< 4 September	6 September >

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) 01:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Champagne[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 8 games in HockeyAllsvenskan, well short of the 200 mark to pass #2. Has no preeminent honours to pass #3 and his college honours aren't enough to pass #4. Tay87 (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and coverage is typical sports transaction reporting.Sandals1 (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NHOCKEY. -The Gnome (talk) 20:52, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vance Syphers[edit]

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

My search didn't find significant independent coverage of him. I did come across some articles written by him, but not about him. I don't see that the GNG is met. Article was written by an SPA who likely had a COI. Sandals1 (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing present to suggest meeting WP:GNG. Sure, this person has a web footprint, but that's not sufficient. Being an executive producer of two minor films isn't sufficient notability either. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - the three references in the article are dead links (and they seemed to be articles authored by Syphers), otherwise the article is completely unsourced - couldn't find anything to establish notability - the article was created by a single purpose account, User:Wpgnc, or Wealth Preservation Group, so there may be WP:COI issues - Epinoia (talk) 16:01, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Gardner (darts player)[edit]

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

Notability concerns. There is no SNG for darts, and the existing references are all to statistical databases. Substantive coverage of him not found, just mention in news coverage of one major tournament. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Wikipedia is not a repository of everyone who has played professional $_sport. There needs to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jbh ^Talk 21:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not enough coverage by RS, fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 06:53, 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 redirect to List of New Gods#Inhabitants of Apokolips. RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darkseid's Elite[edit]

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

PROD contested without unstated reason. Notability issues still apply regardless, especially given that the only source is to the associated comic book. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge to Darkseid. Similar to the likes of Heralds of Galactus but not delete due to potential. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic passes the WP:GNG. It doesn't appear that any effort has been made to search for sources as I had no difficluty finding a good one. WP:NEXIST and WP:PRESERVE therefore apply. Andrew D. (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkseid. Nothing of value to merge. No real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the above assertion, both citations in the article are completely useless, so any claim of meeting GNG is nonsense. TTN (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_New_Gods#Inhabitants_of_Apokolips. This is not a "team" in any real sense of the word, this is just an alternate title for the most important New Gods of Apokolips. Their "membership" is already covered in the list of New Gods, and as there are no third party sources that give any sort of real-world notability to this group, this article is just a needless split from the already existing list. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep due to useful citations in the article. Clearly meets GNG. --24.101.156.239 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sockpuppet of permabanned troll A Nobody. Reyk _YO! 07:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to List of New Gods - same info already included there. No evidence of separate notability. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The source added by Andrew confirms existence, which is not enough to satisfy GNG. The "other media" appearances are written in a way that makes me think the name isn't actually used in any of the items listed. When incoming links from templates are discounted, the article is linked from 18 non-list articles. Many of these are namedrops or table entries, but 18 is high enough to indicate it as a viable search term. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as a gesture of divine mercy, to List of New Gods. Defenestrate the current text, of course, since it is uncontaminated by any sort of verifiable notability. -The Gnome (talk) 21:21, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Smith (athlete)[edit]

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

No significant independent coverage. Competing at the Commonwealth Games is not enough to show notability. He entered the marathon but did not finish. No indication of any notability. Sandals1 (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Participating in British games does not make anyone notable unless he has achieved some position which the article does not specify. Alex-h (talk) 07:03, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kuczmarski & Associates[edit]

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

Company article tagged for refs and notability since 2012; a search turned up incidental mentions, but no significant independent coverage of this company Dialectric (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill company without significant coverage; president fails the professor test. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources - per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 16:11, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States men's national water polo team statistics (birthplaces)[edit]

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

Bundled: the following pages in the "United States men's Olympic water polo team statistics" series — colleges • age records • heights and weights.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Per WP:IINFO#3, excessively detailed statistics are not suitable for Wikipedia.

In particular it says "articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context", but there is no context here. There are no reliable secondary sources discussing and providing professional analyses of (in prose) the U.S. men's national water polo team for the Olympics with respect to their college (etc.), at least not that I can see. The level of detail here is simply way too high for a topic which isn't an exceptional case that has been well-studied.

This content comes entirely from usawaterpolo.org and sports-reference.com, dedicated statistics websites which already serve any purpose that this article could. Unfortunately, this content just isn't right for Wikipedia. If the user who created these articles feels that there's a real gap in these stats websites' layout or searchability, then they might be interested in creating a Wikia wiki or their own website. — Bilorv (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody (outside the odd water polo superfan) cares where they were born, what college they went to, what their hair color is, whether they've had their appendix removed, or what their sibling order is. Trivia, all trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTSTATS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do these lists even exist? lmao KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 14:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KingSkyLord: this is unnecessarily disrespectful. — Bilorv (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I normally am not prone to adding a pile on vote when the outcome is so obvious. I'm doing so here because a considerable amount of work went into these articles, and I'm willing to consider the possibility that there's some standard of article type that is being met. There are certainly stranger things on Wikipedia. I've looked around trying to find other examples in other sports, but have come up empty. So, I'm left curious; @Phikia:; What motivated you to do so? Is there a precedent somewhere? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have read WP:IINFO and WP:NOTSTATS. I accept. — Phikia (talk) 05:01, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bukowski (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM as a film which began principal photography, but was then embroiled in a lawsuit and was never released. While there was some coverage of the settling of the lawsuit in 2014, there has been no further coverage of any aspect of the legal issue nor the film itself. Per WP:NFF, films "which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles", and I don't think this film's failure is particularly notable. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been around for five years, with several page moves since it was created ("2014 film", "2015 film", etc). It looks like a classic case of development hell and doesn't look likely to be made, let alone released, any time soon. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's WP:TOOSOON Seasider91 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, non-notable unreleased film and article is based on clearly outdated coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts. Five year old casting info is out-of-date at best. MarnetteD|Talk 17:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. No opposition to a brief mention of this at Charles Bukowski. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Barca (talk) 15:02, 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 redirect to Matt Elliott (musician). RL0919 (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Failing Songs[edit]

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

None of the other albums in the Drinking Songs trilogy have their own articles and this one has one source. SleepForever (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Matt Elliott (musician). This could be a viable search term for someone interested in this person; however, I would not be entirely opposed to a deletion either as I could not find any sources specifically about this album. This PopMatters source has two brief mentions, but that is about all I could see. Aoba47 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matt Elliott (musician) - does not meet WP:NALBUM - the one review in Dotshop.se is not a reliable source and is mostly what Elliott says about the album - there has been no significant non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources; the album did not chart, receive airplay or recieve an award or nomination - no evidence of notability - Epinoia (talk) 04:55, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Parnham[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Has played only seven AHL games and at least 200 is needed to pass #2. He also has no preeminent honours to pass #3. Tay87 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails both WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:57, 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 merge to Gamer Network. The article being frequently linked, finding reliable sources being too hard or the topic being the main source of information on Nintendo are not notability criteria and cannot defeat the source-based notability concerns. That said, there is a valid alternative for deletion that has gained some support and nobody explicitly demands deletion over merger, so merger it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Life[edit]

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

Cannot find any significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources that indicate notability. I can find plenty of passing mentions, but nothing in-depth ABOUT the subject. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Haven’t searched enough to make a call yet, but the GamesIndustryBiz article is a RS dedicated to the topic of Nintendo Life partnering with another RS, so I wouldn’t classify it as “zero sources”. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nintendo life has been the main source of news on everything Nintendo online for many years now. Personally I think it should be kept Seasider91 (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gamer Network as alternative to deletion. Plenty of trivial coverage and passing mentions, but I wasn't able to find any significant coverage other than the two references already in the article about the partnership with Eurogamer/Gamer Network. I'm also not entirely satisfied with those sources for establishing notability, since both gameindustry.biz and VG247 are part of Gamer Network, so not fully independent. Lowercaserho (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasnt aware of that connection, thanks for pointing it out. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, I'm a newbie on Wikipedia so please forgive me if I'm editing incorrectly. Secondly, I'm the founder/owner of this website and therefore biased, however, as the user above has stated we've been the most authoritative website on Nintendo news/reviews/features for a number of years now and are referenced by 1,000s of articles on Wikipedia. I would love to see the page fleshed out to include more information about our journey and I'm aware this needs to come from a third party source. I'd be happy to work on making this happen to improve the quality of the article as I feel our website is very notable within the industry. Nintendo themselves use our review scores as a point of reference. As for Gamer Network, we are not owned by them, unlike gamesindustry.biz and VG247. I'd be happy to answer any questions or work with a Wikipedia editor to improve the quality and accuracy of the article. Thanks antdickens (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be delighted if you provided enough significant third-party coverage to satisfy our notability criteria. I spent a while searching myself, but wasn't able to find it. You're probably in a better position to find any that is out there than I am though, and I'd love to be able to change my mind. If you haven't read them already, you'll probably want to check out our pages on conflict of interest and on how we interpret notability. (With regards Gamer Network, I'm aware that you aren't owned by them, but are affiliated/partnered with them. I actually made a mental note to myself that the Gamer Network article needs to be improved to make that clearer, but haven't got around to it yet.) Lowercaserho (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Nintendo Life" is referenced in 1,516 articles. [1] Expecting a reliable source to prove its notable by requiring other reliable sources to mention it, is a ridiculously impractical way to do things. Newspapers and print magazines are automatically notable based on how many readers they have, most of them not mentioned by their competitors anywhere. The core founding policy of ignore all rules applies here. Dream Focus 17:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's how we work, we required in depth coverage of a source to keep it. Popularity and audience count are not factors in notability, unless it is commentary related to those numbers. It doesn't mean that a non-notable sources is not a reliable source. --Masem (t) 05:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gamer Network. Well-suited home for it there. (Even if not owned by GN, the partnership helps to give it weight appropriate there.) --Masem (t) 05:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this article to be sent back to Draft to make it passable however after searching it does seem difficult to find many articles on it. Spy-cicle (talk) 11:57, 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 redirect to List of DC Comics characters: Y. (non-admin closure) Taewangkorea (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Doodle Dandy (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. The current sources are trivial. TTN (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: Y - Epinoia (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: Y - Extremely minor DC hero, with virtually no reliable sources discussing him in any meaningful way. Really, it would probably be fine to Delete this, but as the character is already present on the appropriate list, and Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, I'm fine with Epinoia's suggestion. Rorshacma (talk) 23:15, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dala ElMohands[edit]

