< 2 January	4 January >

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) 00:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Asimakopoulos[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC notability guidelines. I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Rusf10 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I just added eight reviews of four of his books to the article. That would normally be enough for a clear keep per WP:AUTHOR, but I'm putting it down as a weak keep because three of the reviews and two of the books were edited rather than authored, and two more of the reviews are in the journal he founded. On the other hand, the journal also gives him a plausible case for WP:PROF#C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I believe the weak WP:NAUTHOR case put forth by David Eppstein. In my opinion he does not meet WP:PROF#C8, as the journal does not appear to be major, nor well-established (founded less than 10 years ago). The page was overly promotional, and I did a fair bit of trimming: I invite other editors to oversee what I trimmed and discuss if I have been too aggressive. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Epstein has added reviews of four of his books to the article. The subject passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF Wm335td (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:HEY. For the record, I disagree that he passes the Prof test. Bearian (talk)
Keep agree with Bearian that Asimakopoulos qualifies for notability as an activist, a radical theorist, a shouter, not a scholar.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. FWIW, I am fine with a merger. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Bearian alludes to, see the talk page of the article under discussion for a proposal related to this article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above, it can stay now after the added reviews. Meets WP:HEY - MA Javadi (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mira Angrist[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC and in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources is non-existent. Rusf10 (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a (senior) lecturer rather than regular tenure-track faculty, I would expect her accomplishments to be in teaching rather than research, and that appears to be the case. I can't find any scholarly publications let alone citations to them at a level that would justify WP:PROF#C1. But notability as a teacher is difficult to document in the absence of major awards at the national or international level, and I don't see anything like that here. The claims that she "revolutionized the way Hebrew is taught in Jewish Day Schools" could be a claim of notability, but only with appropriate documentation; the sources we have all appear to be primary. And her administrative position as head of a program is far below the level of head of entire university required to pass WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2020 (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 Rohan (Middle-earth)#People. There is obviously consensus that, one way or another, the article doesn't have the notability to remain. Including the nom's !vote, there is a slight preference for a redirect in this instance - there was viable reasoning for both the "delete" and the "redirect" viewpoints, however part of the delete reasoning (concern about the target's notability) would be better tested by a future AfD of the Rohan article. A relist purely for further consideration of this specific point appears over the top. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Éothéod[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional people group in Tolkien (I've read LOTR many times, Eotheod doesn't ring much of a bell for me, but the article states they are the ancestors of Rohan). Appears to fail GNG. One source at first appeared to reference the Eotheod in more than just passing, EOTHEOD anglo-saxons of the plains: Rohan and de old english culture in JRR Tolkien's The Lord of de Rings It has a Spanish title and abstract, but English text in the version I can find. However, as far as I can tell in the version I could access, Eotheod only appears to be referenced in the title. Fails WP:GNG. Rohan (Middle-earth)#People is a logical redirect target, as the Eotheod is mentioned in the same context as in the article there. Hog Farm (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rohan (Middle-earth)#People The Éothéod are a minor part of Tolkien's legendarium. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rohan (Middle-earth)#Early history, although I have my doubts that even that article should be spared the Afd axe. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are a background echo, not in any way part of any story created by Tolkien.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rohan (Middle-earth)#Early history, it has some kind of encyclopedic information. Alex-h (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Hog Farm and John Pack Lambert.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and per John Pack Lambert. I also have doubts concerning the intended target. Also, "redirect" and "Delete" are both indications that the article does not warrant stand alone status. Otr500 (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to A Congregation of Ghosts. Sandstein 08:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Collicott[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

His only RS comes from a film he made in 2009 called A Congregation of Ghosts (another Wikipedia article which is also an AfD candidate) that got a piece of coverage because Collicott was so old making his first film in The Times. After that, there is very little apart from non-RS blogs and non-RS websites. His late-career seemed to go cold. The BLP was deleted in March 2019 here, but was recreated by the author as the same article; however was declined as a WP:G4 as a "soft-delete". Bringing to the AfD community to (re)-decide. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sustained coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with only one work he does not pass WP:NCREATIVE and this is also a case of WP:BLP1E, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above , he fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG Peter303x (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Congregation of Ghosts. With The Times article, and a Times article about the death of Edward Woodward with some details about how he came to star in the film, info about how Collicott developed the film could be added to that article. The Times article which is already used as a reference here does have info about Collicott's earlier career, which has been deleted from this article (probably because it was written in a promotional way) - but although one/some of his photos appeared in a book called Blitz exposure!: young British photographers, 1980-1987 [1], it does not seem enough to meet any notability guidelines. If he had made a film about Casper the bus-riding cat, it might have been a different story - but unfortunately the cat died. It is possible that readers will search for his name, though, so a redirect to the film he did make would be useful. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of also bringing to AfD, I was going to just redirecting his film A Congregation of Ghosts to the actor Wikipedia page of Edward Woodward, as Woodward's death after acting in the film is the only real mention the film gets in RS (outside of The Times ref in the nom). Britishfinance (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does appear to be the case, so that would mean this article being deleted, unless the film is rediscovered at some point and gets more coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Paylor[edit]

