary Sources, not enough sources etc. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry, my bad, I have seen it now. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - at least eight external sources with more from the BBC. Notable regional presenter alongside Harry Gration and Christa Ackroyd.The joy of all things (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources need to be indepedent, so we cannot source notability of BBC correspondents to the BBC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appear to be local only; not enough sources independent of the subject or employer. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination on account of subject failing WP:GNG. A commendable though futile effort to generate sourcing, though. -The Gnome (talk) 06:54, 11 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unique World Records[edit]

Unique World Records (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. No media coverage. Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:NBOOK, has not been "the subject of two or more non-trivial published works", has not "won a major literary award", etc. - also, as the publisher is Unique World Records Limited, it counts as a self-published work - Epinoia (talk) 21:11, 10 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Generation Why Podcast[edit]

The Generation Why Podcast (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)

Podcast without claim to notability, appears to fail guideines at WP:GNG. Contested PROD. Ifnord (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG Hughesdarren (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have to admit, my first reaction was "there's no way this passes GNG" but then I did the searches... it looks like there are lots of independent sources that consider this subject worthy--and that's the real measure for notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - The host and show was featured on News.com.au [18] and NW Herald [19]. Plenty of notability for the hosts and their podcast.CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the results of a search turned up lots of places to access the podcasts, but no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG - some sites provide a brief promotional blurb of "The Generation Why Podcast", but no deep or significant coverage which provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation - Epinoia (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sorry but the depth of coverage simply does not get close to what is required to meet WP:GNG. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 13:39, 12 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. There appears to be consensus that depth of coverage is not achieved here. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camps Kenwood and Evergreen[edit]

Camps Kenwood and Evergreen (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 camp was created by a promotional user and fails WP:ORG. It has no reliable secondary sourcing or no indication of notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Courage
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Deer Run
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Interlaken
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Tel Noar (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camps Kenwood and Evergreen

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

UPDATE: Two of those five have been closed "Keep", overriding the skeptical comments of persons also commenting negatively here, and the one closed "Delete" will be contested with its closer and/or at Deletion Review. Two are still open. IMHO, these AFDs are really unhelpful. --Doncram (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep. It doesn't seem badly promotional at all to me, and promo can be addressed by normal processes of editing. This is about a pair of camps established in 1930 and 1950 and still operational, though there have been name changes(?), which serve hundreds of children each summer, so are comparable to public high schools in the U.S. in terms of their impact/exposure in people's lives.

This is part of a new campaign to delete a bunch of summer camp articles. I have seen previous campaigns, mostly ending in Keep decisions, including one about a bunch of Jewish summer camps (this is not one, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish summer camps and local organizations); i have seen other campaigns too. I don't get the interest in deleting these. It can be appropriate to tag for more sources and development, but I believe that there will exist coverage about this project, which surely has been covered in newspapers and in guidebook-type sources, much coverage being long pre-internet.IMHO, summer camps are like public schools and parks and other places/facilities which touch the lives of many persons, often in significant ways, and are written about somewhat at least in guidebook-type literature (which can be very reliable and high in quality), and it serves the public to have these covered in at least a reference way, and IMHO Wikipedia could probably be a comprehensive gazetteer (sp?) about them, like we are for populated places. --Doncram (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. In newspaper archives I see only brief mentions, mainly in regard to their permanent cessation of rifle-training in 1999 following a nearby shooting, and in relation to the Huberman family. But these are all one line mentions, no signifiant coverage.----Pontificalibus 06:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Searching needed on Arthur Sharenow, Judy Sharenow, Scott Brody, as well as Huberman family, in association with these camps. Scott Brody is a national figure, has reportedly "led briefings" to U.S. Congress, per this blog of Everwood Day Camp, which he also founded, in addition to his ownership and management of Kenwood and Evergreen camps. And there

is this bio about him relating to 2018 speech. I don't mind if this article includes more about him, i.e. is sort of a combo article about him and the camps. And this video news story "Scott Brody of Camps Kenwood & Evergreen interviewed on NECN", from New England Cable News in 2012, with a lot of summer camp footage (not very clearly identified?, but then "Camp Evergreen" comes up in a title) by the way. And one hour speech by Scott Brody at Leaders Assembly in 2016. Scott Brody is pretty clearly individually notable on his own, if not being covered as part of this article, which is also okay.

Again, these camps are old, from 1930 and 1950, and pre-internet coverage is to be expected, too. Is there anything factually disputed about this article, at all?

And, wp:ATD tells us we should look for alternatives to deletion, and there is no way this article should be deleted outright. At a minimum, the camps should be mentioned/covered in a new article about Scott Brody, or this article could be moved and expanded to be more about him. But it seems to me best to keep article about the longterm camp and cover more about him in this article and in a new separate article. --Doncram (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have found plenty of coverage about camps called Evergreen and Kenwood in Newspapers.com, but it will take time to work out where the camps are located, and if any of the coverage relates to these particular camps. Per WP:NEXIST, the state of sourcing within an article is not a reason to delete, and the nominator does not indicate that they have done a thorough WP:BEFORE, particularly in historical sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. This misguided attempt to purge Wikipedia of camp articles needs to end. People like camp articles and have fond memories about the camps they attended. There is coverage and the camp is still in operation. Knox490 (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about if people like camp articles or if they have memories. It is about if they are notable enough for inclusion per guidelines. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't see how this is notable enough for an article and the sources do not appear to be forthcoming. Number 57 15:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to punish the editors/article because the sources, known to exist, haven't yet been added to the article? That is not how this works. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to these multiple independent sources that are known to exist and which cover the camp in detail, so that I can read them and add them to the article? ----Pontificalibus 08:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is Hollywood Reporter's article: 13 East Coast Camps Where Hollywood Stars Spent Their Summers, from 2016. And First American-Style Sleepaway Camps Open In China, from wbur.org's Here and Now, whatever that is, about how the director of the two camps is being invited to develop/apply the model in China. And it is notably gluten-free. Did you or anyone else try searching on "Camp Kenwood" and/or "Camp Evergreen", rather than "Camps Kenwood and Evergreen". I doubt that highly, because there are lots of hits. --Doncram (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added the first two to the article, although principally to verify specific facts. There might be lots of hits, but do we have multiple independent sources discussing the camp in detail? I think it's pretty borderline - WP:ORGDEPTH says we need "a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements". ----Pontificalibus 06:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a worthy article and the sourcing has been improved since nomination. However, reading through the sources available, the depth of coverage simply is not there to met WP:GNG. Sorry. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 13:03, 12 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Griffin (basketball)[edit]