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

After consulting with a native AR speaker about some suspicions I had with this article, they confirmed that this is indeed mostly fabricated or exaggerated. They haven't placed or won any notable awards, there is no coverage other than circular stuff as a result of this article and thus fails pretty much everything. Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article due to: (1) Non-notable per search engines results, and she is Instagram blogger and fashionista (2) There's a lot of unacceptable and repeated sources in this article, and a lot of sources meaningless. Based on this version: soruce1=mentioned that she is one of 22 people participated on Miss Egypt contest 2018. source2/10= she refused appear with bikini on Miss World 2018. soruce3= from youm7.com this unreliable website. source4/5/9= youtube. source6/7/8= another women will represent Egypt on Miss World 2019 and mentioned that Dala represent Egypt on Miss World 2018. source11= video and this website not that reliable. :After search I found that Dala is "Miss multimedia of Egypt" but I can't found reliable source for that or any documentation about this title. Also, 2/6/7/10 sources from one website dostor.org. A lot of information not sourced like "Flight attendant...", "brand Ambassador", "her date of birth", "Miss Global 2019", "Miss global popularity 2019", "Miss Egypt global 2019"..etc --Alaa :)..! 14:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alaa. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 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. Feel free to create redirects at your discretion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Osijek Faculty of Teacher Education[edit]

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

Including the following as well;

School of Medicine, University of Osijek
Faculty of Economics, University of Osijek
Faculty of Law, University of Osijek
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Osijek
Faculty of Food Technology, University of Osijek
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Osijek
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Osijek

I am recommending that all of these articles be removed as each is about a portion of the University of Osijek. None of them seem to meet any sort of notability on their own and most offer no more info then what is already on the main University page. The info that is on some of the pages is straight from the primary source and can probably be included in the main article without the promotional tone. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - I would recommend a Redirect to University of Osijek, but I don't think any of these are viable search terms - Epinoia (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All and Redirect to University of Osijek.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:43, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikhfanul Alam[edit]

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

Can't find third party coverage of the subject. May not pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON or WP:NFOOTBALL. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pharaoh of the Wizards, how? Don't see him winning any awards or being notable. Which criteria? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues and hence passes WP:NFOOTY actually played his last game on 7th August 2019 in Liga 1 which is a Fully professional leagues.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoh of the Wizards, but there's no significant coverage because of that. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NFOOTY pass, career ongoing - currently with Arema in Indonesia's FPL-listed Liga 1 - which is enough for keep, based on past cases: e.g. AfD/Mats van Kins, AfD/Sean Karani and AfD/Danish Irfan Azman. Enough out there for GNG anyway: [2], [3], [4], [5]. No WP:BEFORE? R96Skinner (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
R96Skinner, you caught me I didn't do any before. #sarcastic

Of course one was done but it didn't show the Malay sources you found. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not surprised given those sources are in Indonesian... ;) It was a fair assumption, given they appear on the very first search page on Google - you must be using Internet Explorer... R96Skinner (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
R96Skinner, I'm in UK. And it didn't appear on the first page. But on the second. The first page were hits for different Wiki sites and player profile.

Using Chrome OS, though I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke, Internet Explorer is notoriously slow. You made a mistake, it happens! R96Skinner (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an easy keep as this player is currently playing in a top level league which passes WP:NFOOTY and also appears to pass WP:GNG easily. I see lots of coverage similar to [6] [7] [8] Only providing three here and haven't translated these, but this doesn't represent anywhere near the entirety of what's been written about him, either. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does pass WP:GNG as well as per some good by R96Skinner and SportingFlyer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear WP:NFOOTBALL and likely WP:GNG pass. Giant Snowman 10:16, 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 delete. The arguments to keep this are based on WP:NACADEMIC, which individuals can meet either if their work has had significant impact, or if they have held a high-level position in a major academic institution. Those editors asserting that these criteria are met have made a lot of assertions to that effect, but very little direct evidence has been provided. Being well-known within a school of thought isn't enough when that school of thought is very niche. Having works published by a major publication house isn't enough unless those works can be shown to have impact in some way. A lot of editors are confusing notability of this individual with the notability of Arminism itself; evidence for the latter isn't necessarily evidence for the former. In sum, the arguments to delete are a lot stronger. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. Matthew Pinson[edit]