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

non-notable radio host/personality. Praxidicae (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice kid I am sure. Just not notable yet. No secondary sources exist. And even the primary sources are trivial mentions. WP:TOOSOON Wm335td (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the two sources in the article are primary sources. I can find no coverage in independent reliable sources that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of secondary sources. Lorelai1335 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Lorelai1335[reply]
Delete. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a single secondary source found. _SUPER ^ASTIG 05:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything on him, not surprising for someone his age on public radio. Maybe in the future. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Further research discovered it's an auto-biography that was poorly declared. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - generally, we delete articles about DJs as failing WP:MUSICBIO, unless they are a "drive time" DJ in a major media market or have performed in large arenas, either of which are attested by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, none of which exists in this case. I also note that this is a clear WP:AUTOBIO, which could have been excused in 2013 but not in 2020; everybody should know it's against our rules. In fact, consciousness is shown by his wiping out of his user page to erase messages and crumbs of code therein. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - lacks notability, and after looking at page edit history, also agree with above statements that it’s an WP:AUTOBIO with clear but failed attempt to hide that fact (which potentially makes it WP:SPAM). Not impressed. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Poker Tour season 1 results[edit]

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

This list (about an individual poker competition season) has a single citation, The Hendon Mob. While perhaps known among fans, I would hesitate to consider it reliable or connoting notability. The subject fails WP:GNG and this list fails WP:LISTN. WP:TVSERIES would allow a single article about the TV show as it's broadcast widely, but there's no presumption of notability about each single season. There's no presumption of notability from WP:POKER and poker isn't covered by WP:NSPORT. Some of this content could exist at European Poker Tour but much of this info doesn't belong on Wikipedia at present. It's only here now because fans are using this as a webhost. I'm asking for deletion instead of redirect because redirects are costly and too easily hijacked. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all about the same non-notable subject. Many have a single source or no sources at all; some have been tagged for this problem for years which shows that contributors are interested in the content but not in complying to WP:V and WP:N:

Delete Yeah, I'd agree. It's just replication of stats from then hendon mob website. -Koppapa (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The winners (for all seasons) are already listed in European Poker Tour. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KOT (Kenyans On Twitter)[edit]

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

"Kenyans on Twitter" brings up very little other than a generic statement about "kenyans on twitter reacted to blah blah blah" etc...this is not a notable "group." And questionably what we'd consider a "group" and constitutes somewhat of a neologism. Praxidicae (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete per nom, non-notable intersection and non-notable neologism. b uidhe 00:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - an article about Kenyan use of social media could be made, but this isn't it. If somebody knowledgeable about the topic were to fix this, I'd go along with userfying it. Otherwise, delete. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What even is this article? -Splinemath (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per above, Is this considered notable? Peter303x (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slick Aguilar[edit]

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

The article only has a source that does not look to be indepdent of the band he was in. A search for sources brought up only things that cover him in the context of the band he was in . He does not seem to be notable indepdent of the bank and in such cases we just mention in the band article and do not create a seperate article John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a member of multiple notable bands he satisfies WP:NMUSIC, and there are enough sources available, e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], as well as more in books covering him in the context of bands he has been in. --Michig (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources identified above including reliable book sources show a pass of WP:GNG and playing for two notable bands passes WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Jefferson Starship was a huge band. I have added a few additional sources. Peter303x (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2020 (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. Full on pile-on consensus that article subject fails to meet GNG Nosebagbear (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obiora Francis Ike[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability.-Splinemath (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in terms of sourcing that indicates a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone else. A Google search of the subject doesn't show any coverage. The article doesn't cite a single source. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he does exist but he's an ordinary parish priest. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC) P.S. I can't find anything online that he's currently a professor. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Globethics.net has no WP article. Nothing in the article justifies his status as a professor; and I understand Nigeria follows British practice where lecturers are not called professors. I thus see nothing in the article to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2020 (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. The article has now been speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 08:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JT Music[edit]

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

Subjects of article lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence do not satisfy WP:GNG. Furthermore I can't observe them passing WP:ANYBIO as I can’t observe them winning any notable award/awards. References provided in the article are almost all on itunes entries and per our policies this does not count as Reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:NBAND. Theroadislong (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NBAND is not a Speedy deletion reason, and I think there is enough here that A7 does not apply. But I can't say that there is enough to support a keep, or not yet. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:50, 3 January 2020 (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 Punjab Group of Colleges. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab College Kharian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No coverage found in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this was kept in a previous AFD, we will want to see a consensus if anything different is to be done this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this campus article to Punjab Group of Colleges. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D. smith[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSICBIO guidelines, sourced to blogs. Rusf10 (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Currently lacking significant secondary sources, it's impracticable to do any online search for this extremely common name with over 1 million irrelevant Ghits. Ping me if you find anything at all. 19:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Materialscientist (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Qurram Ali[edit]