Tommy Griffin (basketball) (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 is about a person of virtually no significance. 95% of the content in the article is about the subject's children, and not about the subject himself. Bradleysballs (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited, no sources discuss in detail except when discussing the children and detailing their parenting (e.g. [20]).--Pontificalibus 18:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or redirect to Blake Griffin#Early yearsNothing shows he meets any notability standards so there's no reason for him to have his own article. He's already mentioned in my redirect target.Sandals1 (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee McKenzie (male sports broadcaster)[edit]

Lee McKenzie (male sports broadcaster) (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 sports broadcaster, page appears to be more of a CV. Most links point to profile pages. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puja Agarwal[edit]

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

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

Article about an actress that has played minor roles with no significant media coverage. The article was created in draftspace but moved by another editor to mainspace after being reviewed and considered not notable. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. Lapablo (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the very few roles are in itself minor/cameo. [21] is used as a reference but it says "The budding actress bagged a small role in Rohit Shetty’s 'Simmba'". Usually any notable Bollywood actor in India will receive lots of coverage, which is not the case here.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: Even though the actress is good-looking, she fails specialised notability criteria for actors with no doubts. As she doesnt significant coverage in reliable sources, thus failing general notability criteria as well. Did I mention she is very good-looking? —usernamekiran(talk) 20:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NACTOR. After extensive search, I conclude that she has only done minor roles none of them are notable or award winning. never did any film in lead role. She also lacks extensive coverage in reliable sources.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:56, 10 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) 16:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JnSynch[edit]

JnSynch (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 since 2008. No evidence of notability. Product has one review on Sourceforge. Survived PROD in 2009 but has barely been edited since. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for zero citations. If a notable software platform has been around since 2008 then supporting citations would not be hard to find. A product download page (sourceforge.net) has but one user review since 2010. Blue Riband► 15:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.

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. Lack of notability, plus WP:BLP concerns. RL0919 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Barakat[edit]

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

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

Contested speedy deletion; please see this AN discussion for background. tl;dr: it is suggested that this individual is not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, and that the article is either (or both) unacceptably promotional and/or unacceptably negative in tone.

I have restored the article to its original location and blanked it as a courtesy, on behalf of the AN discussion. The article is protected so it cannot be restored while this discussion is open. Please keep comments on the subject of the article; editors making personal attacks against other editors on this page will be blocked from editing at least until the discussion concludes. I am neutral unless I comment below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a non-notable private individual as defined by WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No prejudice against recreation in draft but the article as it stands is not acceptable in main space. See my reasoning here. Also, I believe WP:DRV would have been a more proper venue for this discussion since the prior AfD was a procedural close so the CSD was not out of process. (Per this I get why it was done this way.) If someone writes a policy compliant version then I will revisit my !vote. Jbh ^Talk 14:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Last edited: 14:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Consists mainly of trivia. I do not see a claim of notability, only one of short-lived notoriety. Deb (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously, and a trout to the nominator for restoring a blatantly policy-violating article—regardless of whether it's courtesy-blanked or not—purely for the sake of a pointless piece of process-for-the-sake-of-process. Per my previous comment every single version is either blatant advertising, a laundry-list of insults and WP:BLPCRIME violations, or a meaningless microstub … Nobody has a problem with someone writing a compliant biography of this guy, but none of the people arguing over this appear to have the slightest interest in doing so.; if someone does want to write a BLP-compliant biography I have no issue with that being kept, but it's abundantly clear that neither of the two people who say they think the initial deletion was inappropriate have any intention of doing so. ‑ Iridescent 14:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just make the point that a "pointless piece of process-for-the-sake-of-process" can have its advantages. Once this discussion is complete - assuming the result is "delete" - the article is likely to stay deleted. Deb (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which isn't necessarily a good thing. The issue here isn't whether the subject is notable—he probably is—but that both those who want to keep it want to keep it as an attack page. AfD is great for setting a precedent that a topic shouldn't be covered, but this is a situation where we don't necessarily want to set a "no article of this title may ever be created" precedent; taking it to AfD not only creates a bureaucratic exercise now, but a second bureaucratic if and when someone ever does want to write a compliant article. ‑ Iridescent 17:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really; see Jbhunley's "no prejudice" comment. This discussion can decide to trash the existing article but allow creation of another, or it can decide to maintain the history but correct it (not my preference), or it can decide that this person should not be included at this time. Only in the last case would someone need to put in more work to demonstrate notability in the future, and they can do that just by creating a new article if/when the situation changes. WP:ALLARGUMENTS applies, well, sort of. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, obviously, as in the previous decision which so far has not been mentioned here. There were 17 high quality reliable secondary sources in the article, many of which have in-depth coverage of the person, who made the news even internationally as a celebrity doctor with two well selling books and countless appearances in the Brazilian media, more than a million Instagram followers, treating a Latin Grammy Award Winner who says she lost many kilos due to his treatment, soccer world stars, getting caught by investigative journalists to easily prescribe dangerous doping medication to healthy individuals and losing a defamation case at court to a famous Brazilian singer who says his health got severely damaged from treatment with steroids. Also cf. the German version of this article. The Brazilian sources can be found there. A source in English is here: [22] This was also reported by quality media in Swedish,(Expressen [23]) Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang [24] and a Polish sports paper,[25] Omikroergosum (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous "speedy keep" discussion was closed because it was created by a sockpuppet out of process. In other words it wasn't a discussion and the "keep" result was more of a "procedural close". Essentially that discussion can't be said to have decided anything. As for the comment: international coverage is compelling, and his media activity suggests that WP:LOWPROFILE doesn't apply in terms of WP:BLP considerations (he actively promotes himself = he is not low-profile) but doesn't lend itself to notability specifically. Who he's treated is irrelevant (WP:NOTINHERITED), and if the court case confers notability it's not because his opponent is famous (also NOTINHERITED). Coverage of his inadvertent sex tape is the sort of thing WP:BLP1E protects against. All of these things are in fact covered in the dewiki article, with sources, but Omikroergosum also wrote that article, so the fact it exists is also irrelevant.

