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.
Once again a DEPROD of the Editor Andrew Davidson (the 5th in the last 3 days) w/o explaining why nor informing the PRODer - WP:BEFORE does not give any source establishing notability per WP:BIOCommanderWaterford (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a major VW designer and now head of design at Audi, the subject has designed about 100 cars, and so they pass WP:ARCHITECT. There's a correspondingly large amount of coverage in the motoring press. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scot. I...understand the frustration demonstrated by the OP, but have discussed with them elsewhere that complaining "PROD is a broken process" is often not backed up by actual demonstration of PROD being a broken process. Vaticidalprophet 19:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently, actively in the process of going through open AfDs and responding to interesting ones, which is something I do all the time. It is entirely irrelevant to you. Vaticidalprophet 20:01, 24 March 2021 (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.
Once again a DEPROD of the Editor Andrew Davidson (the 4th in the last 3 days) w/o explaining why nor informing the PRODer - anyway: WP:BEFORE does not establishing notability per WP:BIO, was once chief of the german Patent Office, not listed as recipient of the "Bundesverdienstkreuz" CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:JUDGE as he held a national position, being head of the German Patent Office for nearly 20 years. Note also that the German Wikipedia has an equivalent article. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As he passes WP:JUDGE #1 several times over for being on the Federal Patent Court, the Federal Court of Justice and then the President of the German Patent Office. Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide officeScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2021 (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.
BLP of a party functionary. Sources do not establish notability under WP:NPOL or under any other notability guideline. Mccapra (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2021 (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.
Redirect to Scottish Labour: Searches find occasional announcement-based coverage about changes of office bearers ([1]) but that is insufficient for WP:ORGDEPTH and I am not seeing evidence that this youth wing has attained notability. It is mentioned in both the Scottish Labour and Young Labour (UK) articles, either of which might be a redirect target; I am leaning towards the former. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scottish Labour as the article can't be a standalone article owing to its non notable character. Iflaq(talk) 10:55, 30 March 2021 (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.
See Talk. Not notable. RobP (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator per my comment on the talk page: The Australian and the Guardian are both quite confidently RS. I strongly doubt the HuffPo piece is a press release, considering it's tearing him apart. The Independent and Esquire are both falling for him, which, you know, is what it is, but are high-profile enough that if they're falling for him it's worth noting. He's also had a few different TV shows/specials on respectable/'respectable' channels, so someone is apparently paying attention to him. Vaticidalprophet 22:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Talk - a few of the current sources would be fine ... IF ... there were other sources that proved notability first. Sgerbic (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such as...the ones right there? We've got 'high-profile newspapers that think he's actually got a leg to stand on', 'high-profile and mostly less tabloidy newspapers that are damn well sure he doesn't', 'confirmation guy had a show that was a big/controversial deal' (I suspect this may be lost in the cultural barrier between America and the UK, in that it's probably easy for an American not to realize that someone claiming/pretending to have talked to the ghost of Princess Diana is basically going to draw half the Commonwealth's attention), and 'confirmation guy had a different show with the BBC, albeit not exactly the most prominent bit of it'. Pretty clear GNG pass. I suspect the cultural barrier is proving an issue here with regards to the sourcing, as many of the RSes aren't household names in the US. Vaticidalprophet 22:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rp2006 has just, in violation of WP:V, removed several sources from the article for being paywalled or not in English, so checking the article at this time would give the impression of fewer sources than it has. Vaticidalprophet 03:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I object to your interpretation of WP:V, as stated on Talk. There is no reason for the author to not use accessible sources in thsi case if possible. RobP (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And as stated on talk, your interpretation of WP:V goes against every consistent interpretation of it throughout more or less all of the project's history, not to mention would throw the article out of NPOV by removing a source that describes how he changes his soi-disant predictions on the fly. Vaticidalprophet 03:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And as I stated on Talk... I just have to trust you on that being in the firewalled reference, I guess. RobP (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Independent (article entirely about the subject), Esquire (short blurb, but all about him), Leicester Mercury (entirely about him), HuffPost (entirely about him), The Australian (non-trivial coverage), The Guardian (non-trivial coverage). His predictions appearing in the The Spectator and The Atlantic further contribute to his notability. Overall, there is more than enough coverage for GNG. — Goszei (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I may not like him, or psychics in general, but this guy clearly meets the threshold of notability: significant coverage in independent sources, as shown above. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The nom seems to believe that what they are doing is helping Wikipedia. but I find it remarkable that an experienced WPedian would think that paywalled sources are not reliable sources, and even more remarkable that they should think removing such sources during an AfD is acceptable. We must write, carefully, about claimed psychics and the like in order for the public to have accurate NPOV information on them. I urge some other admit to join in a speedy close. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the sources, and Kncny11's analysis above, there are plenty of different RS's which are used in the article and contain non-trivial coverage. The nominator may be acting in good faith, but when WP:V states that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source, this means some other person can verify the info. It does not have to be everyone, all the time, as is implied here. A source behind a paywall (which the nominator has erroneously called a "firewall") can still be verified easily by anyone with the ability to bypass the paywall, which depending on the website can easily be bypassed. As for sources in other languages, I don't see why they can't be allowed if that is the most authoritative reliable source for the information, and no English variant exists. Epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I want to note here that Rp2006 does not appear to understand the words "when available" when he quotes WP:NOENG. I find this bizarre for a member of the 15 Year Club. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An addendum. On reviewing the talk page, I suspect Rp2006 does not understand WP:V whatsoever. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has coverage on four continents, and I suspect if I did a deep search, there would be coverage in all of them. scope_creepTalk 12:17, 29 March 2021 (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.
Most of the sources in the article are about the individual artists who play in this music collective, not about the collective itself. The sourcing for the collective is very sparse and does not establish notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create
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.
Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. The only inline reference is a legal notice for anyone having a claim on Burn's estate on his death. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2021 (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 19:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor and/or filmmaker credited with only two recent films. The sources cited only include passing mentions, in the context of a film release (and are worded similarly, suggesting they may be based on the same press release). Fails WP:GNG / WP:FILMMAKER. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The film choran is and indirect story telling of a controversial crime happened in Kerala named Abhaya Case. So I searched about the movie and the actor name. But there is an another athlete named praveen rana and on social media it is confused, some reports the hero with the picture of athlete. So I tried and i think there are some more references about the actor. HE is not only the actor but also director, producer and a business man. Insted of deleting the article, could anyone please help me to improve the article. Ambili123 (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed deletion on notability grounds. If you can find multiple, reliable, independent sources with significant enough coverage of the person, not their works or other associated subjects, to establish notability, then please cite them; that isn't the only improvement the article needs, but it is by far the most urgent one. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteI found another one [2] but still not very strong. There is no reception of his work by any reputed media. Perhaps WP:TOOSOONNomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's like the other sources, though — it's about the movie, not the person; and the phraseology is again similar so probably based on the same press release. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 20:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Already there are some more links and also one more user supported article. Keep the article Ambili123 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom: The primary coverage of the sources are about the movie and not about the subject. They are just trivial mentions about the person. Fails GNG as well as FILMMAKER. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 17:54, 26 March 2021 (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.