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

Non-notable vanity spam, with some pretty absurd claims that aren't verified by anything meaningful. Praxidicae (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11. Non-notable student politician. The article creator's username, User:Mir Qurram Ali, and the contents of the page make it pretty clear it's an autobiographical vanity page. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I was in the course of nominating this when Praxidicae did it. My nominating statement was: Apparently an autobiography by a non-notable student. Does not pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Citations are to blogs and one passing mention in a news story. A WP:BEFORE search found only more blogs and a few similar passing mentions, not one source that is independent, reliable, and had significant coverage. Probably WP:TOOSOON for an article about this individual. Was tagged for a speedy as "vanity" but I think there are claims of significance enough to defeat an A7, even if not much likelihood of notability, so I am bringing it here. Note that I have already declined a speedy on this page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable autobiography. I'd say A7, but DESiegel already declined on those grounds. creffett (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable figure, though a speedy is probably unwarranted since he was elected to a minor role. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Non-notable student politician. Article is written by the individual himself. A speedy deletion is needed, preferably G11 as mentioned above. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete yeah, A7 can't be applied. But it could be deleted under WP:SNOW given the comments above. the subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shake Off the World[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Part of long-term wikipedia campaign involving Ethan Levy (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Daniel Levy; admins can see history of that target article and everyone can see history of this AFD'd article to see how this is just another SPA doing the same thing). I'm on the fence about CSD#G11, but also could see CSD#G5, given previous sock puppetry for this walled garden. DMacks (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I first nominated for WP:PROD but didn't know recreated articles were exempt from it. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 19:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched, but the only reliable source I could find was an article [6] in the local newspaper in the town where the film was made.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly needs more evidence of notability. --RaviC (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Boo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, and has been tagged as such for over a decade. Has received airplay on some radio stations apparently, but that isn't enough (no sources in article). It says it was broadcast on 1Xtra, which might meet #11, but no confirmation. Also, as it stands, a biography of a living person with no working references. Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2020 (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 Wolftown Committee. Provided that the target article is kept in AfD, of course. Tone 09:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Late (rapper)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, and has been tagged as such for over a decade. Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delkete per nom, He appeared to be continuously up and coming for five years, two decades ago, then disappeared. A redirect could be made to Wolftown Committee; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolftown Committee. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wolftown Committee provided its kept at its AFD Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 15:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PCGamesN[edit]

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

all references point back to james binns or future which makes me suspicious that the article was produced by a click farm or pcgamesn themselves. linjs to pcgn itself are few and far between from other major sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.98.252.251 (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 16:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references from reliable source per this.-Splinemath (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ @Splinemath's multiple references seem just to be one website (games industry/gamer network - same company - which Binns has links to). all other links are from Binns' former company Future. where are the independent links? imho blatant article using wiki for promotion and seo. im a big gamer in the uk and have never heard of this website until i discovered it on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.98.252.251 (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The site seems fairly popular enough that a Wikipedia stub wouldn't really help advertising. "Never heard of it" is not a valid reason for deletion, or half the articles on Wikipedia would be deleted by now._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PCGamesN seems to just about meet significant coverage: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ "agreed never heard" of it isn't a very good reason but 7 of Spy-cicle's links are from webpages with close relations to Binns so cannot be really independent. I guess keep will prevale and the wikipedia will have another spam article in its ranks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.98.252.251 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck through the "Delete" votes since a nominator cannot vote on their own AfD, much less multiple times. Regardless of whether you think there is some conflict of interest conspiracy here, while we cannot disprove it, you cannot prove it either beyond spouting baseless accusations, so it ultimately amounts to nothing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - outside coverage is enough to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the article is both not notable but is also excessively promotional (whether to the tune of a CSD or WP:DEL#REASON#4 is neither here nor there. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Central Park - Master Planned Community[edit]

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

Cannot see why this is notable; all souces self-published or local (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Suburban subdivisions are not notable. The article only has one reliable source (Houston Business Journal), but the coverage isn't noteworthy. Sounder Bruce 06:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The only argument I can make for keeping this is to keep it around as a poster child for articles which fail WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 07:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. If this isn't spam, I don't know what would be. We are a charity, not a free advertising space for a for-profit housing development for the wealthy in Texas. Created by a SPA, this person knows what they are doing, and has only edited articles about two planned communities in suburbs of the Houston, Texas area, and with primary sources not otherwise publicly available. Even discounting the apparent COI, this fails my long-standing standards for housing developments and our general notability standards for lack of significant coverage. If there were to be a work-site construction accident, that might actually be enough to keep it. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable subdivision and promotional in tone. Ajf773 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM that doesn't look salvageable for notability at all. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This should have been G11'd (as absurdly promotional!) instead of coming to AfD, but as this is about to close, I will not tag it G11 and simply let this delete it. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit Lives Matter[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. None of the sources talk about the foundation of the organization or mention enough details. Some have used this term purely as indicator for advancement of human rights than any organized slogan. The article is purely propaganda piece attempting to gain popularity on the expense of Black lives matter (a clearly notable subject) but Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX or should be used for WP:PROMOTION WalkingDisks (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.WalkingDisks (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WalkingDisks (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:PROMO. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7 independent references. The article is not promotional. It's too short. Rathfelder (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces, blogs mainly discussing a different subject, self-published sources (Lulu, youth ki awaaz) are not "independent sources". WalkingDisks (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: dalit lives matter is not a movement. It gets used as a phrase, or slogan. There are other movements regarding dalits, but this is not a movement. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is not a notable phrase either or else we would be also having Chinese Lives Matter, Indian Lives Matter, Asian Lives Matter since each of them can be backed with a couple of reliable sources though lacking overall GNG just like this subject. WalkingDisks (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