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

Not notable and the editors involved appear to have a conflict of interest. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 20:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 20:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ACADEMIC Seasider91 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NACADEMIC #6 as the president of a major institution. St Anselm (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is Welch College a "major academic institution"? Its current enrollment is only 431 students, and that seems to be the largest the student body has been during all the years we've had an article for it. XOR'easter (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Supporting Arminism in the 21st Century is like researching How many Angels can fit on the head of a pin. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To date we have interpreted "major academic institution" as covering any accredited 4-year college of university. Dislike for theological studies should not cause us to exclude this particular academic from coverage. I have to admit there are lots of much more significant academic administrators who lack articles, and many articles on university presidents lack adequate coverage of what their administration did, but that is no reason to not apply the rule here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACADEMIC criteria 6 as explained above, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It baffles me that heads of this level of institution might be considered automatically notable, but heads of highly-ranked public high schools four to six times as large are not. Note that the specific wording of #C6 (in the "Specific criteria notes") is "significant accredited college or university": accreditation alone is not enough. So I disagree with all of the comments above that consider the case purely on this basis. Because the institute is not (I believe) significant, we have to look more carefully at the subject's accomplishments and press. No opinion on whether that more careful look would justify keeping the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's about where I find myself. XOR'easter (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bible college is not a major institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. He is one of the more prominent supporters of arminianism. I follow David Eppstein for considering his works as the main criteria of notability. ----Telikalive (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arminianism article features a "citation needed" template for where the person in question is named one of the "more prominent supporters". The sources I see for him in that article go straight to his own writings, which aren't inherently notable either. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your relevant comment Jay Coop. I agree that his inclusion in the "more prominent supporters" of arminianism is not enough substantiated.----Telikalive (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Perhaps for historic reasons, theology is often taught in colleges that do not offer secular qualifications. This means that they are smaller, but that should not make a difference, though it might mean that he needed to be judged against heads of department in other institutions, commonly Professors (in the UK sense). In looking at his publications, I see that several are published by major academic or religious publishers. This also looks to me sufficient to enable us to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Prof makes it clear that just publishing stuff is not sufficient for notability. The stuff has to be noted by others, and there is insufficient of that in this case, even for theologians. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. All the keep arguments above boil down to "this sort of thing should be notable so I'm going to pretend he meets the standard even though he doesn't". None of them are properly grounded in policy, no actual evidence of notability has surfaced, and despite cosmetic edits over the course of the AfD this article is still entirely self-sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has convinced me that the school is significant enough to qualify him per WP:PROF#C6, and though theologians can be wiki-notable per WP:PROF#C1 or WP:AUTHOR like any other specialists, I haven't found evidence to support those claims here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am familiar with this historical theologian's work. His page has been updated with a citation to a reward that he recently received for his excellence in scholarship from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Arminian theology is still a relevant conversation, considering the rise in neo-Calvinism. Times referred to this as one of the 10 ideas changing the world in 2009 and the New York Times referenced evangelicalism's "Calvinist revival." As a result, several theologians and historians have begun writing on Arminian theology again, such as Roger Olson (Baylor University), Keith Stanglin (Austin Graduate School of Theology), Thomas H. McCall (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), and W. Stephen Gunter (Duke University). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rclark767 (talk • contribs) — Rclark767 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The Time and NYT sources you added do not even mention Pinson. Using them to support claims about Pinson looks like WP:SYNTH to me. And the one you cite so prominently in your keep opinion, from the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, includes him only in a single line in a listing of five awardees; that is not the sort of in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'Time' and 'NYT' sources demonstrate the relevance of Arminian theology to contemporary issues, namely the rise in neo-Calvinism mentioned in those articles. I fail to see how four other awardees being mentioned in the article by South Eastern Theological Seminary makes the articles any less relevant to Pinson's prominance within historical and theological scholarship. What would Wikipedia gain in any case by removing Pinson's page? Whatever his significance he is certainly not just anybody, which is what we want to avoid junking up Wikipedia with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rclark767 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Addressing the earlier comment that implies that Arminianism is not a reputable subject for academic discourse, akin to angelic pinhead dancing, the editors at the following notable academic presses, which have all published recent monographs about Arminian theology, must not have gotten the memo: Oxford University Press, Baylor University Press, Brill Academic, Mercer University Press, Princeton Theological Monographs, IVP Academic, and Zondervan Academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher.cooper.jr. (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC) — Christopher.cooper.jr. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The citation to the Society of Evangelical Arminians that is made up of scholars, clergymen, and lay people, will not immediatly bring up Pinson's relevance to this sizeable group. One would need to simply type in his name to see how much discussion he has generated and how much of his work has been published on this webpage for the consumption of this audience. To say that Welch is not "significant" is as problematic for either side of this coversation, since Wikipedia does not give a detailed definition of what is meant here. There are small secular institutions that have made an impact in certain areas of scholarship that would be considered "significant" and there are larger institutions (such as degree mills) that are in many way less significant. Lastly, the college is no longer a "Bible college," which, strictly speaking is an undergraduate seminary. The college is now a Christian liberal arts institution, which is partially explanitory of its name change from "Free Will Baptist Bible College" to "Welch College." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rclark767 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The college's academic reputation is established by its accreditation by SACS (which also accredits schools like Duke, Vanderbilt, Emory, Rice, Tulane, and the University of Virginia), its 2019 ranking as 13th best college among Southern Regional Colleges in U.S. News and World Report's Best Colleges, and its approval by the Tennessee State Department of Education for the awarding of bachelor's and master's degrees that lead to state teacher licensure. Also, as recent edits to the entry make clear, numerous theological institutions and organizations have recognized the academic excellence of Welch College, including Southeastern Baptist Seminary, Beeson Divinity School, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Additionally, the institution has joint degree programs and articulation agreements with reputable institutions including Belmont University, Cumberland University, Union University, and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher.cooper.jr. (talk • contribs) 02:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The statement above that Pinson's being among the "more prominent supporters" of Arminianism is not well enough substantiated is incorrect. For example, if you do a search in the Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA) website, you will find that only three modern published Arminians are mentioned more than Pinson: Roger Olson, Robert Picirilli, and Brian Abasciano (the Society's chief editor). Further, in response to the above comment that "just publishing stuff is not sufficient for notability; the stuff has to be noted by others, and there is insufficient of that in this case, even for theologians," it is evident from recent edits made to the entry that, in the field of Arminianism, which is the subject of discussion, Pinson's publications have been noted by numerous others, including the SEA, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, Southeastern Seminary, New Orleans Seminary, Beeson Divinity School, Timothy George, Terrence Tiessen, and Roger Olson, among others. Even Calvinists note Pinson as one of the more prominent supporters of their internecine theological opponents, the Arminians. For example, Pinson is the "go-to guy" for Arminianism at the Gospel Coalition (the leading Calvinist site online), and has been interviewed about Calvinism and Arminianism on the Albert Mohler Program, the radio program of one of America's leading Calvinists and president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher.cooper.jr. (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Arminianism is still a notable topic, this academic is still relevant.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED. And your evidence that he's relevant is? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Epiphyllumlover's assertion of the academic's relevance is based on his statement that "Arminianism is still a notable topic." That is his first premise. His unstated premise, stated by the contributors above, is that the scholars who study Arminian and Calvinist soteriology believe that he is relevant. (I think this premise is accurate. In fact, if you were to poll all the authors of the most recent books on both Arminian and Calvinist soteriology and asked them if Pinson is "relevant" to the scholarly conversation on these topics, they all would say he is.) Thus, (premise 1) Arminianism is "still a notable topic"; (premise 2) Arminianism's major scholars believe Pinson is relevant to that topic; (ergo) Pinson is relevant to that topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher.cooper.jr. (talk • contribs) 14:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep. Can scholarship and administrative role really be weighted in isolation? Hyperbolick (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. ∯WBG^converse 15:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:PROF says that "Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study" - it appears from the sources that Pinson's work, whether or not it is considered a worthy area of study, has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline and has had a substantial impact outside academia per WP:NACADEMIC - while the field may be narrow, - Epinoia (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the evidence for the claim that it seems that Pinson has made an important contribution. The citations to his work in the scholarly literature are negigible compared to those of peers. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Clearly a worthy individual. However, I don't see Welch College as being a "major academic institution" nor is his scholarship sufficiently noted to meet WP:PROF#C1. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have read the debate above and I find the delete votes, citing WP:NACADEMIC as guidance to whether he's likely to be notable, to have a much more firm grounding in evidence and policy. Keep !voters cite a prominence in theology, in particular arminianism, but no evidence was supplied that he is noted amongst peers or especially recognised as such in independent sources. I also concur that the college in question doesn't qualify as a "major institution", and I see no evidence that the term is defined anywhere. As an aside, it would probably be worth nailing down at WP:NACADEMIC what that actually means. — Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article mentions recognized independent appraisal or recognition: Timothy George, Terrance L. Tiessen, Roger E. Olson, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. ----Telikalive (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete an article on a well-published author and theologian? This is precisely the kind of information people expect Wikipedia to have.Strandvue (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is discussed above. As explained, neither having published many works nor being a theologian meets our notability requirements which have also been referenced. Sorry. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:28, 13 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Wiedenheft[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Issues of the previous AFD have not been met, and we're getting to the point of a slow-burning move-war between the article and draft space. She is still not covered in any significant depth, and only in brief mentions or credits listings. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a February 2019 Monsters & Critics blog that focuses on her reaction to when her brother was arrested for child porn charges. [9] That's about as in-depth as I've seen though. She does play a lead character in the Dragon Maid show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I still haven't seen any in-depth articles even in local news coverage or regular anime news coverage that focus on her career. Usually a notable voice actress would have at least one or two from random newspapers affiliated with USA Today, or Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning Star, such as with Trina Nishimura. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She plays one of the main characters found in every episode of Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash. AngusWOOF says she plays a lead character in another notable show. I didn't look through everything on her list to see which of her other roles is notable, but these two are enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 22:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the subject's roles, and I could find 30 main roles. There are also 3 roles from shows that made it to American television (Toonami, to be specific). View my vote below for more info. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is based on verrifiability and we have none of that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources, virtually nothing has changed since the last AFD. Esw01407 (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:NACTOR, with significant roles in Zombie Land Saga, Teasing Master Takagi-san, The Morose Mononokean, Alice & Zouroku, Luck & Logic, Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid, Hand Shakers, Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash, etc. As for verifying her roles - there are a lot of sources which need to be removed (her own twitter?!), but Anime News Network, CBR.com and Monsters & Critics are OK - some are in the article, some could be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much a case of meeting NACTOR but of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. NACTOR is not a guarantee of inclusion, just the indication; her article is little more than an IMDb listing of every show she's given her time and talent towards; there's just no significant coverage. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." (My emphasis) Not all the WP:SNGs require significant coverage - and not all coverage is online. If she had significant roles in only 2 or 3 shows, I would consider it borderline, but there are many. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are direct-to-videos or only on Funimation's on demand subscriber-only service. Grimgar might have shown on Netflix, but it is not clear it had a notable run as with My Hero Academia or other titles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable voice actor with plenty of main roles in Funimation and Sentai Filmworks dubs. I will now list them all.

Alice and Zoroku - Sana Kashimura
Bikini Warriors - Mage
Castle Town Dandelion - Hikari Sakurada
Classroom of the Elite - Kikyo Kushida
Convenience Store Boy Friends - Miharu Mashiki
Gonna be the Twintail - Aika Tsube
Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash - Shihoru
Harukana Receive - Kanata Higa
How Heavy Are the Dumbbells You Lift? - Akemi Soryuin
How Not to Summon a Demon Lord - Shera L. Greenwood
Interviews with Monster Girls - Yuki Kusakabe
Katana Maidens - Kanami Eto
Keijo - Non Toyoguchi
Land of the Lustrous - Phosphophyllite
Love Live Sunshine - Ruby Kurosawa
Luck and Logic - Valkyrie
Magical Girl Raising Project - Kano Sazanami
Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid - Toru
Orange - Azusa Muranaka
Pop Team Epic - Popuko
Puzzle & Dragons X - Sonia
Senran Kagura: Shinovi Master - Yozakura
Tada Never Falls in Love - Teresa Wagner
Teasing Master Takagi-san - Takagi
Tokyo ESP - Rinka Urushiba
Tokyo Ghoul Re: - Saiko Yonebayashi
Tsugumomo - Kiriha
Tsuredure Children - Chizuru Takano
Urahara - Kotoko Watatsumugi
Zombieland Saga - Lily Hoshikawa

With 30 main roles, you have a very difficult time convincing me that this isn't a notable voice actor. I'm not sure how many more main roles one has to get cast as if this isn't the very definition of notability. Additionally, the subject's roles of Charmy Papittoson (Black Clover), Popuko (Pop Team Epic) and Zeno (Dragon Ball Super) are broadcast on Toonami. [1] [2] [3]

I don't necessarily agree with the notion that a voice actor must have their shows broadcast on television to be considered notable, since Funimation is the most notable anime dubbing company in the entire United States of America, but I thought I might mention the Toonami broadcasts since Angus likes to use that as an indicator to test for notability. We live in the digital age, where online streaming is the more preferred method of consumption amongst anime fans, especially in the US. Furthermore, the subject has also been in a good number of anime conventions, as seen here. A total number of 7, from what I could see.

PS: I also disagree with the delete votes above regarding the lack of reliable sources. The official Funimation website is a reliable source, and so is Anime News Network's news section. I am having a difficult time comprehending the claims about the lack of reliable sources, given that the majority of sources cited are from either of the two websites above.

PS2: Subject is mentioned on several ANN reviews as well. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9][10] [11]

Sure, the article may need some work, but with consideration of all the reviews I've linked above, as well as interviews with the subject, we could definitely work on expanding it with more information.