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Aside from a paragraph in a source which I'm not sure if it is an RS (and anyways is not significant coverage), there is no coverage of the subject.JavaHurricane 08:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there may be some coverage in offline sources too that I'm not aware of. Can someone try to find any offline coverage? JavaHurricane 08:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And verily so. Striking, and thanks to Andrew for finding sources! Hope he can improve the page. JavaHurricane 16:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, didn't receive the ping (I've turned them off due to LTA abuse) but I'm watching the page, will monitor. Thanks. JavaHurricane 06:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a toy from the 1970s, prior to the Internet. I'm not familiar with it myself but there's a reasonable account here. There's coverage in the trade press of the time such as Television/Radio Age and Toy & Hobby World. And now there is naturally retrospective coverage in sources such as Toys, Games, and Action Figure Collectibles of the 1970s; Cavalcade of Dolls and What's Real in Packaging? The worst case would be merger to Schaper Toys and so, per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, there is no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Television/Radio Age - you did not provide a link and I failed to find anything that provides even a snippet view. WP:GOOGLEHITS "findings" are useless as they may be simple advertisements
Toy & Hobby World - No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in [3]. Snippet view gives us a half-sentence that reads " Company's prodbet manager , Mark Ellis , advises that Super Jock advertising...". Anyway, the identifiable subject is not the toy but its advertising campaign.
Cavalcade of Dolls and What's Real in Packaging? I can't even locate this source, since Andrew like usual didn't bother to provide links. Maybe it is a subtitle of the ebook mentioned above. Shrug. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Schaper Toys. Subject lacks SIGCOV, as Piotrus details above and no need to repeat. There is no properly sourced content for a merge from this article. If someone wishes to create properly sourced content and then add it to Schaper Toys they can, but there is none in the article or above. // Timothy :: talk 03:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all the issues of TV/Radio Age that World Radio History has and found no coverage. However, I do note that Superjock (no space), sometimes rendered Super Jock, would be a plausible redirect to Larry Lujack. There's also some coverage of a "Super Jock" mechanical horse racing jockey from 1987. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
World Radio History's run is incomplete. Television/Radio Age was bi-weekly but they only have one issue for 1976 which is when there was some coverage (Volume 23 page 82). Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 20:13, 23 March 2021 (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.
Delete as an unsourced essay offering a personal perspective on a topic. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reason stated by Mccapra. This could be a suitable topic for an article; I note that there is an academic journal called "Long Range Planning." However, given the complete absence of sources in the existing article, it seems to me that it would would be better for such an article to be started from scratch. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable topic --Devokewater 17:27, 30 March 2021 (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. JGHowes talk 01:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Cancer kids/mums/brides may be of interest to the tabloid media, but they're not notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia in their own right. Yes, there are some RSs which cover her but they do not indicate notability, just a tragic case of somebody who is sick and has received media attention in the process. Doesn't have a page on her native language Wiki and the first results which come up on Google are actually her socials – Instagram and LinkedIn. I think that just about summarises the lack of notability here. --Jkaharper (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a leukemia patient is not in itself notable. If she was an established writer of broad experience and depth, she might be considered notable in that respect, but her writing credentials are sadly slim and focus on her battle with the disease. Blanket coverage by the media, as ever, is not a sign of automatic notability. Ref(chew)(do) 19:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shee meets WP:GNG, with coverage of her in the main national Dutch news sources, also before her death. Could be expanded easily (6440 hits at Google News). She is also a writer of a bestseller book. I don't know other examples where a person with cancer had such broad coverage in the media and who also had something notable as a bestseller book. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The vast majority of those Google News hits are about Melissa Kremer, a senior executive of Target Corporation, who is a totally different person altogether. --Jkaharper (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You keep mentioning the cancer/leukemia, as if it's some badge of notability. It just is not. It's an unfortunate and disastrous life event which happens to way too many people - and the vast majority of those people do not inhabit the pages of Wikipedia by way of article. If they do, they have something more tangible in their résumés or their life accomplishments. Ref(chew)(do) 20:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the strikethrough. User:Rusted AutoParts did NOT !vote twice. He shared some thoughts about my opinion. I will add indent to that comment, so this error is not made twice. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, though I eco GhostDestroyer100's sentiments. Subject still seems to fail WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it may need to be improved. Being a leukemia patient does not make anyone notable, but writing a best selling book and a frequently visited blog about her illness does make her notable. And that notability is why her sad passing was covered in reliable media. 2001:1C00:180D:8D00:D8AA:F81F:8206:CDEE (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Thousands of people who do not have Wiki pages have had a "best" selling book of some degree. The question is, what does "best" selling mean? Top 200? Top 500? Best selling on Amazon in the Netherlands on one particular day? It hasn't been properly defined, and unless somebody can provide reasonable evidence to this claim, it remains the case that she's clearly not notable enough for her own page. --Jkaharper (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Thousands of people who do not have Wiki pages have had a "best" selling book of some degree." Isn't this an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? Argumentation here should be about the author, not about potential other people and their notability! Such distractions often attempt to hide a lack of a case. gidonb (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author easily passes the WP:GNG. All delete opinions here fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT and should be totally discounted as such. How in the hell could this have happened? It seems that people were side-tracked by Melissa Kremer being a leukemia victim and forgot to examine the facts objectively. Only one delete supporter also claims that the late author fails the GNG. Not in a million years! gidonb (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very obnoxious attempt to discredit other people's input. Rusted AutoParts 02:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the holder of THEN a minority opinion, it was totally called for to explain why I reached different conclusions than others. Nothing obnoxious about it. The intro is rooted in emotion and stereotypes, not in policy or the article. By pointing this out, folks can rethink stances and arguments. It's my service for WP. gidonb (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Best selling author. Lots of press coverage. pburka (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am having a hard time finding any evidence that her book was a best seller. I will admit I don't speak Dutch, but all the articles I have machine translated seem just to cover her death, one mentions her book which was a collection of her social media postings. The best selling author portion of the article is only linked to an article that mentions her book never do I see it say best selling or "unparalleled". McMatter(talk)/(contrib) 13:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi McMatter, thanks for asking. It was and is in the title and quote of the reference that I had added right after the phrase. I'll add translations to make it easier to find. gidonb (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My search also found several references in non-english works, definitely meets WP:GNG. Why people are using AFD as a weapon? VocalIndia (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage in secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly famous for being terminally ill. That would set a bad record, every terminally ill patient who appears on TV and writes books would have a page here. Thousands.--Folengo (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2021
Comment. Lots of WP:RS and WP:V coverage does contribute towards notability, while being a leukemia patient does not preclude one from being notable. That would be discriminating. Kremer was a creative individual who wrote, spoke, and video blogged. She gained national (not local or regional!) fame and put a disease on the national agenda. Unfortunately, the role of women in society is often discounted. They will get compared to brides and "mums", we are being horrified repetitively that there could be more of their sort (oh no!), while their profession, actions and WP:RS are NOT the focus of the discussion. gidonb (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (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 salted. JGHowes talk 01:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS; subject of the article badly fails WP:GNG. This article is nothing more than an extension of his marketing campaign for his two books. Every reference linked is a thinly-veiled advert for his two books. The article has been deleted twice due to concerns around the sourcing and a quick look at Talk:Mutahir Showkat shows you how desperate Showkat is to have an article on here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - apologies in advance to the admin that closes this discussion. If the article talk page is anything to go by, we're in for a rough ride. I have created a source assessment table which I hope people will find helpful. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
? So non-neutral, it makes you cringe "Mutahir Showkat is an inspiration for all the youth in Jammu and Kashmir who either gets involve in conflicts or do not dare to dream."