Overall I think this is a "not yet" situation. I think that notability is satisfied, but based on the available sources (or those that have been presented) we cannot write a proper balanced article - it's just going to be a WP:COATRACK for allegations of wrongdoing. I'm holding out for more biographical sources to improve the balance, but at the moment I am strongly leaning delete. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Omikroergosum, this AfD does not qualify for speedy keep. Per Wikipedia:Speedy_keep, the only valid reasons for speedy keep are:

  1. nominator withdraws or does not an argument for deletion (failed, the nomination is open and the nominator specified several reasons)
  2. nomination was made for the purpose of vandalism and no uninvolved editor has recommended delete (you're going to need to be extremely convincing to claim that Ivanvector is being a vandal here, and I count two !votes here from people uninvolved in the original draftification)
  3. nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the page in question (I've read the page, and their proposed deletion criteria do fit, though which one applies will vary depending on which version of the page you look at)
  4. banned nominator (pretty sure Ivanvector isn't currently banned)
  5. page is a policy or guideline (nope)
  6. page is linked from the main page (also nope)

  A keep !vote is fine, but this is not eligible for speedy keep. As several people have pointed out, the previous AfD was closed as speedy keep under criteria 4, and was only a procedural close rather than representative of a consensus, so re-nominating it is entirely valid in this case. Finally, per the linked page on speedy keep: be aware that the speedy keep criteria, particularly the first three, are not to be used to express strong disapproval of the nomination: a rationale that you don't agree with is still an argument for deletion, is not necessarily vexatious, and does not imply the nominator has neglected to read the page. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was not aware of wikipedia speedy keep slang. Change it to strong keep then. In the previous deletion decision the legitimate user who first supported the sockpuppet nominator changed his vote from delete to keep because I convinced him that the article is not about an alleged criminal but about someone accused of questionable practices by a famous singer and two investigative journalists, one international. Ivanvector, no one ever said he inherited notability. He clearly has Notability according to the rules that are so happily ignored here via numerous reliable secondary sources with in depth coverage of him. He was involved in several events: nationally widely reported publishing activities, internationally widely reported doping revelations, a nationally widely reported lost case to a famous singer, nationally widely reported treatment of a Grammy Award Winner, and many of these reports have in depth coverage of him, not of her, which shows how much of a celebrity he himself is in Brazil. Just came here to save the international sources to the German version. Won't come back, no matter what "arguments" you come up with next. Omikroergosum (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omikroergosum, I'm not sure why you think being the doctor to an award winner conveys notability. It doesn't. Neither does being a celebrity's personal assistant, dog walker, hair stylist, personal trainer or coach. Just coming into the sphere of a famous person doesn't make a person notable. He needs to have accomplished something more than having popular social media accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet WP:NOTABILITY at this time. MarnetteD|Talk 21:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we are not a tabloid and do not engage in sensationalistic coverage. At this time we have too many editors who are pressing for things, and we need to use restraint and keep this article out. Being an attack article is reason to delete articles on people who clearly pass notability guidelines. In this case a clear pass does not even exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete .Fails WP:BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It veers between hagiography and hatchet job, and there are insufficient neutral biographiucal sources for a proper article. Guy (help!) 20:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (formalizing a comment I made earlier) - I was holding out hope that the creator would be able to provide a broader spectrum of neutral sources (other than just on the doping allegations) but they've decided to ragequit instead. I've not come across anything better myself, so I have no other choice but to recommend deletion. If someone wants to create a properly sourced and balanced biography they should start from scratch. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteLots of trivia and gossip, not a lot of meat. Mentions of celebrities in an apparent attempt to pull in notability, but notability is not inherited. Refs aren't enough to show WP:GNG is met for this person. Ravensfire (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources do not support notability for this as a biography. It seems to be gossip, celebrity association, social media performance and other trivia. Nothing really impactful. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:22, 7 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Living Journal of Computational Molecular Science[edit]