erm... So the brown lives dont matter? Not fair! —usernamekiran(talk) 08:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article claims the subject to be an "international activist movement", but sources confirm it is not a movement, let alone becoming an "international activist movement". Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 16:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you define a movement?Rathfelder (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movement means a coordinated group that is acting on a very specific political issue or ideology. No such 'group' exists here contrary to the false claims of existence made on the article. WalkingDisks (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but with no prejudice to recreation should real life resources and media sources become available. Aman kumar goel is right that it is not an international movement, but wrong that it shows no signs of becoming one. As for the nominator's arguments, let this be deleted for the right reasons. I cannot imagine why Wikipedia would have an interest in concerning itself with the promotion of an agenda by the subject of an article, in the world outside of that article. There is no promotion within the article, nor in its choice of words. Is the nominator attempting to invoke WP:NOTINHERITED? There is no sign of the article seeking to align itself with BLM in any way. The purported movement itself, with its name, yes, but not the article. The problem is that it is not a movement. At this point it is little more than a Facebook meme, as the link in TheList article shows. The Communist Party article confirms this when it says, "there should be" such a movement. It should be a movement, it should have received more coverage, but only one of those things concern Wikipedia and neither of those things are true at this time. Anarchangel (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchangel: Hi. I dont think WalkingDisks is trying to invoke WP:NOTINHERITED. But I think they might be talking about Wikipedia:Other stuff exists or WP:OTHERSTUFF, or maybe both of them. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete "dalit lives matter" is not a movement per the Communist Party article, where it says "there should be" such a movement. If the phrase/slogan "dalit lives matter" had significant coverage, and was notable; then the prose and refs of the article could have been changed accordingly. But the phrase fails general notability guideline too. And unfortunately, as it is not a movement and article stating as such; is factual inaccuracy and can be considered as a hoax even though the article was created out of genuine misunderstanding, and without any bad intentions. Under these circumstances, deletion is the correct call. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable organization and clearly fails WP:GNG as per nom. Abishe (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prabuddha Bharat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sources across internet only discuss Prabuddha Bharata not this non-notable subject. WalkingDisks (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WalkingDisks (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WalkingDisks (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NME. Sources are mainly passing mentions. Bharatiya29 17:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' to B. R. Ambedkar in a new "Journals" subsection. Mention of Janata and Prabuddha Bharat properly belongs there and is supported by the sources cited here. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See nothing here that requires preservation. Tessaracter (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Round Table India[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT, which states that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." But here, sources are too close to the subject or they are outright unreliable or press releases. Others are simply WP:NOTINHERITED such as this source which is basically an interview with several individuals expressing their views about a wider subject. Overall the subject fails WP:NWEB. WalkingDisks (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WalkingDisks (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Website-related deletion discussions. WalkingDisks (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability on its own. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NWEB. Sources have not established the notability of the subject. Bharatiya29 16:54, 5 January 2020 (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 14:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corky Boozé[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL John from Idegon (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has had some regional coverage over the years, but not enough to establish notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician. Richmond is not even a the second most important city in its metro area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most local government officials are not notable, and the article does not make a case that its subject is an exception. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:NPOL. He's a city councilman and has campaigned on some local issues, as a councilman would be expected to do, and has received local press coverage, also to be expected. That's not enough on its own and I can't find any sources which suggest anything which elevates him above thousands of other local politicians. Neiltonks (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject had numerous articles written about him that cover him significantly or in depth in reliable sources that are major publications. Wikipedia is not paper and local sources do count. I remind the closing admin that this is not a vote and to see the references for himself.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
also several rs covering the topic I depth were deleted recently including a long standing city council circus relating to councilwoman beckeks lesbianismNdołkah☆ (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the above user chooses to ignore WP:NPOL doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Repeating the same felicitous arguments over and over do not make them valid. WP:BLUDGEON applies. John from Idegon (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously you choose to ignore that NPOL states "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" and Corky Boozé has been the main subject of many articles in the East Bay Express and San Francisco Chronicle, here is the signifacnt coverage, [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], those are the factsNdołkah☆ (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost all of the coverage is local, and most of it is routine. - MrX 🖋 22:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant that it's local, local sources are still reliable sources, and the coverage is in depth, he is named in the articles themselves. He was also the first black winner of the Winternationals.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely relevant and policy based. It's covered by WP:NOTNEWS #2; WP:POLITICIAN; WP:SIGCOV; and WP:SOAPBOX #3: "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."[24]. - Mr X 🖋 22:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that's also irrelevant here as this article isn't an attack on anyonethe only person that ever got attacked was jovanka by corky but that's not even in the article!Ndołkah☆ (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus that a handful of local coverage in the local media is not, in and of itself, enough to hand a city councillor a WP:GNG pass. Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus that city councillors are not all inherently notable enough for inclusion here — the notability test that a city councillor has to pass, to warrant a Wikipedia article, has always been that they're significantly more notable than the norm for that level of political office, by virtue of being able to show things such as nationalized prominence and/or a really deep and detailed and very highly sourced dive into their political importance, either way going well beyond just what every city councillor on earth could always show. If all you had to do to exempt a city councillor from having to clear that bar was show a small handful of purely local coverage in their own city's local media, then every city councillor in every city on earth would always get that exemption and the actual inclusion bar would never apply to anybody at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perennial candidate, which have tended to keep. This guy ran 10 times. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't really pass WP:GNG/WP:NOTNEWS, and definitively fails WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 01:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does he not pass the GNG, are the SF Chronicle and East Bay Times not reliable sources? Are there not numerous articles cited about that cover the subject in depth?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to relist for more in depth concensus, as many are ignoring the sources.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The project has a longstanding consensus that local coverage for city councillors, especially city councillors for small municipalities, need to demonstrate a level of coverage beyond what any city councillor would normally receive. There are at most two good articles here, and one of them, the East Bay article, is pretty much an interview with the man himself as opposed to in depth discussion of his political career. I understand you want this kept, but in terms of notability, I think this this is a long ways off from being kept. SportingFlyer T·C 08:56, 8 January 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zaku (video game)[edit]