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
Strongly Keep This article should be stable on Wikipedia as this person is notable and has done some notable works so he deserve to be here on Wikipedia moreover here are some wiki users who are saying that this is kind of marketing there are lot of authors who publish their books and they are having Wikipedia even I don’t think there might be any author whose book isn’t available on book platforms so can we call those authors marketers too strongly opposed for the deletion this article should be here on Wikipedia to know more about this person check Google ,Books by Mutahir Showkat) Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizan Hameed Lone (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — Faizan Hameed Lone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Confirmed sockpuppet of Nurupa as per CheckUser. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hums4r for full details.Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So he has two books on Amazon... How does that make him notable? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’m the major contributor to this article, I don’t know this person personally but I came to know through news about his work done and books then I thought I should create a wikipedia article regarding this person, but when I start creating the article I came to know there was an article created before regarding this person and that was deleted so before creating article I got through the Internet and I collected the all the information about this person then I start recreating the article, and finally I published the article when everything was done, now it’s under deletion discuss, as a Wikipedian I would like to say that this article needs to be here as the mentioned person is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurupa (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — Nurupa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please can you point me in the direction of some reliable sources showing significant coverage? Thanks Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are the enough sources available on internet if you will check clearly thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurupa (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt. Thank you to Spiderone for the detailed source assessment. I largely agree with that assessment, and don't believe the subject currently meets any of the four points of WP:CREATIVE for creative professionals. It does seem as if the subject has a very vested interest in getting a page on WP, but I don't see the subject meeting notability requirements. Also, can the previous AfD discussions be added here for editors to easily access, or was the article speedied when Spiderone stated this article had been deleted twice before? --Kbabej (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kbabej - they were both speedy deleted. First one was deleted as WP:A7 and the second one was moved to draft then deleted as WP:G11 because it was spam. I did request A7 and G11 but it was removed by Faizan, an account created this afternoon with the sole purpose of fighting to keep this article on Wikipedia. I have requested CheckUser for both of the above accounts as I believe that they are sockpuppets of the indefinitely blocked editor that created the first two spam articles for this person. Once that comes back positive, I will strike their keep votes. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some Wikipedia contributors want to get this article deleted only because books are available on the purchasing platforms I don’t know what kind of logic is this that books shouldn’t be available on shopping platforms if any author published a book that definitely goes on the shopping platform so it’s the silly reason to get this article deleted , Moreover the news articles attached to this article are the media source’s available in kashmir so we can’t even reject it on that base thank you.
No one is making the argument that because the subject's books are available on distribution platforms the article should be deleted. AfD nominations largely do so on the basis of notability and WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS (as the nominator stated above). --Kbabej (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He has got published on the every source available in his region so what else we need for a notability we can get every information regarding him on every Internet platform which is totally independent like Google Knowledge Graph, all apart there are lot of news sources regarding the mentioned person, it’s not necessary that only a person who has got published on big news platforms can have WP there are lot of Indian article which even don’t have such news sources how bout those articles those articles should be deleted then the reason for putting this article under deletion is that there are some wiki users who had used name of Mutahir Showkat and have created mess. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurupa (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can get in these newspapers if you pay enough money. It's called advertising. The articles cited are not at all written in a neutral tone and they are written for the sole purpose of promoting his two books. Many of them even contain links to where you can buy his books. Also, most of these press releases are identical so should not be considered as separate sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So it’s the fault of the those media agencies who had published such articles and for more information on every pr article regarding to anything in the description there is mentioned that this is a pr article or tag of pr articles moreover the sources are not from the pr portals these are the real news sources of the valley, Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurupa (talk • contribs) 20:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Spiderone's opening nom rationale and source assessment table. Celestina007 (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. The source assessment table crafted by Spiderone is helpful in determining the weakess of the sourcing. Wikipedia is not the right venue to advertise books. Netherzone (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep Mutahir Showkat is enough notable to have a Wikipedia page so I recommend this article should be here on Wikipedia, as when i went through Internet I saw this person has done more than one notable work apart from the books, He is founder of an event organisation based in Jammu and Kashmir, All apart he is a good Podcaster too who has Got featured on Every big music platform, what else we need to prove the notability so I recommend this article should be here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muneeb Bashir Wani (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Muneeb Bashir Wani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Confirmed sockpuppet of Nurupa as per CheckUser. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nurupa for full details. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' There are lot of reliable sources which point out the notability of the Mutahir Showkat it’s not the necessary that how many news sources are there for a person on wikipedia, as I can see there are some articles in Mutahir Showkat’s main article see also section those articles even don’t have more than 5 sources, it doesn’t mean we will delete them
for more check out the work done by Mutahir Showkat
Keep I don't know about the process of deletion but I was invited by my friend to vote for the delete but when I checked about this person I felt he is legit person and he meet meet all the criteria as per :(Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL) so I would recommend to keep the article here are some users who are trying to put down this article it might be due to some personal issues with this person as I too was recommended to vote for deletion.— 2405:204:8188:b687::263e:f8a5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete: No significant coverage, books are self-published, fails WP:GNGRavensfire (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the source table above shows enough that they aren't sufficiently notable for wikipedia. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 16:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, that user has just been confirmed to be a sockpuppet of the article creator, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hums4r. I have struck their vote as I believe that using a sock to vote counts as voting twice. I have not struck the master's vote. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lol i too was invited by my friend for the same i don't what is really going on this page is this jealousy or something personal so so called legit Wikipedians are trying to do.