Living Journal of Computational Molecular Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way too soon." DePRODded by article creator. Journal was established this year and has published only single issue yet. Except for a link to the journal's homepage, article is unsourced. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although this is a new journal, I believe it meets the notability guidelines on the basis that it has published a significant number of articles. These articles were written by notable authors in their field. Some of these articles have already received citations (see [26]). The online discussion of the journal is extensive and positive. Since the journal is publishing actively and is being cited, there is a significant public interest is having a Wikipedia entry for it. I often recommend students read the Wikipedia entry of a journal to appreciate its context within the field. This is a technical non-profit journal, so there is no concern about legitimizing pseudoscience or a predatory publisher. The editorial board also includes many notable scientists at leading universities and research institutes (see [27]). Based on the posted criteria, the age of the journal alone is not justification to approve or reject an article creation (RE: creation is "way too soon"); the notability of the journal is the key criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnrowley (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (I have edited the above !vote to comply with the usual formatting in AFDs, without changing the wording). To answer the comments made: 1/ A smattering of citations is to be expected for even a new journal. However, the journal is too young to have already accumulated a significant amount of citations, this does not meet NJournals. 2/ "The online discussion of the journal is extensive and positive": please show us. If this is in reliable sources, it might establish notability under GNG. 3/ That the journal is publishing actively is irrelevant. 4/ "I often recommend students read the Wikipedia entry of a journal to appreciate its context within the field." WP can only put a journal into the context of its field if there are reliable sources independent of the journal that do this. Our personal opinions should stay out of it. 5/ Nobody says the journal is predatory. That it is not fake is not enough reason to include it. 6/ Perhaps the editorial board includes notable scientists. I didn't check this because it is irrelevant because notability is not inherited. --Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability may not be inherited, but, per WP:ACADEMIC, being a chief editor of a major, well established journal is a sign that an academic is notable. In other words, we look at editors of journals to establish the notability of the editor, not to establish the notability of the publication. Rockphed (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think this is wp:too soon. Without exhaustively searching the web hits, it looks like most are either self published or are trivial mentions. Rockphed (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As much as I really wanted to vote for this as a keep, I checked the website and they have only published one issue as far as I can tell. I have to unwillingly agree with Rockphed this is wp:too soon. I like the content but I would say this needs to be resubmitted with better references after at least 6 issues. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The journal does not seem to be listed yet in any of the selective indexes such as WebOfScience, Scopus, JCR, etc. Does even seem to have an ISSN at the moment. Nor is there evidence of the journal itself being covered by other types of reliable sources. Does not pass either of WP:NJournals or WP:GNG for now. Nsk92 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some results of a web search: mention, mention, paywalled mention, in-depth. I don't think there's quite enough here to sustain a stand-alone article (we're about one in-depth source short), but it's a good candidate for a redirect if a suitable target could be proposed. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. The C&EN ref does indicate that the journal may well become notable soon. As for a potential redirect target, something like Academic journal publishing reform may be a possibility. Nsk92 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's also Scholastica (company), the publishing platform; and UC Boulder, the academic institution with which the journal appears to be affiliated. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kvorning Design & Communication. RL0919 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Kvorning[edit]

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

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

Not particularly notable. doesn't pass GNG. Bledwith (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (to Kvorning Design & Communication) - doesn't seem to pass WP:BASIC. There's a couple of lines in Scandanavian Museums, but not enough to pass SIGCOV. Logically redirect to his very slightly more notable company. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kvorning Design & Communication#History as an alternative to deletion. I found a passing mentions [28] and listings of events he participated in. Doesn't meet WP:BASIC, although the source from Kristelit Dagblad in the article is OK at best (not terribly in-depth, 4 sentences long before it shifts to other people). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the sources available, although slim, are sufficient to include this subject in the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 01:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peach Pit (band)[edit]