EDIT: Just in case it wasn't clear enough, I think based on the subject's numerous lead roles, she easily meets WP:NACTOR criterion #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the Toonami roles: Black Clover Charmy is supporting among the gazillion supporting characters for the show, so it's not a main. Pop Team Epic is one-off guest. The shows are episodic one-offs with different voice actors each episodes. Dragon Ball Super Zeno is more notable supporting. Cast announcements are passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Yes, they should have broadcasts outside their immediate direct-to-video offerings, so if those shows hit Netflix or Amazon, that's at least one step removed from the direct Funimation / Crunchyroll (which shows only the sub version and very rarely shows the dub version). It's not a question of whether she actually voiced in a number of shows; those can be dug up with credits, primaries and otherwise. I may concede that since the previous draft, she has appeared in more national anime conventions outside of her area. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, even if you disregard the Pop Team Epic role, the subject still has plenty of main roles (and by that, I mean in the 20s), and even more than some of the voice actors that currently have their own articles. It's unfair that seiyu only need 3 main roles to secure their own article, even though they might not have any biographical information worth writing for.

For this subject, I think it's really just a matter of expanding the article with reviews and a chronology of when the roles were cast, much like Luci Christian and Erika Harlacher. Adding interviews about what the subject thinks about her roles as well as biographical information would help too. I personally think the article could use more work, but if you ask me, the subject is very notable in her field with all her lead roles. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sk8erPrince, if there are biographical articles, that would help. That's what the other ones have, well besides that Luci has a ton of main roles in prominent shows and Erika has more starring roles in video games. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sk8erPrince, the few roles for the Japanese ones are different because the VA originated the voice role instead of merely dubbing it. This would be like if the Japanese VA dub voiced English language shows and films and the only things available were cast announcements and credits AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, there are reviews regarding the subject (as linked above), so clearly, it's not just mere cast announcements and credits. There *is* article worthy material here. At this point, I'll just let other people comment and let the AFD run its course. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:35, 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz grime[edit]

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

This is made up by someone attempting to promote themselves with autobiographies on Wikipedia. Jazz grime has no real coverage as a single term. Praxidicae (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only one source, and I'm 99% certain it was created by the author of the wiki article just so they had a source to point to. Jazz grime is extremely niche. There are notable artists who have made it, like Swindle]] and Mez, but it's not really enough for an article.Madbrad200 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are sources that discuss the merging of jazz with grime ie. The Guardian - "Experimentation and cross pollination are at the heart of a new jazz, combining it with grime, jungle and house to make a sound that works at clubs and festivals", The Fader - "Producer Moses Boyd Blends Jazz With Grime On “Square Up”" but do not actually use the phrase "Jazz grime". Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While merging Jazz with Grime does appear to be a thing, as the sources Coolabahapple show, the actual term "Jazz grime" appears to be a WP:NEOLOGISM that was made up to promote the one trying to coin the term, and not an actual widely used term for the minor sub-genre. As such, it should not be kept as either an article or a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 17:20, 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kompon[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. He played a combined total of 141 games in the AHL and DEL, leaving him 59 games short of the 200 mark needed to pass #2. He also has no preeminent honours to pass #3 while his college honours are not enough to pass #4.

It is now a question of whether or not he passes WP:GNG. The article currently has five references, one of which is a permanent dead link. Tay87 (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I only got a look at 2 of the sources listed (since I read neither german nor japanese), but only the first one was independent and it is borderline significant (it gives a brief history of his career). If the german and japanese sources are more indepth,then I think he passes GNG. Rockphed (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. The coverage is routine sports reporting of transactions involving him and fails to show the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 14:56, 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 This article started off as a copyright violation of the archived web page of 18 Feb 2007 linked in this discussion by Uncle G. Attempts made in manifest good faith to ameliorate this were, in my opinion, insufficient to remedy that underlying problem. No prejudice for recreation of the article if it be re-made without that problem. As for its status on Wikipedias in other languages, while technically that should be decided on those Wikipedias, I would strongly recommend that people who know those languages work towards an outcome similar to the one made here. Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unión Libre[edit]

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

I agree with the nominator that this article appears to "in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea". That given, in my opinion it should be tested for notability first, given the article was

created on 28 August 2008 on the English language Wikipedia,
created on the Breton language Wikipedia in 2009,
created on the Catalan language Wikipedia on 25 August 2008,
created on Spanish language Wikipedia on 25 August 2008,
created on the Galician language Wikipedia 25 August 2008

Looking for OCLCs for this purported magazine/scholarly journal/ literary magazine finds nothing. I question whether this purported journal ever existed, or in the alternative if it ever existed it did not pass any or all tests for notability . Pietro aka Shirt58 (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 11 years, no-one has noticed that these articles were just copied wholesale from this promotional blurb. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean it is a copyright violation?Rockphed (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like either advertising that nobody has noticed for 11 years or a hoax that nobody has noticed for 11 years. Based on no proof of existence, I am leaning toward hoax. Rockphed (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article in Galacian Wikipedia has two citations which give brief writeups, one in La Voz de Galicia and one in ElProgresso, which may meet WP:NPERIODICAL - seems to be an important literary magazine in its own area that has been publishing annually for 22 years - the general editors, Carmen Blanco and Claudio Rodriguez Fer, are notable scholars and writers - Wikipedia:Notability (media) allows that periodicals are notable if they are "are significant publications in...non-trivial niche markets" - if Unión Libre has published for 22 years there must be a sustained, non-trivial market - Epinoia (talk) 03:55, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Carney[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability requirements for Wikipedia, in the future she might require an article but this is a bit too soon in my opinion Greyjoy^talk 11:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Greyjoy^talk 11:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Greyjoy^talk 11:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Greyjoy^talk 11:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in this article that pushes it over the WP:GNG threshold. Only one reference is about the subject in detail and I don't know if that would even be considered a reliable source. The others are passing mentions and are too localized to satisfy in depth coverage. With no major games under their belt and not for at least another 2 years, they are not a notable softball player. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet any notability standards, including the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:25, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voices That Matter[edit]

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

Short-lived commercial conference that only seems to have attracted routine coverage, so I don’t think is notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article has no contents. It only has scaffolding stuff, things that the article would need if it had content. Imagine the Theory of relativity article did not have the §Development and acceptance, §Special relativity, or §General relativity sections. That's how this article looks like now. It should at least cover things that the conference was about, why it was named like that, the impact of the conference on its surround world, and why should people living one hundred years later want to read such an article. Wikipedia is not dreary catalog of conference names. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:32, 7 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⁺⁺ 12:17, 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) 12:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Insight Terminal Solutions[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Claim to notability appears to be "ITS has played a key role in the Oakland Coal Issue in that it is co-developer of a planned facility called Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal." However I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources about the company. --Pontificalibus 10:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge deletion: this request comes from the same author User:Pontificalibus. A real search would show that Insight Terminal Solutions is a new company. Only one year old. Saying that no "reliable source" reported on it is complete prejudice. What is a reliable source? It's more than a media brand, today. So, the argument for deletion is not valid, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zennie (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: concur with nom, page also reads as an "about us" to me rather than neutral coverage. Also, in response to the article creator's comments above, then if the company is only one year old then it's probably WP:TOOSOON for an article regardless. A reliable source is something that meets the reliable sources policy, and a notable company is one that meets the organization or general notability guidelines. The argument for deletion is entirely valid. creffett (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely wrong. Again, your arguments hold no water and now I see are obviously very prejudiced. If your take that it's "too soon" have a Wikipedia entry were taken seriously, there would be no entry representing a tech startup. This flight of whimsy must be put to a stop. Talk ends now. Zennie —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Zennie, any article about a subject whose notability is not supported by sources is usually deleted. Then again, a subject might pop up literally today and get its own Wikipedia article on account of it meeting the required criteria. Simple as that. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after making the sources less malformed, most of them do not talk about the company currently running the terminal. The ones that do talk about it do so in a passing, trivial fashion. The sources might support an article on the Oakland Bulk Oversized Terminal, and would probably help squash the rather POV section that currently links to, but they do not support an article on Insight Terminal Solutions. Rockphed (talk) 18:45, 5 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. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NCORP. Hopefully, a case of WP:TOOSOON and that is a well-intentioned wish. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 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 redirect to Team 7. RL0919 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dane (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. The only citation adds nothing of value.l TTN (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Team 7. Contains essential info to understand the character. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Team 7. There are no sources to show that this character is individually notable. However, information on him is covered in the article on the team, so a redirect seems appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Team 7 since the character is already discussed there. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep notable fictional character with valuable citation. --24.101.156.239 (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet of permabanned troll A Nobody. Reyk _YO! 07:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect to Team 7, as this seems to be the sensible, merciful choice. -The Gnome (talk) 11:29, 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 redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. RL0919 (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catspaw (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. Already contains the essential info. I don't see anything else worth keeping. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep notable fictional character. --24.101.156.239 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet of permabanned troll A Nobody. Reyk _YO! 07:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect- per Killer Moff. There is no content here worth preserving, since it is almost completely unsourced. The title is a plausible search term though. Reyk _YO! 11:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members, as this seems to be the sensible, merciful choice. -The Gnome (talk) 11:27, 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) 12:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StammyBoi[edit]

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

Unsourced piece. A Google search doesn't provide any reliable sources. Subject fails WP:NMUSIC Ceethekreator (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable person failing WP:GNG / WP:BIO / WP:NMUSICIAN with no reliable independent in-depth sources or significance of their work to satisfy NMUSICIAN criteria. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Hellknowz. Might also violate WP:AUTO. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is worthless, articles are required to have references. And this article seems to have been created, by a user using the same name.Catfurball (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - StammiBoi might be trying hard, but a career has to be established before there can be a Wikipedia article, an article can't be used to start or promote a career - fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, WP:MUSICBIO, etc. - and obvious WP:COI article created by the subject - I hope StammiBoi is successful and one day has his own article; if he devotes as much energy to his music as to self-promotion, he may have a chance - Epinoia (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and above commentary. This text, clumsily put together, is way past is deletion date. -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 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 keep. There is clearly a consensus against deletion so I am closing this. The possibility of merging the article can be discussed in talkspace. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Start With Why[edit]