Keep i don't weather my vote will be counted or considered after checking the work done by Mutahir Showkat i would recommend to keep this article, more ever i suggest this article should be improved not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:240D:F757:FAB1:FB6F:5723:ECB3 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Delete As properly described by spider above, looks a clear case of promotions. Also articles look more of like regurgitated copies and clearly evident that they are press release work.-- JammumyloveTalk to me orCHECK MY RECENT WORK 07:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I checked previous comments on this discussion page there are some comments that they were invited by their friends via social media to vote for deletion same is my case I was also invited for the same, but I think it’s the legit one to get on Wikipedia, as their are lot of sources available on the Internet related to this person as comparison to the order photographers and authors from Kashmir valley, so I’m raising my voice to keep this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:10f:ba0e:f603:6d64:448b:f034 (talk • contribs) — 2405:205:10f:ba0e:f603:6d64:448b:f034 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Perhaps you would like to share these sources so we can evaluate them and discuss on the evidence provided. Simply saying they exist somewhere on the internet when several other people have tried looking and failed to find anything of note. Otherwise your canvassed comment really doesn't help with the keep school. AFD is a discussion based on the inclusion policies of Wikipedia, if you can't prove they meet any of the criteria for inclusion with reliable sources then your argument will be ignored and can in fact lessen the weight of any further keep arguments as they get lost in the noise. McMatter(talk)/(contrib) 15:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user Muneeb Bashir Wani recently added the following comment to Template:Canvassed/doc. I am not sure where they meant to post the message, but I thought I'd include it here as it seems like it might have been meant for this page: following strike by Netherzone, 17:09, 25 March 2021
"Keep while searching about this person i accendently came across through this page, as per my opinion he is enough notable to have a Wikipedia page, so this article should be kept."
The same user previously commented in this discussion, so this shouldn't be counted as an independent !vote. SreySrostalk 16:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Obvious self-promotion by blocked editor Hums4r, who I had attempted to mentor. Showkat is not notable, the sources are unreliable and clearly part of a promotional campaign. All Keep !voters should be blocked as obvious sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Fences&Windows 00:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Isn't there any way we can prevent this guy Hums4r from ever using wikipedia again? He keeps showing up again and again and abuse this project Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Help I have some questions I need clarification about firstly i don’t know anything about user:Hums4r as it’s blocked already and but if we check the contributions done by user:Hums4r it were mainly done on Zeyan Shafiq, which is deleted article moreover there are some comments that this aricle Mutahir Showkat is of sp user:Hums4r I don’t know how it’s reliable that hum4r means Mutahir Showkat, Please check I don’t what had gone on WP before I don’t know why this all is going with Wp of Mutahir Showkat, it might be that they had used Mutahir Showkat’s name as a user to create their own page’s there are lot sp here who are trying to show me guilty when they are guilty, please do a quick check it might be there are some users who want to put this name Mutahir Showkat under salt, as if you can see the comments on the Discussion page For for the deletion on Mutahir Showkat are the same users who had contributed on Zeyan Shafiq article even there are some users who had took that draft of Zeyan Shafiq from draft space to main space, if user:Hums4r is guilty and I’m socket puppet of that user how these users can support me as a User:Hums4r and oppose me as user:Nurupa because you can see these users are major contributors of the articles created by user:Hums4r and now they trying to show me guilty I don’t know too much about this but please check all the user’s who had commented for deletion I feel they all are interconnected thank you.
You have already been proven guilty of sockpuppetry in this very AfD (using the Faizan account, of which the vote has now been struck) so you can stop playing the innocent victim card. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I supported Hums4r regarding Zeyan Shafiq and am now disappointed. Apart from that, I have no connection to Kichu or F&W. Also, re. "i don’t know anything about user:Hums4r ... support me as a User:Hums4r and oppose me as user:Nurupa" – if you claim not to be Hums4r, then it doesn't help your argument to refer to him as "me". Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:04 Tue 30, AEDT) 11:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & SALT per Spiderone's source assessment. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GNG, subject is clearly not notable enough to deserve any space on Wikipedia. Eatcha 09:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was directed here indirectly by user:Nurupa. Short of time, so I'll just acknowledge and reference the preceding deletes. It all looks like a poorly organized promotional campaign that takes no thought of actual article building concerns. The "keeps" are not based on any knowledge of our notability or sourcing requirements- merely the wish to keep this page up. There's obvious sock/meat puppetry afoot. Leave unsalted as a honeypot. --Deepfriedokra(talk) 23:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNurupa not only tried to canvass me into voting here, but also messed up a legit RFP I made for a completely unrelated arcticle, placing this page inside of my request. And now this page is protected due to "Persistent disruptive editing". I know the user has been banned, but I had to mention what happened. Horcoff (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I thing this page is protected due to all the socks. So it's still Narupa's fault. --Deepfriedokra(talk) 18:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Message to Showcat. I'll give you the same advice I once addressed to Hums4r: go take some good photos of Kashmiri flora, fauna or cultural items, and donate them to Commons. Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:24 Tue 30, AEDT) 11:24, 30 March 2021 (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.
None of those sources strike me as particularly reliable – much of it reads like it may be based on press releases or outright paid for, and much of it isn't really biographical coverage. Based on the four sources above, I'm skeptical regarding his notability. Blablubbs|talk 21:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG based on the sources. Although I understand some of the issues with possible press releases passing for news articles. Onel5969TT me 15:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has enough reliable sources coverage for WP:GNG in my view although some of the references have a promotional tone this could be a cultural attribute, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2021 (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.
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create
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.
This pre-season tournament got some minor coverage in the North Devon press but I'm seeing very little coverage elsewhere. I found some results in the North Devon Gazette but nothing in a general British newspaper search.
I found two mentions on the BBC website but both are trivial [5][6].
In my opinion, if pre-season tournaments are to pass WP:GNG, they should at least get some national level coverage or at least interest outside the local district. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:46, 23 March 2021 (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.