Peach Pit (band) (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, which is not a significant improvement in either substance or sourcing over the version that was deleted in 2018. The only WP:NMUSIC criterion this is even attempting to pass is #4 (touring), but notability because touring requires the article to be referenced to published concert reviews in real media, not just cursory verification that the tour happened on the self-published website of the band they were opening for. And the sourcing otherwise still isn't cutting it at all -- nine of the twelve sources here are blogs, student media, primary sources or performance clips on YouTube, which are doing nothing in terms of establishing the band's notability at all, and the one source that looks like a mic drop on the surface (Billboard) is not substantive coverage about the band, but merely a glancing namecheck of their existence in an article whose core subject is something else. So the only sources here that are actually getting the band off the starting blocks at all are BeatRoute and The Tenneseean, which is not enough coverage to get them over NMUSIC #1 all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing around it is junk. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I decided to rescue and improve this article after my kids saw Peach Pit in concert in Seattle recently and turned me on to something new. This is already what every 15 year old in our Seattle area is listening to on their headphones. I was surprised to find no article on Wikipedia in spite of a nice groundswell buzz from two years of constant touring and a music video on Youtube which already has over 23 million views. Their songs are already turned into guitar lessons online, their likeness can already be purchased in 100s of artistic renderings, shoot - you can even buy replicas of their silly wardrobes. Anyway, Yes this band is relatively new, but they have certainly passed the bar for article notability. In good faith, I will keep mining sources and try to bolster the article further. I do not agree with the nomination for deletion. Thank you. --Luke Kindred (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is reliable sourcing. Not YouTube videos, not groundswells of buzz, not guitar lessons, not artistic renderings, not replicas of wardrobes: media coverage, media coverage, media coverage and/or media coverage. And not media as in blogs like "We Plug Good Music" or university student newspapers like "The Red & Black", either: media as in real daily newspapers and real print magazines, which is not what you've been using. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You sound upset Bearcat? Thank you for your incredibly high standards for Wikipedia. It's interesting to consider that a handful of blogs (by your definition) are capable of having wider circulation and cultural influence than many large city print papers and print magazines combined. As papers continue to fail and consolidate, this may press Wikipedia's historical reliance on print sources to a challenge. I dug up the Billboard Canada charts where Peach Pit had a decent run after studying WP:NMUSIC closer. Thanks again.Luke Kindred (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of a reliable source, for Wikipedia purposes, is not based on subjective interpretations of its influence, it's based on objective, quantifiable markers of its trustworthiness: its adherence to journalistic standards (such as researching carefully enough to be sure that the things it reports are correct, and being willing to publish corrections on the record when it does mess up), its editorial chain of command, its readership and distribution, its content being archived (e.g. on microfilm or in an online archiving database) so that the content will still be recoverable if the website ever dies, and its established reputation as a reliable reporter of real news. A site that doesn't meet those tests isn't a reliable source no matter how much "influence" you claim (but fail to verifiably prove) that it has. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And also, you've failed to properly verify that they actually made the Billboard charts. You cited the claim to this week's chart, which doesn't have any Peach Pit songs in it at all — the single that occupies the #37 position in the cited link is Tegan and Sara's "I'll Be Back Someday", with Peach Pit's "Alrighty Aphrodite" nowhere to be found in the entire chart. Even if they really did make the Billboard charts, you're going to have to find a source that actually verifies that before it changes anything. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep For the most part the junk sources are not an improvement from the prior deletion, but the added evidence of a song making a steady run in a National Chart, albeit at the weaker end of a genre specific one, is a sign of notability. Barely, but enough to put me on the edge regarding this nomination. I'm a big believer in the qualifier "may be notable" in assessing the significance of criteria that is met, and I almost went "weak delete," but what pushed me in the opposite direction is small additional recognition in the sole reliable source (this: [29]). Yeah, it's a trivial/routine mention, but combined with the chart activity, I think it's enough, though it's a feeble pass. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The creator hasn't properly sourced that the band actually made the national charts: they've cited the claim to this week's Billboard chart, which doesn't have any Peach Pit songs in it. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Bearcat (talk), I had noticed that, too, when I followed the link, nor did I get anything when I did a word search on the Billboard website. I was thinking it was a spurious claim and was ready to vote delete based on that, until I did find evidence in a bulletin board (which a protection filter won't allow me to link here) that chronicles the Billboard Canada charts with screen shots, which I couldn't find elsewhere. It appears their song "Alrighty Aphrodite" was in the bottom reaches of the charts (in the 30's and 40's) from June until Mid July of this year. While I personally think it's not much of an encyclopedic accomplishment, it nonetheless meets chart criteria. If it was just one week and done (those usually indicate pre-orders rather than actual success) I might have argued weak delete, but the fact it stuck around for a while makes me think there is something there. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming good faith (which I have to until somebody can actually show me the proper proof), it isn't really the case that technical passage of an NMUSIC criterion confers a free exemption from the sourcing from actually having to be solid — even with a seeming notability claim in pocket, the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the article is still the make or break condition as to whether an article is justified or not. NMUSIC criteria don't exempt bands from having to have better than junk sourcing; the SNG serves to clarify the kinds of statements that can make the band notable provided that the article is supported by solid sourcing, but the sourcing still has to be solid no matter what. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As ever, the quality of sourcing in the article does not make the subject of the article non-notable. A quick Google search found significant coverage from The Georgia Straight: [30], [31] (plus [32]), The 405: [33], Trend Prive: [34], BeatRoute: [35], The Chicago Maroon: [36], Calgary Journal: [37], plus several examples of briefer coverage. Satisfies WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to try a lot harder than that. The 405 and Trend Privé are not reliable sources of any sort (they both accept user-generated submissions from absolutely any self-promoter who wants the publicity, and don't have named editorial mastheads at all); the Calgary Journal and the Chicago Maroon are both college student newspapers, which NMUSIC explicitly deprecates as totally unacceptable non-starters for demonstrating the notability of musical artists; BeatRoute and The Georgia Straight are both local to the band's own hometown, whereas a band has to have more than just local coverage to claim a "because media coverage exists" exemption from actually having to have attained any properly verified distinctions. So you've shown some sources that would be fine if there were better sources in the mix, and some sources that are completely unusable, and exactly zero sources that are enough in and of themselves to get the band over WP:GNG all by themselves in the absence of anything better. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the 405 is regarded highly enough that they have contributed to the BBC's Sound Of annual award selection, and the article on that site is written by one of its staff (Associate Editor). Just because a publication will accept submissions or is advertising for people to apply to write for it, that doesn't mean that there is no editorial oversight or fact checking. --Michig (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of bloggers have served on award committees, without reifying their blogs into reliable sources because of it. Doesn't mean we suspend all of our other rules about what does or doesn't constitute a reliable source (like actually being able to locate a named masthead, or exactly zero point zero zero zero of their content ever being user-generated submissions by anybody other than paid real journalists) just because we can find an associated person's name in a different source's list of contributors. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a blog. The website's staff are listed on the 'About Us' page on the site. --Michig (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a blog. I used bloggers as a parallel example to why contributing to a different media outlet's award selection committee is not in and of itself the magic conferrer of "reliable" status on a source that doesn't otherwise meet all of the actual criteria to be considered a reliable source. And I notice you aren't otherwise attempting to locate better sources to counter the problems I pointed out with Trend Privé, the Calgary Journal or the Chicago Maroon, either. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13 weeks on the Billboard charts indicates a solid amount of sales and airplay. When I tried to cite it before the generator clipped the date info. Please look at the correct reference and do not delete this article. Thank you.Luke Kindred (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still have to reference the rest of the article's content to real reliable sources, not blogs and student media, before the equation changes. The rule isn't that as long as they technically meet a criterion, they're allowed to use junk sourcing and exempted from having to show solid sources — NMUSIC #1 must always be met by every article about a band or musician, through the use of the correct quality of sources. Regardless of what other criteria the article does or doesn't claim passage of, a band still has to pass #1 in addition to the other criterion. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now you are just making up your own rules. WP:NMUSIC states clearly, "Musicians[...]may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" then list 1-12. It absolutely does NOT say, "NMUSIC #1 must always be met by every article about a band or musician" and I believe that your word twisting puts your credibility as an editor in question. There are in fact many NMUSIC articles which rely almost entirely upon one of the 12 items, and not necessarily #1. You seem to be arguing pretty heavy for a "technical" conformity to WP:NMUSIC so now you're just contradicting yourself.Luke Kindred (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make up my own rules. Every article on Wikipedia must always be supported by reliable source coverage about the topic, and no topic can ever claim anything that is so "inherently" notable that the topic is exempted from having to have any reliable source coverage just because of what the article says. Yes, a band is a valid potential topic for a Wikipedia article if they pass one of the criteria in NMUSIC 2-12; reliable source coverage still has to be present to support the article before it's actually allowed to exist, because that's exactly how Wikipedia always works. (For a reason why, keep in mind that if all a band had to do to get into Wikipedia was say that they passed an NMUSIC criterion, and they didn't actually have to show any sources as long as they had claimed passage of an NMUSIC criterion, then bands could force themselves into Wikipedia by lying about passing NMUSIC criteria they didn't really pass — and then we're not an encyclopedia anymore, but just a free platform for people's own self-published PR bumf. And just to be clear, no, I'm not saying this band's notability claim is a lie; I'm simply pointing out the reasons why technical passage of a notability criterion cannot automatically exempt a band from still having to have reliable sources.) And if you can find other articles which aren't properly sourced, then read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — the fact that some articles can be found that aren't properly sourced doesn't mean that sourcing becomes optional, it means the other non-compliant articles need to be deleted too and just hadn't been noticed by a responsible editor yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be enough third party coverage here to keep. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the article is still based almost entirely on primary sources and blogs and student media, which aren't support for notability at all, with almost no genuinely reliable or notability-supporting media coverage about the band being shown. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 7 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 deleted -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Sikat (disambiguation)[edit]