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

For a long time now I don't think this article has ever passed WP:GNG and I don't think it's going too. The game was released 12 years after Atari stopped supporting the Lynx by an independent group. It's so niche I highly doubt there will be enough sourcing out there for GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Lynx was discontinued in 1995, and this game came out 14 years after. Now granted, some games made well after a console was discontinued have the potential to be notable, but not this. If you take away the unreliable sources, then there's no references left. When a video game article has nothing for "reception", that's a bad sign. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 14:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep With the now provided expansion, the AfD is moot as the article is now well built and sourced. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 04:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've planned to work on this article for a very long time and there ARE sources out there with information about the game, which i plan to introduce them right now. So, in my honest opinion, this page must be kept... Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With almost nothing in the way of reception or really any sources, this page easily fails the notability criteria. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game looks like its gotten a significant amount of coverage. The work that has been done on the article recently has improved it steadily. They need to keep working on it obviously, but they deserve the benefit of the doubt. And any game that gets published on a dead console is pretty damn notable to me. Bluedude588 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We have articles for games that were cancelled that are more notable than this. Nothing on MobyGames or the Internet Archive that I was able to find on this, and barely anything in the case of reviews aside from some unreliable/questionable publications. There's no "significant coverage" to be found here. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering just how much the article has been improved over the past few days, it appears as if you were wrong. That more than satisfies what is needed for "significant coverage". Bluedude588 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why did Game Developer magazine cover it then...(1)? Just sayin' :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know. You tell me. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 01:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the sources KGRAMR added help this just barely nudge passed the basic notability requirements. JOE BRO 64 23:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since KGRAMR has been able to provide a variety of somewhat reliable sources to the article demonstrating its coverage and hence its notability. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, KGRAMR added many sources. It is pretty unusual for games to be released for dead consoles, that only adds notability not detracts. --Duke of Chaos (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Admittedly, a lot of the notability comes from the novelty of the timing. (2009 is too late for a Lynx release, but too soon for the modern fad of releasing retro-games.) But there's some solid sources here. Particularly, the GDM mention. Which is brief, but in a game industry trade publication, so that lends some weight to it. The coverage on GameSetWatch and Destructoid are also reasonably solid. ApLundell (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. A game was created for an obsolete game console. WP:PRESERVE. Wm335td (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2020 (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 14:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pTools[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/pTools (2nd nomination)

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

Article on non-notable company which has been deleted three-times as vanispamcruftisement. And has been repreatedly recreated without any material change in the content or the underlying notability status. The article is still largely spam, the subject still non-notable, and the article still meets the relevant deletion criteria.

Specifically:

WP:G4/WP:G11/WP:PROMO. Similar articles on the same subject have been deleted (at least 3 times under this title) as promotional content relating to a non-notable subject. The first deletion was in Sep 2006 and followed this AfD discussion. The second and third deletions were in Oct 2014 and followed concerns on overt promotion. The article was recreated each time. Substantively containing the same promotional content and tone as before. While much of the overtly promotional content has been incrementally removed over the years, the underlying intent was promotional. And the remaining "stub" stands only to serve that purpose. (It doesn't help that the article's creator is an SPA [and almost certainly COI or PAID) user.)
WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG. There is no indication that the subject meets the general notability guideline. As part of a WP:BEFORE exercise I went looking for reliable/independent sources which cover the subject in depth. Focusing primarily, given the subject's location, on the newspapers of record in Ireland. Namely the Irish Times and Irish Independent. In the archives of the Irish Times, I found just 11 news articles which mention the subject. Of these, the majority are trivial/passing mentions where the subject is not the primary topic. And so these are not contributory to SIGCOV. Of the 11, while perhaps 2 or 3 relate to the subject directly, these are all substantively "press releases republished as news" type business churnalism. Like this and this. However, this coverage is substantively NOT "independent of the subject", and hence also not contributory. (And, frankly, even if these 2 pieces were entirely independent of the subject, 2 pieces of short coverage doesn't equate to "significant coverage".) The same is true for the Irish Independent, where there are just 4 news articles, and only 1 of which deals with the subject as its primary topic. This piece. Where, again, we find a very short interview with the company's founder, and is therefore another example of coverage which is not independent of the subject.
WP:NCORP. This is small company which had perhaps 20 employees around the time of the article's creation, and has maybe twice that number now. There is no indication that it (or its products) have had sufficient coverage or impact to warrant recreation of previously deleted promotional material.