Delete not notable for any entertainment endevor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a prolific director, actor, writer, singer. I have now added to the article a clearer reference about his nomination for Best Directing (Comedy), Indie Soap Awards, which is a subject-independent reference clearly establishing notability.Larry Grossman (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any references to back up your claims of him being a "prolific" director, actor, writer or singer? I do not believe the Indie Soap Awards are a notable award concurring notability to this person. Natg 19 (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. The IMDb page on him listing works in almost every entertainment category, i.e., acting, directing, cinematography, writing, composing and producing from 2004 through 2017 show his work to be prolific in the 2000s and 2010s, and the listed works are independently verifiable, see https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1907292/
2. His appearance in a nationally televised UPS Store commercial means he has been seen by millions of people on TV - that in and of itself makes him notable. See: https://www.ispot.tv/topic/actor-actress/kVO/jd-mata. Note: The foregoing link is independent of the subject matter of the article.
3. If you think that being nominated for an Indie Soap Award does not make the nominee notable the article on Indie Soap Awards for deletion! If you do not think the Indie Soap Awards article should be nominated for deletion, I cannot see how you could believe that individual nominees are not made notable by their nomination, since it is a national award with only six nominees in each category yearly. Yet, his notability does not rest merely on that one award nomination by any means. Larry Grossman (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that being nominated for a notable award once does not make the subject notable. See WP:ANYBIO. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - however, that taken along with 1. his appearance in a nationally televised commercial, as referenced and linked in the article; 2. appearance in a well-known Lil Wayne video "How to Love," that is referenced and linked in the article, 3. appearance in the repeating role Luca in True Blood as referenced in the article, and 4. all of his other artistic works over the 14-year period referenced in the article firmly establish his notability. How many times does someone have to appear in artistic works viewed by millions of people before they are considered notable? The nomination for a notable award is just an indicator of his notabilty. When all of his artistic works - many viewed by millions - plus his nomination for a notable award are taken together, there can be only one conclusion, he is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. Larry Grossman (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the applicable criteria for notability that Mata must pass is either WP:NACTOR as an actor, or WP:NMUSICBIO as a musician. 1., 2. & 4. - If any of the works that he appears in were notable they would have their own articles, and if he had a significant role in those works he would be notable 3. - I can't see any reference to Mata or his character in the main cast of Tru Blood, or anywhere in the article. As it stands, I can't see how he meets the notability requirements. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SailingInABathTub on these points. Additionally, simply appearing in videos or artistic works does not make someone notable. I would consider him notable if he had starring roles in these notable works, but WP:NOTINHERITED. As for his "artistic works over 14 years", I looked at his IMDB page, and I see a total of 6 acting credits. He additionally has 5 director credits, some of which overlap with his acting credits, which leads me to believe that he produced/directed/acted in some independent films. Nothing on his IMDB page leads me to believe that he is a notable or prolific actor. Natg 19 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SailingInABathTub for pointing out that the True Blood article needs to be edited to include J.D. Mata's TWELVE appearances! I intend to edit it this weekend to include him. In the meantime, here is a link to the True Blood Fandom page dedicated to his role and listing his 12 appearances. [1]. Also, here is a link to another subject-independent website showing him love and celebrating him as a Texas actor from McAllen. [2]. Twelve appearances in a notable series with independent coverage by his fans makes him notable under WP:NACTOR. Larry Grossman (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I just found in reviewing Wikipedia'a article on Season 4 of True Blood TWO references to "Tio Luca," which is the character J.D. Mata plays. Please see True Blood (season 4) and read the descriptions of both Episode 42 and Episode 43. To nail this in terms of WP:NACTOR, 1. True Blood is a notable series, 2. J.D. Mata has had multiple notable appearances, notable enough that the True Blood Season 4 article mentions his character twice [and I have not edited that article - those references were put in by someone else who finds those appearances so notable that they added it to the Wikipedia article on that season]. 3. Each episode is a separate work, therefore based JUST on his notable appearances in this notable show, he qualifies under WP:NACTOR as notable for having a notable role in multiple notable works. (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second addendum: I just found a reference to Tio Luca in New York Magazine [3]Larry Grossman (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even though Mata was in the cast of True Blood, he did not portray a major or notable character, so he still does not qualify for WP:NACTOR. Natg 19 (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with you, Natg 19. He appeared 12 times in the same role as Tio Luca. A character appearing in TWELVE separate episodes is a notable character that most fans of True Blood, a notable series, would recognize. Larry Grossman (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ixfd64 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and the article has almost no content except for a list of credits with no other information about this individual, his education or professional background. LizRead!Talk! 21:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep I disagree with Liz's immediately above assertion made with no support that the subject is not notable despite all the points of notability I mentioned in the prior discussion; for example, his being nominated for best director for a notable award, the Indie Soap Awards; however, I would like to raise a new argument supporting his notability which is his triumph over institutionalized racism as a Chicano artist in reaching the level of notability that he has and ask you to re-consider your support of deletion by asking yourself if you might unwittingly be supporting institutionalized racism by applying standards of notability that if applied across the board might cause Wikipedia to be even less diverse and less representative. Give this guy a break! By deleting lesser known, though notable, artists from Wikipedia you are holding them down and making it harder for them to become even more notable, and if they are non-white and/or Hispanic artists you are causing Wikipedia to become an instrument of institutional racism! I invite you to view the works I have referenced and see his charm and artistic magic - maybe not for you, but are you sure that there aren't tens of thousands of viewers in, say, East L.A. or South Texas who are underrepresented in Wikipedia that might really love and remember his works? ...and as to the article itself, yes, the article can be much improved, but I can't do it by myself and if you delete it the Wikipedia community cannot improve it! Please reconsider. Larry Grossman (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Larry Grossman: please don't add another keep to every comment if you wish to comment on another editors vote just use a : to indent your message. I have struck your second keep vote. 02:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmatter (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it - I had thought that the relisting meant it was a new discussion and I could vote again but it sounds like it is just a continuation of the previous discussion. I would thank you but do not know who to thank since you did not sign your post.Larry Grossman (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing to put them over WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSIC or even WP:ANYBIO. The only keep argument hasn't offered any solid evidence that any of the criteria have been met. Being nominated for an award is not a criteria for inclusion. Race bias in coverage is not an argument for inclusion, even if it is proven that it is happening for this subject, Wikipedia is not the place to soapbox this. McMatter(talk)/(contrib) 02:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I did find one newspaper article where he was the main subject through my university library: Crystal Olvera (July 29, 2011). "Watch McAllen actor J.d. Mata on HBO's 'True Blood' [8 p.m. Sunday, July 31]". The Monitor. The article is a substantial interview of the actor's role as the Medicine Man on 'True Blood' and his experience on set, as well as covering details of other work he has done in film, music videos, television, etc. However, this is the only substantial source I could find, therefore the actor fails WP:SIGCOV. A hometown boy makes it in Hollywood story isn't notable enough on its own.