Typhoon Sikat (disambiguation) (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)

Sikat was only used once in the Western Pacific, disambiguation seems unnecessary A1Cafel (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a single use indicates there is no need for disambiguation. Can always be remade if there is another use of the name. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kwadwo Sarfo[edit]

Kwadwo Sarfo (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)

Totally fails WP:GNG I can find no evidence of any notability whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable pastor. Jack1956 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Nothing here indicates notability either as a pastor or a vehicle maker. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the church he lead might be notable (although I see no evidence of that), but not all leaders of notable churches are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sho Sato (ice hockey)[edit]

Sho Sato (ice hockey) (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)

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. The Asia League doesn’t qualify for any of NHOCKEY's criteria points and while he played for Japan internationally he did not play in the top pool of the IIHF World Championship, the Asain Games or the Olympics, so fails #6 as a result. Tay87 (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Lacks the coverage to meet the GNG and doesn't meet any of the notability standards for hockey players.Sandals1 (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:BASIC, because there are no multiple sources that discuss him in reliable sources in-depth, in the article or in searches. Even by searching in Japanese, I get results for a swimmer, baseball and a rugby player of the same name. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:38, 11 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SeisQuaRe[edit]

SeisQuaRe (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 independent sources in article and a search shows almost nothing so does not seem notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a couple of blog entries on a WP:BEFORE check and that's about it. Not enough to establish notability. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 9 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Engel[edit]

Christopher Engel (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 do not see evidence for notability -- and the article seems to be in a promotional style, though that may not be deliberate. The NYT refis just an event listing in a local section, the others are event listings or local pr. The inclusion of the quote is unjustified promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find SIGCOV outside of (upstate?) NY. If you look at his CV, all of the activity seems to center around the Hudson/Woodstock area of NY. GNG and ARTIST fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP:Confused me at first also, but there are two Christopher Engel artists and you found the CV of the one that does abstract art. The one for this AfD does figurative. confusing that they both paint in the same region or area. This is the web site of the artist at AfD. Wm335td (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Lacks WP:SIGCOV as most citations are only event listings. Fails WP:ARTIST creative professionals criteria of significant critical attention and citation by professional peers. Blue Riband► 15:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG with multiple WP:RS. I started this article from the list of Wikipedia requested articles. There is enough WP:RS to justify keeping. I would submit: being well known in New York is certainly different than being well known in North Dakota. Wm335td (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG listing are local and I doubt their independence. Even if independent they are very local and niche. This isn't a question of being "well known" anywhere, it is a matter of the existence or lack of existence of RSs. In this case, a lack.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This page is, to be blunt, suspicious. While East Hampton, New York is a major art destination, this person seems to have only a single solo exhibit outside of New York, and no work that I can verify in permanent collections of major museums. I'd change my !vote if you can find some good sources. There are literally zero Google newspaper sources, which would be expected of a contemporary artist. I want to stress that he claims that he has a print in the MoMA and Smithsonian Institution collections - but a search - and the another search could not verify those extraordinary claims, which would be required for a BLP. Six sources in the article are entirely local periodicals/websites; the seventh is a one-shot listing by the Times Long Island edition - that is not significant coverage by any stretch. He appears to have exhibited at the Carrie Haddad Gallery, Upstate New York's premier for profit art gallery twice, but I can't find any independent source to back that up. To be blunt again, the other galleries are run of the mill -- sorry, but who goes to Roxbury, New York to buy art? I'm not sure that group shows in the prestigious Woodstock, New York colony count for pushing someone over into notability. Bottom line is: this is spam. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I looked at the other Christopher Engel, and there's no there there; this second artist has even less of a claim to notability. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly investigate the notability. I want to assure you that I have no connection whatsoever to the person in the article. I have been starting articles from the list of Wikipedia requested articles. My thoughts in starting this article were: artists are known for their work, and or style - rather than ability to generate controversy or negative press. I admit that the sourcing is not overwhelming for this artist. Also: I am sorry that we have all had to spend our time on this AfD. I will endeavor to start articles with better sourcing in the future. FYI: I did like this artists art much more than the abstract artist of the same name. However neither one is a Rembrandt. Wm335td (talk) 17:14, 6 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Levivich 14:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Aurélio Titon[edit]