TLDR version: This article is recreated promotional content on a non-notable (30 person?) company that has received no material/significant coverage which is independent of the subject. Guliolopez (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons listed above. Ideally it will be WP:SALTed when it comes back into the new page reviewer queue. Citrivescence (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2020 (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 Speedily Deleted by DGG. (non-admin closure) James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olarinde Olayemi Ayanfeoluwa[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. In the references provided, one of them is a tweet from twitter and the other shows her being nominated for a non notable award. A BEFORE I conducted shows no evidence of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is actual promotional gibberish. Praxidicae (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for insufficient notability, insufficient sources found.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11 Promotional is an understatement. It is irrecoverably down the drain, and G11 is the only option. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 15:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet criteria for WP:NARTIST. An online search brought up social media hits and insignificant coverage, definitely not enough to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for promotion. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Wheels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about a small local charity. All the refs indicate only local coverage. Therefore I don’t believe it meets the notability criteria for inclusion. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only coverage appears to be from local sources only. Searching for additional sources only brings up the same small handful of local sources, and nothing further. Rorshacma (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Half Waif[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the seven reliable sources already contained in the article, the subject has a biography at AllMusic. Meets WP:MUSICBIO through multiple, independent coverage in reliable sources. — sparklism ^hey! 13:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some other reliable sources found through a quick Google search: 1, 2, 3, 4. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 13:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge AllMusic is not a reliable source. Delete and merge with Pinegrove (band).-Splinemath (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree AllMusic is not a reliable source, that was not the only source presented in the keep vote above. Andise1 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Allmusic is long established as a reliable source, since it has a large roster of professional writers and publishes books on music. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources states that "Biography/reviews prose are reliable, but do not use genre sidebar, as it is generated from a separate source from the prose" and I think this is now generally accepted as our standard. There are a couple of discussions linked from that page which show the consensus on this. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 13:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the article creator but think the subject is notable enough on their own. Plenty of sources out there on the subject, including a whole Pitchfork feature which is included in the article. There is also another full feature on the subject from Stereogum [25]. The subject has shown independent notability outside of Pinegrove. Andise1 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is SIGCOV in the article and sparklism has found more. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sparklism and Andise1. Multiple pieces of significant coverage exist; subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 03:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has coverage in seven reliable sources so easily passes WP:GNG, AllMusic is a reliable source and a Pitchfork feature is significant, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN College Basketball broadcast teams[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN, broadcast teams are not notable enough to stand apart from a list of broadcasters (which has an article already: List of ESPN College Basketball personalities). Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The List of ESPN College Basketball personalities is a different list that does not contain the Basketball broadcast teams. Teams on ESPN meet the General notability guideline.--23mason (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Its a valid list. You can also merge the two list together. The way this one is arranged is far more useful for sorting information. Dream Focus 20:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft and the entire topic (broadcaster teams through history) isn't discussed significantly be reliable sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN with insufficient coverage in independent source of the specific team assignments. This is suitable for Fandom (website). I don't recommend a merge; it's verifiable, but the WP:ONUS is on proponents to demonstrate that it's encyclopedic and not trivial.—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid and useful list which does contain some independent references although the variety of reference sources could be expanded. Also the list is starting to become rather long so a good improvement would be to find a way to shorten the article whilst retaining the information provided. Rillington (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Way too specific to warrant a list: too close to the "one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" level. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NLIST useful for navigation and information. RS exists Lightburst (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: Do you find it independently notable from List of ESPN College Basketball personalities? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is teams, yes. However a merge can be appropriate if it will not make the target list too unwieldy. Lightburst (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lansing Daily[edit]

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

Non-notable daily newspaper in Lansing, Michigan; doesn't seem like there are any secondary sources at all. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 08:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 08:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 08:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lansing Daily is published on Google News and other sources.

Do “site:LansingDaily.com” and navigate to the News section on Google. Like I said, the publication is going to be added to furthermore news directories and will be added to national news directories as heard from public discussion. The publication is part of the media list at the AGs office in Lansing, Michigan. Davisbro3812712 (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Google News indexes lots of publications that aren't notable e.g. coloradohockeynow.com, euroexchangeratenews.co.uk, infostreetwire.com. ----Pontificalibus 12:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG failure; two months of on-and-off publishing is not enough to establish WP:N here, and it's very doubtful they've even had half of 20,000 read this website in aggregate yet, much less weekly. Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From searches the OCLC has published Lansing Daily on their directory. https://www.worldcat.org/registry/Institutions/265072 Davisbro3812712 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A local newspaper that has been around on-and-off for 2 months definitely fails any notability requirement. —Notorious4life (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to Notorious4life, the newspaper has been continuously been making articles since they came back as expressed in the article. They have been doing articles every day. - Davisbro3812712 (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trident Media Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY, with no independent media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom. Such spam should got to speedy first, prod second, here last though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A company does not inherit notability by intermediating for prominent writers or their estates. Such coverage that I could find confirms this to be a company going about its business but I am not seeing evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2020 (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) 06:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John H.White, PhD[edit]

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

I can't find anything on him besides having published some papers, like pretty much any academic. In a cursory review none of them even had him as the first author. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ Delete. I can't see a pass of WP:Prof. Not sure about WP:Author. I always have suspicions about people styled as Dr or Prof as the genuine articles don't do that. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing really written about him in reliable secondary sources, and the article is written in a very promotional and personal tone.Citing (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's notability, the article doesn't make the case for it. Regarding the question of NAUTHOR, his book is published by Linus Learning, which appears to be a vanity publisher. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here suggests a pass of WP:PROF or other notability criterion. There's a brief puff piece on him in [26] and other newspapers, on his role as a technical advisor to some tv shows, but it's not in-depth enough to count for notability and anyway it's only one piece. I couldn't find any reviews of the book (more important than whether it was published in the traditional model or self-published). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to have garnered coverage from any real secondary reliable sources. Written by an SPA so could easily be an attempt at profile boosting. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Offhand, I can't recall a time when an article that stuck the doctorate in the title actually deserved to be kept. XOR'easter (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be a huge mess, about non-notable teacher and police officer. There's a dearth of coverage about him. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and WP:SALT. RL0919 (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Cohen Banker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCREATIVE same as last time, re-created by sockfarm. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, I cannot find a single reliable source. All coverage, if you can call it that, seems to be of the user-generated variety. Does not come close to WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per above. – DarkGlow (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. The "book" Amy Banker Now sounded promising but turns out to be an exhibition catalogue published by the gallery, not substantial enough to have been given an isbn - see Worldcat. PamD 12:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the publication by Janos Gat Gallery is more advert and not a monograph for notability considerations. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are insufficient to support notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above rationale. Artist is not notable, sufficient sources do not exist. Netherzone (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt clear GNG fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2020 (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. Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad Model College[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of a great number of similar articles sent to AfD by the nom. in the scope of WP:WPSCH that now fall foul of a falling of a RFC in 2017 that schools are no longer notabilty. That said they are mostly poor quality stubs. (Nom. seems to create similar quality also: e.g.: Islamabad Convent School ). Any this particular article refers to a range of schools for which WP:RS seem to exist, for example see the news link above, and needs more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination to every case. Is anyone looking at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for these. Anyway this one (Islamabad Model College) should be a keep due to potential sources. Thankyou.86.158.216.81 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Club DeLuxe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources that are not self-published do not establish that the subject meets the criteria in the general notability guideline causa sui (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. causa sui (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient refs for this to pass WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parham Alizadeh[edit]