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

Non notable book. There are no major reviews except in out of the way highly specialized sources. A blog post is not a review, even if it's in Forbes. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There may not have been any "major reviews" of the book as DGG said, but the book has been influential: it is cited 1170 times on Google Scholar, and it introduced Sinek's "golden circle" diagram, which is widely cited, as can be seen if you search for, e.g., simon + sinek + "golden circle" on Google Scholar. I linked Start With Why § The golden circle from Onion diagram and Onion model since it is a good example of each. If the lack of major reviews is reason enough to delete the article, then I would merge the article's content into a new section of Simon Sinek rather than delete it entirely, since the "golden circle" diagram is widely cited. Biogeographist (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked GScholar myself! (the reason I didn't think of it is that this seemed like a popular work, not an academic work--but I've been learning that GScholar can help in such cases also) Looking furtheri n GS under just the author name, I see that it is cited five times more than his other books. This can be because it is his first book (2009) with the others following 5 or more years later, thus giving it a much better opportunity to be cited, or because it is consider emblematic of his work/ Looing at the works citing it in GS, it seems to be used most often as a single citation without much discussion in reither a general popular book about management, or about management in a special field (often, education), which might imply that it's a business leadership book that a authors in a variety of fields are aware of. (But that's my OR) My opinion is it would be much mroe useful as a redirect to a section of an article, because I think anyone who looks for the book here will also look for the author, and vice versa. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Main reason for keep is the data gathered by User: Biogeographist who wrote: "it is cited 1170 times on Google Scholar, and it introduced Sinek's "golden circle" diagram, which is widely cited, as can be seen if you search for, e.g., simon + sinek + "golden circle" on Google Scholar. I linked Start With Why § The golden circle from Onion diagram and Onion model since it is a good example of each." In business/sales the power of "why" cannot be understimated when it comes to leadership and motivating people to take action when it comes to salesmanship. Many jobs in the business world are not particularly glamorous/interesting (such as accounting) and many jobs are very hard such as sales which involves receiving a lot of rejecting. So I can certainly why this business is very influential. Maybe the commentator class who writes book reviews don't appreciate the book, but the people who actually need to lead people or show people how to lead certainly appreciate a book like this. One of the most influential and transformational books I read in my life was a book which stressed the power of "Why".Knox490 (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article cites what appear to be perfectly acceptable book reviews. Haukur (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's unclear whether the scale of citations is sufficient for retention or if it is being made as a viable IAR argument. In either case, a relist would still be warranted, though possibly with different focuses. Given the potential disagreement on that point, a general (if now verbose) relist is warranted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one more highly detailed review: [10] This brings us up to four detailed, independent reviews, even discounting Forbes. Note that WP:NBOOK only requires two reviews and says nothing to forbid them from being in specialized publications. Coverage of the books's sales also counts in its favor according to NBOOK and we have that too: [11] Haukur (talk) 10:00, 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 keep. There is a consensus regarding the fact that the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Taewangkorea (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Shah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Why the page should be deleted: I represent the article subject so note I have a conflict of interest. The subject regards himself as a non-notable, private person and wants the article to be deleted. References to crime are premature as no crime has been proven. Under WP:PERPETRATOR "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Eagleeye321 (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments in the last AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjay Shah (businessman) (2nd nomination) in 2017. He had on-going coverage in 2017. He has ongoing coverage in 2019 - Copenhagen Post, May 2019 which states - "Sanjay Shah at the centre of the biggest tax fraud case in Danish history". Needless to say, this is covered outside of Denmark as well. For instance - The National (UAE) or Where in the World Is Denmark's $2 Billion?, New York Times, October 2018. The extent of the charges here (as well as the subject resisting extradition) would seem to make our subject here a WP:PUBLICFIGURE to which BLPCRIME doesn't apply. We also have judicial decisions in regards to freezing of assets in various countries. Even if we were to say the bio is a BLP1E the biggest alleged tax fraud in Danish history would be notable (as an event) - though in this case as the case is tied to the individual renaming makes less sense. Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- passes WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:GNG. Sources in the article demonstrate that the individual has received in-depth continued coverage over several years in national newspapers of multiple countries. Most recently, for example, the front page of the New York Times international edition from last October [12] ; the English language newspaper The National of UAE in June 2019 [13], and the leading Danish newspaper Politiken in May 2019 [14]. These meet the criteria for a notable public figure for WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:PERPETRATOR. Serious consideration was given when the article was kept by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjay Shah (businessman) (2nd nomination) -- and the continued coverage of Sanjay Shah only further establishes them as an individual of international public notability. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mainly relying on consideration and interaction of PERPETRATOR, BLPCRIME and PUBLICFIGURE
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable accused fraudster. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:09, 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. Unfortunately, quite apart from the SPA nature of some of them, none of the Keep votes actual advance policy-based reasons why the article meets our notability (and promotional) guidelines. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parks on the Air[edit]

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

Essentially a promotional web page for the event and the organization--and furthermore insufficient evidence of notability, There are no references with substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources--everything is from themselves, or is a mere press releases or announcement. Earlier version, such as [15] or [16] contain further lists of announcements. Normally I'd draftify, but this has already been rejected twice in Draft space, before the contributor decided to try it directly in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a article which only references it's own website on the list of references twice. Additionally, ~~admin~~ User:TomCat4680 has already reviewed the article and approved it without marking it for deletion. Furthermore, I've made additional improvements/changes to the article removing all links as recommended in the draft to any reference to blogs, facebook, and youtube videos. Finally, This is an Amateur radio operating award program. Just like Summits on the Air, Islands on the air, and others (listed in the see also section). If DGG and other admins feel so strongly about deleting this program, then all the other Amateur radio operating award programs including that entire category of them should be removed completely from the amateur radio project Wikipedia:WikiProject Amateur radio. If there are other ways to go about keeping the article with some other modifications to it, I'm certainly open to suggestions, and would prefer that modifications were made to it than just out-right deletion. If you want I'd be more than happy to remove both the two references to the parks on the air website if that would make it qualify better. Thanks for your consideration Zul32 (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Zul32 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Comment: I'm not an admin, I'm a new page reviewer. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am a POTA radio activator and hunter. This wiki page represents thousands of users and a fast-growing movement within amateur radio. Wiki currently has SOTA and IOTA pages. POTA is similar but is also a very unique aspect of the hobby which has hundreds of thousands of active operators in the US alone, not to mention POTA is an international movement with active operators in several other countries. I am an active user and financial contributor to Wiki and I think this page out to remain on the site. de K2PMD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldordal (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC) :Note:THis user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. [reply]
Keep another active POTA enthusiast here, KJ4LAB. We are unpaid volunteers that actively practice our radio skills so that when emergencies happen, we're prepared. When I set up at parks, I am often asked about this aspect of the hobby and it would be nice to point them to a wikipedia entry. I'll be glad to add to this entry as I better understand what's needed to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scook35758 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC) :Note:THis user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. [reply]
- No, you do not; otherwise you would be citing sources. You have not provided any sources at all, or any rationale based on Wikipedia:deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sourcing and blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not what you might call an active POTA enthusiast, but I am a Ham Radio Enthusiast.
POTA is a program, like many others in the Ham Radio Community, that expands on other programs. In this case, the ARRL has National Parks On The Air (NPOTA) ^[1], and Parks On The Air (POTA)^[2] is an extension of that, including, not just National Parks, but Parks of any kind. There are also a great many State "Parks On The Air" groups, like Wisconsin Parks On The Air^[3], etc.
I'm not sure why Wikipedia would want to remove an informational article about an activity enjoyed by Thousands of People in the Ham Radio Community. Treating this article like it is some kind of news agency or business is a bit short-sighted and shallow. There is not "advertising" as in "we wanna make money"... mostly because, as Ham Radio Operators, we are forbidden, by law, from Pecuniary Interests.^[4] Yes, we are advertising our activities, for the betterment and fun of Ham Radio Operators.
I'll provide some of the resources that can be linked to such an article here, which explain the purpose and rules for the activity.
First off, maybe a better understanding of Amateur Radio is needed?
Amateur Radio or, Ham Radio, as it is commonly called, is a Federal Service that requires the users to be licensed. All the requirements for Amateur Radio can be found in CFR Title 47: Telecommunication, PART 97—AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE ^[5]. More information can be found on the FCC web site ^[6], the ARRL web site ^[7], and a variety of other websites with a simple google search for "Part 97 Ham Radio".
Within Title 47 Part 97 are some simple purpose statements for the Amateur Radio Service:

§ 97.1 Basis and purpose.
- The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:
  - (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
  - (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
  - (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art.
  - (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
  - (e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill.