Marcos Aurélio Titon (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:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in a WP:FPL league despite playing over 200 games in Luxembourg football. HawkAussie (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Marcos played for S.C. Freamunde when they played in the 2nd League in Portugal (2007-2009), which is a Professional league. He has not played in the Luxembourg leagues over 200 times, as far as I am aware. Geck0 (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nominator is incorrect, player has made 24 appearances in the WP:FPL Liga Pro (Portuguese 2nd division) per this. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. WP:BEFORE. GiantSnowman 10:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - Ahhh made the stupid error, next time I really need to check it through. HawkAussie (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steak Escape[edit]

Steak Escape (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 be an NCORP fail. Searches turn up trivial news about franchisees. Existing references are weak or self-published. Tagged for notability since 2011. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Doing a search on "News" and Google reveals sources that can be used to expand and help refine the article. It appears they filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. They have also expanded to other countries per that source and others in the article. A restaurant in multiple countries and in over 100 cities with sources satisfies notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP says no inherent notability, so even if they have a branch on the moon they are not going to be notable without coverage. All I saw in Gnews and GBooks are articles like this, which fail the sigcov/reliable/independent test:

• Muscat Daily:"Lovers of Steak Escape Sandwich Grill’s soul filling American-style cuisine will have plenty of reasons to rejoice with the launch of new flavoursome sandwiches and desserts. Designed to take its popular cheesesteaks and sandwiches to the next level..."
• WLBT:"Byram entrepreneur opens new Steak Escape restaurant"
• WBBJ:"Steak Escape holds grand opening in Jackson...A new sandwich shop held its grand opening Tuesday afternoon in north Jackson."
• Herald-Dispatch: "Sabatino’s Sandwich Kitchen, a Charleston-based restaurant, will open its first Huntington location at 2013 5th Ave. on Jan. 5, 2017. The space is currently a Steak Escape."
• the Blade: "Steak Escape to serve up new location in Maumee(Conant Crossing store to get expanded menu)"
• Dawn.com (this one is actually decent, but I wonder abotu the independence of the author):"Steak Escape: Ohio's famous steak burgers make their way to Karachi"
• Annual Franchise and Distribution Law Developments - Page 83:"BDK, Donna Kittilson and Bian Markee owned seven Steak Escape franchises, they obtained from Escape Enterprises and its successor in interest, Escape Enterprises, Ltd."
• Restaurant Business, Volume 95:"For Steak Escape, a 109-unit steak-sandwich chain based in Columbus, Ohio, Idaho Potato Commission-sponsored materials help in the marketing and advertising effort. "We use our packaging to communicate the high- quality work we do..."
• Essentials of Economics:"Would life be worse if there were only Steak Escape at the local food court? Yes, it would be if you'd rather have a slice of pizza from Sbarro's, or you don't eat beef."

And so on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are sources that mention the subject but they seem to not elaborate enough as to establish sufficient notability. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per AmericanAir88's rationale. This is a notable franchise with multiple locations the article has WP:RS. WP:PRESERVE Business Journal, and (international) opening ten outlets in the United Arab Emirates. Wm335td (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked and could not find anything in NCORP saying if you have multiple franchises you are notable. It does say that trivial coverage includes "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as... the opening or closing of local branches, franchises", which seems to be what most of the sourcing, including the Trade Arabia source for ten outlets in the United Arab Emirates is. I'd be all for keep if someone can produce some non-trivial SIGCOV in multiple independent sources on the subject. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hanna[edit]

Craig Hanna (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. I moved this to draft, but the contributor moved it back. There's no notability separate from his company. The bioloop reference is a classic promotional biography, where he says what he pleases about himself, and is reliable for nothing except what he wants us to think. That makes this a promotional bio also, and has no place on WP DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and just put a sentence about him on Thinkwell Group page. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he's so run of the mill and the article is so poorly written that I can't even figure out what he does for a living much less what would make him notable. Does he manage the design of new amusement park rides? Bearian (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above editors.VViking_TalkEdits 20:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above discussion. It should be noted that the creator of the article is a single-purpose account contributing content related to the Thinkwell Group—see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Zenas for a similar AfD. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:08, 6 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 deleted -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Roskas (disambiguation)[edit]

Tropical Storm Roskas (disambiguation) (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)

Roskas was only used once in the Western Pacific, disambiguation seems unnecessary A1Cafel (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge - No disambiguation is needed, since only one storm was ever called Roskas. FOARP (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Pogi (disambiguation)[edit]

Tropical Storm Pogi (disambiguation) (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)