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4 I did find a second secondary source reviewing his work on True Blood in glowing terms and note that both of these secondary sources are Texas-focused. It seems to me that he is certainly notable in Texas. If this article is deleted then you are taking away the ability of an reader of Wikipedia to look him up and get some more information about him. In fact that is why I started this article, because I looked him up and could not believe there was not a Wikipedia page about him. Here is the second secondary source focusing on him: http://lovingtruebloodindallas.blogspot.com/2011/07/watch-mcallen-actor-jd-mata-on-hbos.html. Larry Grossman (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you had hesitatingly recommended delete, does this new secondary source focusing on him give you further hesitancy or even convert your recommendation into a keep? Larry Grossman (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added FOUR secondary sources covering Mata's role as Tio Luca, a recurring character in the notable series True Blood. This has to be sufficient to prove notability. Please re-evaluate delete recommendations in view of this. Larry Grossman (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kemalcan, does not fail WP:GNG which links to Wikipedia:Multiple sources which contains a banner at the top saying "This page in a nutshell: It would be hard to challenge a subject's notability when the subject is covered by THREE [emphasis mine] references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." THE ARTICLE NOW REFERENCES FIVE RELIABLE SOURCES COVERING HIM AND THAT ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. In the foregoing statement I have only counted secondary sources. Larry Grossman (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Larry you may need to review what makes a good reliable source here on Wikipedia, we do not accept user generated content as reliable sources this includes such things as blogs, wikis (including Wikipedia and fandom) and IMDB. We also don't accept self published sources like vimeo, youtube and press releases. This means the only source adding any value to the notability threshold or considered reliable is The Monitor reference, everything else is either passing mentions of the character, not the actor, user generated content or self published. McMatter(talk)/(contrib) 14:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance, McMatter. I will re-evaluate the sources I've included. I just need some time to digest this and find sources meeting the established criteria. Hopefully this discussion can remain open for at least a week from the time of relisting to give me time to do so. Larry Grossman (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now edited the article to contain a link to a 2005 KABC-TV profile covering him and his directing and acting work in "Pan Dulce." This is a valid subject independent secondary source establishing notability; however, I do not presently have direct access to KABC-TV's archives, so I have for now linked to the clip via YouTube and yes, it was posted by the subject. Nonetheless the clip itself is a valid subject-independent secondary source.
Delete The sources found by Larry Grossman are not reliable. trueblood.fandom.com and anything with .blogspot.com are going to be non-reliable self published sources. The Vulture article doesn't mention the subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, ScottishFinnishRaddish, the trueblood.fandom.com and blogspot.com references are user generated but importantly they are not self-published. Larry Grossman (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Self-published sources: That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs... are largely not acceptable as sources.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I completely understand and generally agree with your point about self-published sources; however, a distinction needs to be drawn between SELF-published and merely user-published, and in fact, there is only ONE SELF-published reference I am seeing referenced in the article and even that is merely a republication of an independent and reliable secondary source - and almost 3-minute 2005 KABC-TV spot focused on the subject of the article and here is link to it for ease of reference [1]. Larry Grossman (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now referenced a direct citation to the 2005 KABC-TV 3 minute segment featuring the subject and his movie Pan Dulce, so now you have TWO subject-independent, non-self or other user-published SECONDARY sources focused on him namely: 1. George Pennachio of KABC-TV news's 2005 3-minute feature of him and his first feature-length film "Pan Dulce," and 2. Crystal Olvera's 2011 article published in the The Monitor (Texas) featuring him and his acting work in HBO's True Blood. Note that the these two sources are separated by six years in time, demonstrating endurance of notability of the subject, focus on completely different artistic works, and were published in different states (California and Texas). Finally, his 2012 nomination for an Indie Soap Award for Directing (Comedy) further supports notability. While being nominated for a notable award in and of itself may not ESTABLISH notability, it certainly SUPPORTS it and when taken along with other completely subject independent reliable secondary sources separated by years of time and by place and completely focused on the subject, does establish notability. A fourth point for those on the fence is the 2012 New York Vulture article (another reliable subject independent secondary source) mentioning his recurring True Blood character Tio Luca. Even though it only mentions him by the name of his character, he is the only one who has ever played that character in True Blood, so it must be about him! Larry Grossman (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up zero in-depth sourcing about this company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969TT me 15:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no doubt that the company existed, but unless anyone can dig up old paper articles that describe the company in any depth, there is not enough to work with per the "coverage" requirements at WP:CORPDEPTH. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all relevant notability criteria such as GEN. It only exist on IMDb and the company's official website. Needs multiple RS with in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment per aboveRajuiu (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2021 (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.
Merge like the others said. The fact that the channel now has the same character name means this page creates unnecessary confusion, and both articles are already pretty short. Plus, the page Lofi Girl (YouTube channel) could just be renamed Lofi Girl (which currently redirects to Lo-Fi Girl) without ambiguity. ~Anon 28-Mar-2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:1402:1977:B53F:7D7D:2D4B:372A (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2021 (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 19:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prior AfD closed as keep, under very different standards than exist today. I can find no evidence of notability for this former cartoon/blog. This is probably the best source and and it's not independent. StarM 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to RL0919 and Missvain, nom and closer, respectively. StarM 17:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably also best to ping Loadmaster, who participated in the previous discussion and has edited recently. The other two participants don't appear to be recently active. --RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't think this was notable in 2013 and there aren't any new sources since then. One of the sources that editors cited for notability in the previous discussion is an interview, which would not be accepted as an independent source under current standards. Another claimed source for notability had been rejected at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard back in 2010; I regret that I didn't pick up on that in the previous discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2021 (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.
Player has no International notability, they have zero final appearences in any bwf tournament or continental championships. They have no national title and are not successful in any junior tournament as well by bwf. I doubt if they are notable enough to have article in Wikipedia. Zoglophie 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create
Delete: From the profile of the subject, the subject does not meet NBADMINTON. Queries with "Abantika Deka" -wikipedia does not result in enough reliable sources such that the combined coverage can meet BASIC. GNG is failed due to not having significant coverage. Unfortunately, no plausible redirect target here. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:51, 31 March 2021 (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.