You will notice that part of the purpose is to "Encourage and Improve" the service through using it. POTA, as with many other activities like Fox Hunting (Transmitter_hunting), Summits on the Air, Islands on the air, and other Amateur radio operating award programs, like DX_Century_Club, etc, which are designed to encourage Amateur Radio Operators to use their radios, and not just from the comfort of their own homes. These activities fulfil the "Basis and Purpose" of the Amateur Radio Service.
As many might be aware, Ham Radio Operators have helped during a variety of Natural Disasters in the past many years. Most recently, several Ham Radio Operators were taken to Puerto Rico to help after the hurricane devastated the area ^[8]. These operators are not normally professional radio operators... hence AMATEUR radio. However, they have skills in using the radio via activities as have been mentioned.
Wikipedia is a resourced used by many people to find out about a variety of things. In this case, this article should be linked to other articles of activities enjoyed by Amateur Radio Enthusiasts.
It isn't, by itself, some kind of activity that would be reported on or well known in the world as something people do... unlike Ham Radio. But even that is surrounded by a stigma that has held on for decades: the Old, Fat, Bald Men who sit in their basements trying to contact Martians.
Well, with POTA, NPOTA, JOTA (Jamboree on the Air, a Scouting Activity for Scout Aged Kids)^[9]^[10]^[11] we have actually encouraged a whole new group of younger Amateur Radio Operators. But without the ability to deliver the information via information outlets, such as Wikipedia, we have a more limited and restricted ability to deliver the information to those who may be interested.
If there are any doubts about it, the National Parks Service touts their favor of such programs.^[12]
In any case, I'm hoping that this Wikipedia Page won't be dismissed so readily. It is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMamanakis (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC) :Note:THis user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. [reply]

Comment None of the above keeps are relevant. They are arguments for why the program is or ought to be important, not why it meets the standards for notability. If any of the people above wouldcare to writea sourced article, I don't think there would be any objection. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a relevant topic worthy of inclusion. WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:IMPERFECT. Lightburst (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is as devoid of valid basis as those of the single-purpose accounts. Where are the published independent sources from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy documenting this subject in depth? Uncle G (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now there is not a single keep argument that has shown evidence of notability according to Wikipedia's particular definition of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amateur Radio is a notable topic with an extensive network of existing articles on Wikipedia. I am an Amateur Radio operator, and years before I got my license, I read many Amateur Radio-related articles. Within the past year I have actually searched for a POTA article and was disappointed to find that there wasn't one. Zul32 has created an article for a noteworthy topic and has provided more references than many new articles have. I'm discouraged to see a deletion discussion so quickly after article creation. The article is not promotional nor advertisement; it is an article about a popular and significant part of the Amateur Radio hobby. The images in the article pre-existed Zul32's creation of Parks on the Air. Other articles about very comparable subjects have existed for some time, such as Islands on the air, Summits on the Air, and Amateur Radio Lighthouse Society. If the POTA article needs to go, then the other "on the air" articles need to go as well. To quote relevant sections of WP:N, "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time" & "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Various types of Amateur Radio operation similar to POTA have attracted attention over a significant period of time (such as Contesting, DXing, Field Day, QRP operation, international operation, and emergency operation), and many suitable sources exist for the POTA contest and POTA activities (such as ARRL's website, QST magazine, and the National Contest Journal (NCJ) magazine). (These are just the links & sources I was already aware of or found in 30 seconds; Amateur Radio is an incredibly vast hobby with an extensive network of websites supporting and reporting on the hobby.) —danhash (talk)

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument and the two external links do not mention Parks on the Air? Theroadislong (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My keep vote listed above still stands. I've just recently found a number of notable sources for news articles that this can now reference. I've inserted a new Activities/Events section which is really the main focus of the notable references. I didn't realize there was a huge difference between search engines! Anyway, please re-review and give your vote/opinion now. There are certainly more references which I plan to add in the future. Thanks for your time. Zul32 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have already voted once above, you cannot do it twice! Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by W2MSA (talk • contribs) 21:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Note:This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia.[reply]
Delete per nomination. After all the argumentation, a careful examination of extant and discovered sources shows that the subject, for better or worse, does not meet the criteria of verifiable, independent notability. The "arguments" to Keep are very weak, i.e.

"I am a financial contributor to Wiki and I think this page [ought] to remain on the site." Which is just WP:ILIKEIT with a twist.
"When I set up at parks, I am often asked about this aspect of the hobby and it would be nice to point them to a Wikipedia entry." Yet, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a manual.
"If [you] delete this program, then all the other amateur radio operating award programs...should be removed completely." Of course, this runs flat against WP:OSE.
"It is useful!" We have WP:USEFUL for precisely this line.
"Amateur Radio is a notable topic with an extensive network of existing articles on Wikipedia" and this is actually, absolutely true but amateur radio's own notability, does not (explicitly, per WP:INHERITED) supply notability to every subject related to amateur radio.
"Why Wikipedia would want to remove an informational article about an activity enjoyed by Thousands of People in the Ham Radio Community?" Folks, Wikipedia editors are not evil miscreants. There are policies and guidelines about what goes up or cannot go up. There is no agenda against ham radio, just as there is (and should not be!) no agenda for it. This is, by all accounts, an enjoyable, constructive, and useful activity but Wikipedia is not the place where we support social or other issues.

-The Gnome (talk) 11:19, 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marg (word)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a (Hindi/Punjabi) dictionary, and the list of roads ("road" being the meaning of Marg) that contain the word is a head scratcher. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether it is a distinct concept; an actual type of thing, like boulevard, alley, avenue, and street. Or whether it is just a non-English name for a concept that has a name in English such as rue (disambiguation) and rio. Enjoy a similar list of German streets at Straße, which is a disambiguation article like marg (n.b. not the article under discussion). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Marg, the Rue and Rio dab pages have non-street and non-river entries. Thanks for pointing out Straße; that will go under the AfD knife after this is done. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, since Straße is explicitly classed as a dab page, I'm going to AfD it now, as it consists almost exclusively of WP:partial title matches, with only a single exception. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The uses of "Marg" in street names in England and Trinidad are relevant. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant in what way? 21Note: Appleyard is the article's creator. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really appropriate to state the obvious: Some foreign streets have the foreign word for street in their name. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICTIONARY - Wikipedia is not a directory of street names WP:NOTDIRECTORY - Epinoia (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Where are the sources supporting notability? All we have are citations that this word root exists. But, as others have also pointed out, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We're not piling up here anything and everything. -The Gnome (talk) 10:56, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dokkio[edit]

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

Non-notable corpcruft, and this is reflected in the sourcing.

[17] does not mention the company or the assertion that a particular individual was employed;
[18] Primary source, just a directory listing;
[19] Primary source; does not support the assertion made (lists individuals with no context...which it cannot provide, being, again, no more than a directory listing);
[20] WP:NOTDIRECTORY/ WP:NOTYELLOW apply; and
[21] Sef-sourced to an advertising page.
There is no further sourcing available in either news outlets or the literature. All commentary comprises passing mentions and listings, with no coverage in third party, independent reliable sourcing. ——SerialNumber54129 08:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC) ——SerialNumber54129 08:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ——SerialNumber54129 08:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ——SerialNumber54129 08:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ——SerialNumber54129 08:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:ORGCRIT: no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this kamikaze curated promotional text. Could possibly make it as a brochure but not of our concern. -The Gnome (talk) 10:53, 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 no consensus. Whilst the rewriting of the page made considerable steps towards demonstrating notability, the subject's suitability for an article is still debatable. I originally closed this discussion as keep, but after re-reviewing, I feel that the consensus is not as clear cut as I thought, and have therefore reclosed as no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Varadaraja V. Raman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF as well as WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 07:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prolific author, well published and well cited. Mostly as "VV Raman." Hyperbolick (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolick, what?! 88, 28 , 18 ..... ain't well-cited. ∯WBG^converse 12:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Realized that I made a mistake by looking only under full name. Vast majority of citations--hundreds more--are found when actually searching under just V.V. Raman (mixed in with curious references to a "VV Raman spectra"). His most cited article is actually "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", with Helen Dukas, American Journal of Physics, Volume 47, Issue 12, p. 1107 (1979). Hyperbolick (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What policy defines that numerical standard? If I wrote something, got cited in 88 other publications (not just "cited," mind you, but cited in other scholar's work) I'd be astounded. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No policy but practice. That's why we use h-index (which is too low, over here) ..... ∯WBG^converse 12:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems more notable (if at all) for turning to woo in his retirement than for any academic work he might once have done. The citation record discussed above is not high enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1, and being merely a member of various academic societies (rather than, say, a Fellow of those societies) contributes nothing to notability. Most of his books appear to be self-published and unreviewed; being prolific is not enough to be notable. I did find one review each of two of his books, both in the same journal (Zygon). With more published reviews from a significantly wider set of viewpoints, I might be willing to reconsider notability under WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming by "turning to woo" you mean all of Vedic science is woo? For that purpose, here he is discussed (and his writing cited) in NPR article "Science Vs. Religion: Beyond The Western Traditions." Likewise mentioned other places. [22], [23], [24] Hyperbolick (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Hyperbolick, it's mostly woo. Don't see how Tendencias 21 is a RS. Also see WP:GNG; trivial name-drops don't suffice any. ∯WBG^converse 19:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Vedas mainly 'woo'? That's a very interesting opinion. There are many experts in the field who would disagree with you.--Brian Josephson (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm afraid that you might have misread my statement. The Vedas and Vedic science are (obviously) different and as to the latter, the current mainstream opinion in the scholarly community indeed aligns with my above take. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 18:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, if someone uses the word 'woo' it is a very bad sign, typically indicative of prejudice alone. Such people typically form cliques dedicated to spreading their prejudice, taking over WP articles being one of their preferred activities. --Brian Josephson (talk)
-- as we see has indeed happened in the article concerned, which has been loaded with negative comments in the 'other activities' section, in a way that almost certainly introduces significant bias. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit puzzled as to where the reference to Vedic Science came in, as it doesn't seem to be there in the article, and found that it was mysteriously slipped into the discussion on Sep 5. So it looks like the issue of the 'wooness' of Vedic science is beside the point. What is relevant is that the statement that the biographee has been 'turning to woo in his retirement' needs to be backed up by an RS. If not, then that statement should simply be disregarded.--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - @David Eppstein: Did you mean to delete recent article publications in reputable journals? Your edit summary references "self-published," seems the edit should have been limited to that. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - In short, yes. I intentionally deleted a long and unsourced list of self-published books, and a long and seemingly unselective list of non-book publications. These things contribute nothing towards notability, and in fact can do the opposite by making an article looked puffed up with nothingness. I don't mind having short lists of five or so selected journal publications in articles about academics, but in such cases there should be a good and clear reason for why those particular ones were selected (e.g. the articles have won significant awards, are the subject of significant coverage in published sources about the subject by other people, or are very highly cited). I don't think any of Raman's non-book publications meet those criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - See if you can select five or so selected journal publications? Surely indiscriminate deletion is as bad as indiscriminate inclusion. Doesn't seem you had time to look before leaping. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writing one thing which gets 88 citations over half a century is not a remarkable achievement in physics or the history thereof. The next most highly-cited item according to GS is actually a book review, and it looks like most if not all of the citations to that are really to the book being reviewed (The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2). I don't see a way to WP:PROF#C1 here. As for the other relevant criteria, I agree with David Eppstein's !vote above. XOR'easter (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have greatly rewritten with sources showing national recognition for his role as a communicator. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral after rewrite. I would encourage those who !voted on the previous version to re-read and note the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, will continue to rewrite tomorrow. Many more sources remain. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, how does he pass NAUTHOR/NPROF/GNG? ∯WBG^converse 04:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgement call and it looked to me like he (barely) meets GNG. Upon reconsideration, I have changed my !vote to Neutral. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon would you be agreeable to moving this to draft for further research? Don't have time to dig up all possible sources now. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Found additional sources. For example, Raman wrote a chapter for the highly notable Opposing Viewpoints series, and was (around the same time) one of four executive editors of the Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are accomplishments which get over the bar of WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Won't get over the bar of WP:NFOOTY either. But does clear WP:NAUTHOR. Being one of four executive editors of Encyclopedia of Hinduism means he clearly "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". Hyperbolick (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbolick, except that it's not a major work.