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

No indication he passes NMUSIC or GNG. No independent quality sources sources could be found. PK650 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteinsufficient notability, insufficient sources.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2020 (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 The Gods of Pegāna#Mana-Yood-Sushai. Redirect restored; previous edits were not deleted so the content is still stored in the history; however any future recreation of the article will need to address the issues raised in this AFD. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mana-Yood-Sushai[edit]

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

Nonsense page about non-notable fictional character; apparently I must "take it to AfD" instead of tag for improvement. But it's unsourced with no content of use or note, and should really go. Kingsif (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why nonsense? The quotations are from a book that sold well in its day, and still sells today, and Dunsany's work is hailed as key to the foundation of one of the top-selling areas of literature today. 192.176.1.80 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect I redirected this article to The Gods of Pegāna#Mana-Yood-Sushai a week ago. I am greatly displeased that we have to discuss it here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because editors who otherwise wouldn't be able to create a page insist on making really bad pages out of new redirects. Removing the page entirely is probably easier. That book page is the only other reference to the character - if people were to search for it, they'd end up there anyway. Kingsif (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not discuss? Is that not how Wikis work? 80.233.47.229 (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to prevent fighting over it. Non-notable character that has a chance in hell to become a spinout one day. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect and trout the nominator. There's a substantial amount of scholarly work and critical commentary about Dunsany and his cosmologies, and even the most cursory review of Google Scholar indicates that there's a critical mass of such material to base an article on. But the esisting article is just a few lumps of directly quoted PD text, not terribly useful. The main source of disruption here is the nominator, who has twice labelled an article about a fictional character a hoax and described an article that is expressly primary-sourced as unsourced. They badly need to review what they're and stop wasting other editors' time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, would you kindly not sling personal attacks my way. Good evening and goodbye. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were no more of a personal attack than your comments about editors "making really bad pages." Would you kindly edit competently and in conformity with applicable policies? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For those who read, and only occasionally edit, I can only say "Trout away," as it is plainly false to label this content as hoax material, it's quite real, and has been sold and read in large volume. I am sure a better article can be made, so why not do so? 192.176.1.80 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Redirect with Potential: pending more scholarly input. 80.233.47.229 (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect. It's not an acceptable page, but if there's an appropriate place to redirect to, then it should clearly go there. That would provide the most benefit to the reader who's looking for information about the subject. Kingsif's rationale for removing the redirect -- that editors would be able to create a bad page out of the redirect -- is a crystal ball prediction. If someone creates another page about Mana-Yood-Sushai, good or bad, then we can look at it and take appropriate action at that time. Toughpigs (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve - as there is clear feeling visible that an "acceptable page" could be made, why not do that, instead of dumping the content. As a complete amateur, I already put in place a better structure for the article, using the quotations, and then offering two logical further headings. And Wikipedia must have experts on the popular field of Fantasy fiction. 192.176.1.80 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2020 (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) 06:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Balac[edit]

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

Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG Hack (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is clearly well-referenced and meets CRIN. If you have a problem with the sources, please say so elsewhere. Article has been cleaned up since the PROD tag was placed with suitable references, if you have a problem with these references, AfD is not the place to complain. Bobo . 10:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First-class cricketer, meets WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tend towards Redirect to List of Warwickshire County Cricket Club players. The player technically meets CRIN, yes. But the circumstances appear unusual here: essentially he appears to have been a Warwickshire player for a very short period of time - all three of his matches for the Second XI were played between 11 June and early July, as was his sole first-class match, essentially as a guest filling in for other players in a non-competitive match. I'm fairly certain he never signed a professional contract for example. That doesn't give me hope that we're going to find a great deal of additional coverage other than what is currently in the article: which is made up of information culled from data sources and from routine, passing references in news articles about his one first-class appearance.

In otherwise, this case is much more nuanced. It is not straightforward at all in my view.

In these circumstances my general feeling is that it's unlikely we'll find much more in the way of coverage of him. My one hope is that there's a photograph on CricketArchive of him, so it's possible that there may have been a match guide produced in July 2008 that will give us something more in depth - i.e. something other than purely passing references or statistics. If Warwickshire produce a year guide then there may be something in the 2009 edition of that - although I'm far from convinced that there will be.