Pogi was only used once in the Western Pacific, disambiguation seems unnecessary A1Cafel (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator and no arguments in favour of deletion. (non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weston Teruya[edit]

Weston Teruya (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)

Withdrawn, per WP:HEY, thanks to Netherzone.I could find only a couple of articles that talk about his work in depth; most article sources are either trivial or not independent. GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thank you for the feedback. I would like the opportunity for others to contribute to the page, if possible. Many thanks again for the feedback and comments. I greatly appreciate it. Dorothysantos (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Weak keep / comment. I have added sources, several of which are independent and discuss Teruya's art in detail.Gilded Snail (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the sourcing remains deeply sketchy. For example the Art In America profile looks good, until you realize that it was written by his close collaborator at Related Tactics, Michele Carlson. The main items mentioned int he article (residencies, curated some shows, got a few grants) are just run of the mill artist activities. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't even see the author of that profile. thanks for pointing out. the SF gate source and the SFAC press release seem fine, but it's dubious. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The artist is certainly interesting, as is his collective Related Tactics. I noticed on the collective's website that he has a more comprehensive bio than we find here on his WP article, but not sure if it's enough w/o cited work in museum collections. Netherzone (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2 - I looked a little deeper and I found a list of collections on his CV (there are also additional exhibitions to be found there but I did not look into whether there are reviews.) I added a section to his article, "Collections" and found citations for three of them, which have been added to the article. Netherzone (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I correct the URL for MIlls college and withdrew the nomination per WP:HEY.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've added content and citations to collections, shows and residencies; artist now meets WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. He has shown at museums such as the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art; important art centers, such as the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts and the San Jose Institute of Contemporary Art; his work is featured in several collections including the Mills College Art Museum; he was an Artist in Residence at the de Young Museum in San Francisco. Article can be improved but should not be deleted. Netherzone (talk) 19:28, 8 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. Doesn't currently meet either WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. RL0919 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bandar Bertam Perdana[edit]

Bandar Bertam Perdana (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)

A relatively newly-built estate whose only source is the developer. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kepala Batas, Penang, which is the district in which this development is located. This news article suggests that the development will have a population of 50,000 by 2025, which would by that time well and truly merit an article. But I'm loathe to trust the news article: despite being in a fairly reputable newspaper by Malaysian standards, it is a real estate press release. Let's call this one a "not now". If and when the development becomes an established locality, and there is significant coverage in reliable sources, the redirect can be reverted.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be keep per WP:GEOLAND, see previous cases related to this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kampung Tersusun Kampung Pulai angys (Talk Talk) 06:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising. This is an advertisement. WP:Notadvertising. No coverage in multiple independent reliable sources fails GNG. Also fails WP:NGEO. The only sources are a promotional webpage advertising they are open for business and a questionable news article mentioned above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to GIMP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GIMP version history[edit]

GIMP version history (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)

Violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG. It has no references in secondary sources, making it purely a changelog sourced to the GIMP website itself and related sites. "Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article." That does not apply here. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A pretty unambiguous violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. The "references" that aren't to the GIMP website itself are to personal sites of affiliated developers. XOR'easter (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with main page The table is probably a good summary that can be put in GIMP#History. Wqwt (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with GIMP: It is not a blatant violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, as it has gone through the effort of writing prose of major changes to the notable subject of an article. There are problem points, however, like the large bulleted list in GIMP version history § GIMP 2.10. These can be alleviated via normal editing. One needs to delete all the "some bugfixes" (sic) listings. flowing dreams (talk page) 06:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge A summarized and shorter version could be added to main article GIMP. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Zxcvbnm: Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adobe Photoshop version history can you look at Firefox version history? Because it's a Top 20 article with respect to bytes. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:04, 8 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 evidence that either WP:GNG or WP:TVSERIES are met. RL0919 (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Düğünü[edit]

Balkan Düğünü (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 subject doesn't seem to be notable. The article is entirely unsourced and no references are used to establish notability. Keivan.f^Talk 22:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- meets WP:TVSERIES and seems likely to meet NEXIST as a nationally broadcast show. There's a lot of blog coverage and discussion of it as far as I can tell; however, I lack the background and Turkish-language skills necessary to really pinpoint what counts as RS (finding Turkish language reviews from ten years ago is a bit tricky as a non-speaker). matt91486 (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets WP:TVSERIES.صدیق صبري (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the single source in the article is merely a listing with a plot summary - WP:TVSERIES requires coverage in reliable sources - the article itself is little more than a plot summary WP:PLOTONLY and a cast list - non-notable - Epinoia (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I’ve looked in Turkish and all I see is IMBD-type directories, chat forums and listings. I don’t see anything that looks like sustained coverage in reliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TVSERIES clearly says: "however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." Which means WP:GNG must be met, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources must exist. I only get passing mentions or listings in my searches. Also has to be noted that the current article is in WP:V violation, which is a policy. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with what Mccapra has said, nothing reliable in sight that is in-depth. Seems the show was pulled after low-rated 6 episodes. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:30, 11 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) 03:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McGinlay[edit]

Michael McGinlay (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:NFOOTBALL, having never played in an WP:FPL-listed league, and there appear to be no sources to satisfy WP:GNG. – Levivich 03:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 03:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of reliable sources indicates this is not a notable subject, and failure to meet NFOOTBALL only serves to emphasize that point. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Seasider91 (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unless something is missing from the article then he has never played at a level that would meet WP:NFOOTBALL and as noted there is nothing else to suggest he his notable (being the son of international footballer does not make someone notable in their own right). Dunarc (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 00:10, 7 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel McGarry[edit]

Daniel McGarry (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:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. – Levivich 03:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 03:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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