Two of his co-editors are outright fringe-idiots (read the articles about Subhash Kak, which has been written by me and Rama Rao who regrettably is not too fringe to make the cut for an article) while Kapil Kapoor has a mixed reputation in academic circles and to the best of my knowledge, T.S. Rukmani is a reliable mainstream scholar.

Overall, seems to be another endeavor of the Hindutva brigade which failed to even obtain a reputable academic publisher.

At any case, being an editor of an encyclopedia series does not make NAUTHOR pass. You are continually clutching at straws to save the article ..... ∯WBG^converse 20:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if it's a "major" work, but that's not the policy. Policy is "significant or well-known". By its own article, praised by the Prime Minister of India and called "a landmark publication" by another minister. Think it's more clutching at straws to claim it isn't significant or well known. Don't care what his other co-editors are about. That's WP:OTHERSTUFF (though interesting that one has an article). Hyperbolick (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three questions for you, then, @XOR'easter: (or anybody else here @David Eppstein, Guy Macon, and Alexbrn:):
Does WP:NAUTHOR include "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"?

Is the Encyclopedia of Hinduism a significant or well-known work or collective body of work?

Is being one of four executive editors (as well as article contributor) "a major role in co-creating" that work?

That is, on top of being a long-serving physics professor active in public communication of science to their community. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to (2) is a neat NO, for reasons described above. Not spotting much of any coverage in academical sources, either. ∯WBG^converse 20:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] @Hyperbolick: It is very standard for editorial work to count much much less than authorial work towards WP:AUTHOR. Time of service counts for nothing at all. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so. Here, we have both editorial and authorial contribution towards the same work, and it seems the editorial was more involved than typical, involving wholesale rewriting of articles. Not intending to bludgeon, problem is, at the time this whole process started, we weren't even aware that this role was one of Raman's activities. Can't be helped if through research new things are found which should be considered. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article subject's work on the encyclopedia seems like it was both considered and then dismissed as not relevant to Wikipedia's notability standards. Repeatedly insisting it should be otherwise is bludgeoning the process. If your point is valid, then others will see it and support it on their own. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal — suspend this discussion until numerous disputes over usability of sources for the article are resolved. Too much flux now for this process to go forward fairly. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolick, LOL; such stuff are not allowed ... ∯WBG^converse 06:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is where such disputes should be resolved. XOR'easter (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding good secondary coverage, and subject's achievements not significant enough to pass notability threshold. Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator, article was substantially rewritten after this point, see diff, with over a dozen new sources found and added.

If not kept please move to draft, additional possible sources still being found. Thank you. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See User:Hyperbolick/sandbox/Varadaraja V. Raman. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Can move to draft once this is over, if it ever gets over. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is already a draft. Userspace drafts are a good choice for doing what you want to do. Now you can take the time to make the draft article as good as you are able to make it. When you think you are done, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page and I will look it over and comment on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Another substantial source. C. Mackenzie Brown spends a solid several pages of his book Hindu Perspectives on Evolution: Darwin, Dharma, and Design criticizing Raman's approach, noting that Raman has written that certain scientific truths "can also be apprehended through the mystical mode via meditation, prayer, or yogic exercises", and grouping Raman with Subhash Kak and Gopala Rao as "scientists [who] employ their expertise to confirm teachings of the sadhus and, not infrequently, to deplore the naturalistic theory of Darwinian evolution," concluding that for Raman, "the urge to lyricize and scientize tradition is clearly irresistible". Hyperbolick (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "another substantial source", it's the first substantial (secondary) source. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Something, though. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is something yes, but not "several solid pages". Just over a page. With a few more sources like this, we might have a basis for notability. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Alexbrn: Thank you for guidance, I have added another source like this, from Yiftach Fehige. There are more like this. How many are needed? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - As many as you can; notability is a subjective standard to an extent. ∯WBG^converse 19:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Guy Macon and Alexbrn: Does this count towards notability? Since 2008, Raman has been a guest on nationally televised PBS television series Closer to Truth eleven times, first appearing as a guest in the series 3 inaugural episode "Does God Make Sense?" See List of Closer to Truth episodes. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Note It appears from https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/varadaraja-raman/profile that he has been on CtT 33 times not just 11. I'd also suggest that instead of that long list of episodes the article simply has a link to that web page, which is more useful anyway. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian, thank you. Excellent catch, have implemented in part, pending clarification of one thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not demonstrated. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has been well edited and new sources added. Which is what editors should expect from a good AfD nomination defense. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to meet you after such a long time; Meher Baba AfDs were such fun! ∯WBG^converse 18:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no significant coverage in independent sources as required for general notability. As for academic notability, the award discussed in the Wikipedia article does not seem prestigious enough for notability, and I do not see any other academic sources or support to show a substantial or significant impact. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on the improvements. The sheer size of this discussion led me to fall into the rabbit hole of taking a deeper dive into the issue. This is one of those cases where the nomination for deletion has driven the improvement of the article and expanded information on the subject to the point where it can be kept and possibly developed further. This is due to: 1) extent of local newspaper coverage (including from cities other than the subject's "hometown"); 2) extent of the subject's publications, of which many have been cited or quoted and at least several were reviewed or commented upon in publications of others; 3) separate discussion of the subject and his views in publications by others; and 4) repeated appearances on the nationally televised PBS series Closer to Truth, in collaboration with numerous other notable figures. There is enough there to support WP:GNG, and likely enough to support WP:NCREATIVE. I did not look into the Hindu Encyclopedia or the awards, but they can only add to notability, not detract from it. I didn't have a problem finding coverage. Einstein's God: Conversations About Science and the Human Spirit was on the first page of Google book hits, for example. Krista Tippett is a well-respected journalist, and in the book preview on Amazon, you can see she has about 20 pages on this subject, including biographical detail, analysis, and an interview. This is also a good source for notability but I don't see that anyone has mentioned it in this discussion at all. CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- CNMall41, thank you, that is a great find! Hyperbolick (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Robert M. Geraci, in Temples of Modernity: Nationalism, Hinduism, and Transhumanism in South Indian Science, (Lexington Books, 2018), p. 82:

V.V. Raman, well-known in American conversations about religion and science, takes a gentle, but more ambiguous approach.

And page 192:

The leading voice in this problematic approach to Hinduism and science--who should nevertheless be commended for his work in bringing such conversations to the fore of academic inquiry--is V.V. Raman. ... Raman represents the community seeking harmony between Hinduism and science...