So, on the grounds that there are no in depth sources likely to be available to show notability in this case, I think for now I'd be happier with redirecting the article - personally, I'd add a footnote to his entry on the Warwickshire list. I appreciate that this is a little more complex argument, but I don't believe this is a simple case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The amount of appearances in FC cricket may be less but meets WP:GNG in accordance with WP Cricket. Abishe (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2020 (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) 06:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beregond and Bergil[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional characters. They fails GNG because the only references to them in reliable secondary sources are in passing. Possible redirect target to The Return of the King#Book V: The War of the Ring as the two are mentioned there. Hog Farm (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Return of the King#Book V: The War of the Ring Honestly, they are not even notable from an in-universe perspective. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable minor characters in a work of fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor characters of interest only to Pippinites (are there any?). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very minor characters.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2020 (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) 05:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huor[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. All references in reliable secondary sources are in passing, and usually about Earendil was the son of Huor. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Huor has not been meaningfully discussed by journalists or scholars. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even remotely close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a minor character in a minor work.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2020 (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) 05:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest serving United States senator[edit]

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

This data has only a single primary source. However, even if the data were thoroughly verified, there is no evidence that "earliest serving United States senator" is a notable topic. The data seems too WP:INDISCRIMINATE for Wikipedia. I am also nominating the following analogous page for the same reasons:

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

BenKuykendall (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not-notable. Not all trivia deserves a list. —GoldRingChip 13:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page isn't simply about the "earliest serving United States senator" but to be accurate should properly be entitled using the description from the lead as List of the earliest serving United States senators among those currently living (sitting or former) and a list of those who at the time of their deaths had served at the earliest date among those current or former senators then living which just highlights how obtuse the premise of this article is.----Pontificalibus 15:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis, and a fork of Seniority in the United States Senate. See also my deletion comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earliest living former members of the Australian House of Representatives. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2020 (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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-Chi's Europe[edit]

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

Merge relevant information to Chi-Chi's. Don't see how this merits a stand-alone page. Loksmythe (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Loksmythe (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2020 (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) 05:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Neitz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jay Neitz

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

This is not a biography of Jay Neitz; rather, it appears to be a running commentary of ophthalmologic evidence presented by Jay Neitz. 332dash (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Thanks to the very nice work by Russ Woodroofe, I have no further basis to call for deletion of this biography. - 332dash (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. He appears to pass WP:PROF#C1 at least, but nothing in the article is salvageable. It was created in 2009 as a foundational copyvio of https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090916133521.htm and when the copyvio was finally discovered in 2011 the solution was to cut it down to what we see here. But it's not a Wikipedia article and can't be made into one more easily than just throwing the whole thing away and starting over. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and per WP:HEY. This is essentially a freshly-written new article, so I think the rationale for deletion is now moot. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am sympathetic to the WP:TNT case, but I think that the mess that's there can be cut down to a crisp, useful paragraph. Meanwhile, he's a clear pass of WP:NPROF C1, and I think the Bishop professorship probably meets C5. I'll try and take a look at fixing + expanding over the next day or three. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His wife Maureen Neitz also looks notable, and perhaps an enterprising Women in Red editor might be interested. I've finished a first pass at the article now, and hope that it looks better. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. He meets WP:PROF#C1 at the least, and the concerns about the article in its nominated form now appear obsolete. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Russ Woodroofe. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2020 (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) 05:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dasha Nekrasova[edit]

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

This article is self-promotional and self-aggrandizing; notability standards make this article unfitting. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - maybe not quite notable enough as an actor alone but with the media her podcast and the acting seems notable. Winterborn (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I mean I want to say speedy delete, but it probably doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. WP:SOAPBOX seems to be the appropriate rationale here.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, subject has significant coverage in several reliable sources (The Cut, The New York Times, The New Yorker, Hollywood Reporter etc.) thus meeting general notability criteria and notability criteria for actors. Pinchofhope (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG with multiple in-depth sources such as The Cut ([27] and [28]), The Times, Teen Vogue and Vice. The coverage is not just about the Infowars interview, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Don't see signs of WP:SOAPBOX (but it has been fixed up since that comment). Achaea (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2020 (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) 06:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AmCham Finland[edit]

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

Small non-profit, article written mostly by SPAs, no references, searching turns up some minor mentions but not sig cov for WP:NORG MB 01:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MB 01:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MB 01:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are Amcham chapters in almost all countries. They should either be merged together or only the major ones should have their own Wiki sites. Topjur02 (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Amcham article; that is a redirect to United States Chamber of Commerce which only mentioned it in passing while discussing possible campaign finance violations ("Chamber's international branches, "AmChams",...") MB 05:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ORG. WP:ORG says: "An organization is not notable merely because notable persons are associated with it. An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." There are no independent external sources on this wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019nomos (talk • contribs) 05:14, 6 January 2020 (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) 06:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A-ra-shi: Reborn[edit]

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

not at all my subject, but I don't see any indication of notability except youtube views. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly high charting on Billboard Japan Hot 100 (No. 2) so meets WP:NSONG, particularly if it peaks at No. 1, and has a lot of minor coverage so might also meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Song just started to chart (was released late December). I added 2 links to charts where it says that it charted in the top 3. SugaShikaoFans (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the song is currently the second biggest song of an entire nation. What more of a notability indicator were you looking for? Sergecross73 msg me 03:16, 4 January 2020 (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 Page has already been speedy deleted by an administrator. Nothing more to do here (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baha Alzalg[edit]

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

The only biographical sources available for this associate professor are associated ones: social media, biographies hosted by his employing universities, etc. I've looked and I haven't found anything else. Doesn't appear to meet either WP:GNG or any of the criteria in WP:NPROF. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations too low [29] for WP:PROF#C1, and although mathematics is a low-citation field mathematical optimization (his subfield) is not as much of one. Department chair is too low of an administrative position for #C8 (which should only be for heads of entire universities). No other form of notability apparent. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The thing that I dislike the most about this is that it was entirely written by the person the article is about using their own sources, which makes the WP:GNG "independent of the subject" invalid. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
!Vote to close. The page has been WP:G7ed. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2020 (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.