Raman is also quoted into the United States Congressional Record for the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology? You can find this in "Scientists and Engineers: Supply and Demand", Hearings Before the Task Force on Science Policy of the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, First Session (July 1985), p. 748. In 2012, he was a lecturer at the Chautauqua Institution. It may take a little extra time, but these sources can be found. CNMall41 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, I don't see how those sources would establish general notability under WP:GNG. The material from the Tippett book is almost entirely an interview, and the Geraci book mentions the article subject in a single paragraph. Do you feel they represent "significant coverage"? Or are you saying the article subject is notable as an academic under one of the criteria for WP:NPROF? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at both pages with mentions in Geraci’s book? Should it be significant when the chairman of the religious studies department of a well-respected college describes another not only as well-known in that field, but as the leading voice on a particularly thorny issue in it? CNMall did not mention PROF but did mention GNG and CREATIVE. I think that works. As discussed above by Brian Josephson, Raman appeared on 33 episodes of a documentary series broadcast on PBS, a national network. We have articles on characters who appeared on Seinfeld or Law & Order a fraction that many times; I think we can pass one old physicist on that basis. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice to see the nominator thank the participants for the improvements and remove the nomination. The page has obviously been saved. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Adding these to the article. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raman's accomplishments are both many and impressive, What's the problem here Jlrobertson (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)? Keep and restore![reply]

Indeed so, what's going on here? Can a single editor really decide to close the discussion on his own? It is absurd to cite 'lack of consensus', as it is pretty difficult to get consensus on anything. A better case than that needs to be made to declare the matter closed. And it is surely worth giving the article the benefit of the doubt unless there are really strong reasons for excluding it, and I don't believe any such have been provided here. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:23, 14 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Discussion was started by a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Bhat[edit]

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

doesn't pass GNG Bledwith (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:48, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Herrera Spring 2014 Ready-to-Wear Collection[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article describes one designer's show at a NY Fashion Week event in 2013 but fails WP:EVENT for lasting effects and geographic scope. It doesn't describe anything that might make this presentation stand out from other designers or if it had any effect on clothing trends, e.g. Dior's "New Look" Blue Riband► 02:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 02:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it seems to have had multiple mentions, they are all at the same time (well, over 2 days probably due to slight differences in publishing schedule). I think this sort of thing should start as a section on an article about the line of clothing being showcased and only expanded if it was non-routine (say the venue caught fire because the dresses were all made of parafin and were stacked too close to an incandescent lightbulb). Rockphed (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - coverage is routine for a fashion event - one-time event, no sustained coverage WP:SUSTAINED - Epinoia (talk) 01:00, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Stringer[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this person meets the notability guidelines for authors. The only mentions in reliable sources I can find are things like this, which in no way convey notability. The article is also barely linked from Wikipedia; it was created by a single-purpose account and promoted by another one until I removed it. Note that as mentioned on the talk page, there's another published author with the same name, a therapist, who seems to get many more Google results, at least. Graham87 03:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject currently fails all four criterion in WP:NAUTHOR. Book titles are all linked to 2nd-party sources, while sig cov in reliable 3rd-party sources appears to be nonexistent. StonyBrook (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR - just publishing books is not notable, we need significant converage in reliable sources, reviews, writeups, etc. - Stringer was nominated for a couple or minor awards, but no wins - his publisher, Thomas & Mercer, is an Amazon imprint - none of the biographical information in the article is sourced, no sources to confirm that he is a supporter of Wolverhampton Wanderers or his favorite band is The Replacements - Epinoia (talk) 00:35, 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAM4[edit]

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

Websites/companies/businesses should have significant coverage to be notable, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't think why I had been pinged on this but realised that I had created it. Don't care if deleted or not but if it is restore it to this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:NWEB. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's been the subject of criticism in academic journals and conferences. [25][26][27][28] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above sources - Meets GNG. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of this article does not seem have impacted the world around in way that needs coverage independent of a broader topic. The sources that my esteemed colleague, User:Morbidthoughts, introduced above indeed mention this subject in passing, but they warrant an article on the broader topic (i.e. Porn 2.0), not on CAM4. In the grand scheme of things, CAM4 is just another run-of-the-mill instance. Passing mentions do not make notability. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does notability really require worldwide impact? Also those articles are not passing mentions if you run a translator through them. Yes, it could have been any site that the criticism could have focused on but it was that site. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the phrase "world around them" has the word "world" in it, it is the opposite of "worldwide". The modifier "around them" restricts the phrase.

As for notability, it is a guideline and must be treated with common sense. Imagine this: A western man shook the hand of the Supreme Leader of North Korea. 52 different newspapers wrote about it. Certainly, this man is different from one hundred others who shook the hand of the Supreme Leader of North Korea, but does this man need an article of his own that details his whole life? No. These 52 articles probably mention nothing beyond that single moment of the man's life. Maybe even mentioning him in the article about that certain leader of North Korea does not have due weight. Likewise, these articles are talking about a phenomenon. You have the material. But ask yourself: What can you make with that material? It is important too.

To answer that, let's look at this sample phrase from "Centenas de pessoas online", mas nem tantas: a produção da diferença na pornografia live streaming do cam4.com:

Essedesejo por construir uma relação de intimidadepode justificar, ao menos em parte, a ausência das mulheres negras nessa modalidade de pornografia ao mesmo tempo em que explica o fato de comporem a maioria em outros mercados do sexo: tradicionalmente, elas têm estado fora dos sistemas de parentesco. Carby (1987) explana que enquanto as mulheres brancas foram constituídas como mulheres em sua potencialidade de serem esposas ede serem o canal para a perpetuação do nome do pai –isto é, em sua potencialidade de serem mulheres–, as negras foram constituídas como animais, sem direitos e sexualizadas. No Brasil, Claudete Alves (2010) e Ana Cláudia Lemos Pacheco (2013) têm denunciadoo que elas chamam de solidão da mulher negra, isto é,a forma como as mulheres negras sofrem um tipo de objetificação peculiar que as coloca fora das gramáticas da conjugalidade e do romance e que as mantem no lugar da “outra” e da “disponível sexualmente”. Assim, a mulher com a qual o homem heterossexual quer construir um tipo de intimidade, cuja vida ele quer conhecer para além da sexualidade, cujo prazer importa... essa não é a mulher negra, mas a branca, ainda que o campo seja o da pornografia.

Things like this are a phenomenon. They have been around since mankind has been around. It has nothing specifically to do with CAM4. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Morbidthoughts.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate to do this, but given the relative parity between the two arguments I don't see how it could hurt for me to be Speaker Denison.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge somewhere. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Flowing Dreams. Rockphed (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has gained several notable citations since this discussion began, including industry awards in which it beat or was nominated against contemporaries that have entries that aren't deemed non-notable – such as BongaCams, CamSoda and Chaturbate. Rocklandderek 14:50, 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 merge to Mari Griffith. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Root of the Tudor Rose[edit]

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

Non-notable book. The article relies on self-published source and I couldn't find independent trusted sources beyond a singleWales Online article. Certainly, not enough to establish notability. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found this from Historical Novels Review, that discusses the development of the book, but as it is mainly an author interview, more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mari Griffith. No RS elaborates on the book, AFAICS.Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this article to be deleted. I'll get a photo as soon as I can find one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baraka powys (talk • contribs) 08:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge as suggested (leaving the usual redirect). We cannot have an article on every book, even on those that do well. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It can't hurt to relist this once more to get a better feel.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mari Griffith - agree with User: Peterkingiron. Vorbee (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:NBOOK. The author is marginally notable, so a merge is the best way to get a reasonably-sized article.----Pontificalibus 06:46, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir Helminski[edit]

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

There is zero independent coverage of this individual as far as I can tell. The references cited are almost exclusively books written by the subject. Neither WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per nom. Not much news coverage about the subject. The article tries to assert subject's notability but the subject is a contributor: it's self-promotion. CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Rockphed (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR and alcks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bizim Evin Halleri[edit]

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

The subject doesn't seem to be notable. The article does not cite any sources either and has been like this since at lease 2012. Keivan.f^Talk 22:51, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There might be sources out there in Turkish, but this title doesn't seem to find them. It does find lots of Facebook and IMDB references, but neither of those are reliable. Rockphed (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, nothing to find about this one. Fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (hence WP:TVSERIES as well which requires it). Passing mentions, listings, results for the phrase of the same name that is unrelated to the show, a children's book by Will Gmehling...nothing WP:SIGCOV about the subject comes up. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:49, 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, effectively per WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 02:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No HATE Act[edit]

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

Declined prod based on talk page. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but simply a bill in house committee at the moment. Govtrack gives it a 5% chance of passing. Just another piece of legislation with very little likelihood of long-lasting impact. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Page can be created if and when the bill passes but is WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — MRD2014 (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it passes the letter of the general notability guideline, it appears to me that both of the sources provided inline are WP:ROUTINE and thus not particular to this bill rather than any other bill introduced in Congress. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it has not passed, it is not an Act. Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a proposed act. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is a Bill. It is not an Act of any shape. Uncle G (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete considering that the SPLC has been exposed as a high pressure marketing scheme and has been accused of perpetuating unequal status based on race and sexual harrassment, as well as continually having to walk back its ludicrous accusations involving calling all sorts of individuals hate, we need to stop playing into their marketing scheme, which this article does to a T.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 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 speedy delete G12 (copyvio) by Deb (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Matte[edit]

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

The subject of this article, while described as having achieved notable things while alive (revamping Ethiopia's education system), there is very little online that proves any of these accomplishments. Most of what I can be find related to him is his namesake dorm building at University of Sudbury. KidAd (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC) KidAd (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: passes WP:PROF #6 as president of two universities. St Anselm (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete without prejudice Copyright violation. The text of the article aligns almost word for word with the quoted source. He does seem to have been president of the University of Sudbury and president of the University College of Addis Ababa, which probably satisfies WP:NPROF#6. Rockphed (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted a G12 nomination - for some CSDs just waiting an AfD out is appropriate, but for copyright we should use it, particularly as it would otherwise be 6 days. He is, of course, notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I completely agree that an article on him is completely justified. I just wish I had remembered to grab the listed source before the deletion went through (since it was a decent starting source). In looking things up, I found information on his controversial administration of Addis Adaba University, though I suspect we need to get the sources out of what I found[29]. Rockphed (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.