Non-notable secondary school. Article supported only by close primary sources, not sufficient to establish notability; fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. Previously deleted (twice?) so a possible salting candidate also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough collectively, in the numerous non I sources , to justify working on this article. The parent article would be Gauteng, and indeed it is in Gauteng. or for that matter in Johannisberg I would look for the offline paper sources. Previously deleted (twice?) suggest to me targetting. Broadbrush statements about GNG without proof are not helpful.ClemRutter (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't who you're accusing of targeting, but I'll just blow past that. As for "GNG without proof" — the proof (or rather lack of it) is in the article; if you disagree, you can vote to keep, as indeed you have done. And since you're claiming that there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then the onus is surely on you to cite them, not on me to disprove your claim. PS: You told me earlier in a different context that a school needs to be 'globally' notable to warrant an article, so I trust whatever sources you'll be bringing forth meet the same standard for this school? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect To Gauteng. As things are the sourcing is pretty mediocre. Therefore, this doesn't pass WP:NORG as a subject and should be deleted. Maybe offline sources about it exist, but with zero evidence (not even the titles of the articles that it's supposed discussed in) anyone could say the same thing to keep an article on just about anything. Plus, knowing they exist without even articles titles, let alone knowing what's in the articles, doesn't help the article or Wikipedia any. Not to mention it's already been deleted twice and I'm sure that both times were for more then "targeting" (whatever that means). So, in light of all that, the article should either be merged or redirected. I'm fine with either. Or really just deleting and salting it so it doesn't needlessly come back into main space when it shouldn't and people don't get needlessly straw manned for nominating it again. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirecting to Gauteng doesn't make much sense. If it's going to be deleted, then delete it. Park3r (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figured redirecting is a good middle ground since like Park3r says it's pretty well known in Johannesburg. So it's a likely search term and redirects are cheap Etc. Etc. That said, I'm just as happy with it being deleted outright. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (do not redirect).Redirect to Fourways#Schools It's a fairly well known high school in Johannesburg (but not particularly notable), and there doesn't seem to be a lot in WP:RS about it.Park3r (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not having enough reliable sourcesSonofstar (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fourways#Schools after adding a source the mention of it there in a currently unsourced section. PamD 18:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Fourways seems to be part of Johannesburg in the province of Gauteng I don't know why people are suggesting redirecting to Gauteng. PamD 18:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment people are probably just unfamiliar with the geography. I doubt anyone would consider redirecting a non-notable school in say Encino, to the California article. your suggestion for redirecting to Fourways#Schools is a reasonable one. Park3r (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with redirecting it to Fourways#Schools. Park3r is correct that I'm just not familiar with the geography. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree that redir to Fourways#Schools seems best, per PamD. (I'm not withdrawing my nom, though, only agreeing with this suggestion as the best way to handle this.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fourways#Schools, where it is already mentioned. No objection to nuking the content first. Protect if necessary. This iteration of the article is substantially identical to a previously deleted version. Significant independent RS coverage still not found. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2021 (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 19:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence this is a notable holding company. Coverage is limited to press releases, and no significant, in depth coverage available to meet WP:ORG. StarM 17:12, 23 March 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Premier Arena Soccer League summer season[edit]
Multi-article nomination, all fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Typically, the only seasons articles that pass WP:GNG are for fully professional leagues, which these leagues are not. Note one similar article was previously deleted here, and there was a discussion started here about it Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added many related season articles to the nomination, will tag them all appropriately. And will inform WT:FOOTY of this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per AFD consensus. GiantSnowman 16:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, I find it odd how this is any different from 1985–86 South Midlands League, that wasn't professional at all, GNG wasn't met. I think people have lost priorities. Govvy (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all WISL - I need to look into the PASL ones a bit more but I've done some searches for coverage of individual matches in the WISL and not managed to find anything other than their own Wordpress site and their own Facebook page, which badly fails our standards for sourcing and notability Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There are not enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No evidence the articles are notable. Eldumpo (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No trainwreck here, there's not a shred of notability here. SportingFlyerT·C 23:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Devokewater 19:17, 29 March 2021 (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.
Article about a local theatre, created by its own owner in a clear conflict of interest and not properly demonstrating any strong claim to encyclopedic significance. As written, this essentially just demonstrates that the theatre exists, and fails to show a credible reason why its existence would be noteworthy -- for instance, it uses the word "historic" in the introduction, but fails to actually document any actual historic significance beyond the building's age. And for sources, there are two local news articles about the page creator's acquisition of the building, one local news article which happens to mention this theatre in passing as the venue where the current mayor happened to hold his victory party but is not about this theatre, and a mere listing in a property directory. So only two of the footnotes are actually helping to establish its notability at all, which is not enough coverage to claim that it would pass WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to show any significance. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for every owner of a local business to promote his own endeavours -- to be notable enough for inclusion, this theatre would have to show a lot more coverage and some evidence of actual significance, not just minimal verification that it exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article indicates that this is a notable theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Bay, Wisconsin#Arts and culture: From the history section, the building does not seem to have any historic, social, economic, or architectural significance beyond "has existed for a long time". Querying with "The Tarlton Theatre" -wikipedia does not yield sources that meets NBUILDING as most sources do not cover the subject directly. GNG is not met as well due to not having enough significant coverage.Redirect per ATD-R. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:14, 31 March 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2021 (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 20:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After delving into the deletion discussion for the Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda in Washington DC, I decided to take a look at what was mentioned as their previous location. After looking to find reliable sources to update the article, I noticed that none of the countries listed as using that space have their embassies there. I looked to see if perhaps the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States used the location for their offices, but found none such information. My suggestion is to delete, as the article cannot currently pass GNG and is instead providing incorrect information. Note: this is listed as a second nomination as its first nomination was packaged within a larger deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, CairoBkissin (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete First of all, looking for "Caribbean Chancery" in DC brings up nothing but clickbait and WP mirrors, so the name itself seems to be made up. Searching by the address alone did not help. It's unclear exactly which embassies have space here, if any, but at any rate there seems to be nothing about the building or the office that seems notable in any way. Mangoe (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2021 (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 20:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a politician notable only as head of a local school board. As always, school board is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia per se -- the basis for including a school board member or president in Wikipedia is not "he exists", but "he has a substantive reason to be deemed much, much more special than most other school board members". But this is not particularly demonstrating that -- while it has a lot of footnotes, it's actually very strongly reference bombed to blogs and primary sources (his own LinkedIn, raw tables of election results) that are not support for notability at all, and the portion of the citation pool which is actually media coverage is simply run of the mill local coverage no different than every other school board member everywhere else can always also show, which is not enough to make him more special than the norm for a not inherently notable level of office. And "first member of [insert underrepresented minority group here] to do this not otherwise notable thing in one specific city" is not a notability freebie either -- if this had made him the first LGBTQ person ever to hold political office in the entire country, then he'd likely have grounds for inclusion on that basis, but not if he's merely the first LGBTQ person to serve on one specific local political body, in a city that had already elected other LGBTQ people to other more notable offices before him anyway. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable at all, and there's no strong reason being shown here to treat him as more special than most other holders of a not inherently notable office. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm not in favour of arguments which link notability to *national* status, it's a grossly misrepresentative measure: purely quantitatively, a Los Angeles Unified School District board member, for example, is representative of more people than the national parliaments of more than 50 countries. There are around 20 countries and territories with smaller populations than the number of students in the Seattle public school system. That said, this article reeks of PROMO and the sourcing is questionable. Would consider changing my !vote if a different sourcing analysis could be reasonably presented, but for the moment, I can't see it. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as school board members are generally not notable, even for large cities. The article uses quite a few poor sources, as mentioned above, and does not make a strong case for special notability. He has 100 hits from the city's main newspaper (The Seattle Times), but most are passing mentions in coverage of school affairs. SounderBruce 07:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He seems to meet the notability requirement and seems to stand out from my perspective as a noteworthy individual. Although I am concerned about the connection with the subject that's noted in the warning box at the top of the article.--Greysonsarch (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is no indication of notability in the article, much less in available sources and an in depth search. There are a lot of Aseem Sharmas and none of them appear to be notable, including this one. VAXIDICAE💉 15:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to nominate this myself when I saw the revert of the draftspace move. Fails WP:NACTOR, does not have multiple notable roles, or any significant awards or following.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite being the author, I am willing to partake in the straw poll for Aseem Sharma's deletion having known its rationale. (Eddie Ogyner (talk)) — Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer WP:GNG, subject is clearly not notable enough to deserve any space on Wikipedia. Eatcha 09:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR; subject does not even meet one of the points. Non notable. --Kbabej (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2021 (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.
I can't find any evidence of actual notability for this short-lived local semi-pro indoor soccer league. The refs are both dead links but can be accessed here and here, none of which show significant coverage.
No relevant hits on Google. ProQuest search only comes up with hits about a women's college league of the same name which is clearly unrelated... Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:15, 23 March 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I would like to bundle all of these corners for King George County together, I'm worried that if I don't do this one separate, I'll run a WP:TRAINWRECK risk, as this one has multiple references and an entire paragraph of content. Essentially, the references are GNIS, a couple maps, and a few things that are related to V. A. Dickerson, the resident here. WP:BEFORE brings up a passing mention describing this as an "area" where the Dickinson family lived. I just don't see any evidence this meets WP:GEOLAND, with BEFORE bringing up nothing significant and the references either being 1.) GNIS, 2.) maps, which are excluded from bringing notability by GEOLAND, or 3.) about other subjects. The other corners in the county I will be nominating will come as a single bundled nomination. Hog FarmTalk 14:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources lack evidence this is a community beyond the Dickinson family, less a notable one at that. Reywas92Talk 17:59, 23 March 2021 (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 museum does not seem to be notable enough. I cannot read Thai so the only source cited is not accessible to me but I do not believe it meets the GNG or the specific WP:NONPROFIT that might apply to it because, as far as I can appreciate, it is only local and has not received substantial coverage in multiple sources. I would also note that its potential lack of notability was the source of an issue template back in August 2017 that has yet to be resolved.See belowJtrrs0 (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources added by Encyclopaedius. I also added one (it's in Thai), there's quite a few hits on Google if one searches under the time name for the museum. Meets WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to have sufficient sourcing, which is being improved as we speak. The article is short but respectable and provides a reasonable amount of education on the subject that points in the direction of the subject having enough written on it to be notable. Vaticidalprophet 17:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a viable stub with enough sourcing to meet WP:ORG. StarM 18:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are enough sources to meet [[WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Grailcombs (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having seen all the sources and massive improvement I agree with it's notability and the viability of the article. Thanks for your help and many apologies for not having been able to find the sources myself! Jtrrs0 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources amount to a handful of mentions in little-known travel guides. The one Thai cite is a dead link. If there are valid book citations, where are they? A interesting oddity and perfect for Wikivoyage. It may be a labour of love, but it's also a money-making scheme at 150 baht admission. Seligne (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2021 (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.
Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, as only making two practice squads. Article is close to WP:G11, with significant sock contributions. Sources are mostly not WP:SIGCOV. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject appears to pass GNG. In addition to the links shared above, please see "Occcidental QB Scott leads Team USA to gold" and "NFL Spring League success kickstarts Bryan Scott's NFL dreams". Please note that I have been asked by Mr Scott to comment and propose certain edits on his behalf. Also, please note that User:Bored&Broke is an account related to Mr Scott editing on his behalf - he wasn't aware of the disclosure policies and has been asked to refrain from making any further edits to Wikipedia. Hillster (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am inclined to agree with Eagles247. I also disagree that it is "close to G11" (but the page may have been improved since then). Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 15:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article was PRODed the other day and removed for not qualifying. I put it up again with a more substantial reason, not realizing that wasn't allowed, so that was removed again. This AfD is the result. As noted in my PROD attempt, he fails WP:NHOCKEY: not enough games in the AHL, and dressing for an NHL game is not enough to qualify Kaiser matias (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear failure of NHOCKEY, and I don't see any real chance of a GNG pass. I don't understand why the initial PROD was removed, no reason was given.18abruce (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The initial PROD was about the lack of citations; the article should have still been removed, but that was not a purpose to delete. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom; this was an ephemeral player in the mid-minors. No evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 15:40, 24 March 2021 (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.
This footballer's sole claim to notability is playing one game of football, which was itself an inconsequential league game at the end of the season. Aside from that, he played in two cup games against lower tier sides so he has only one appearance that is within the WP:NFOOTBALL threshold. His subsequent career has been spent mostly in the amateur third and fourth tiers of Bulgaria.
I checked the Bulgarian Wikipedia and did a Bulgarian search among other searches and found no significant coverage. Coverage consists entirely of passing mentions in match reports (e.g. this) or just appearing in a squad list (e.g. this).
There is strong consensus that squad lists and match report mentions don't count towards WP:GNG and clear consensus that one game of football is insufficient when GNG is failed. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is plenty of consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL from 1 or 2 appearances in insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found then please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:15, 23 March 2021 (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 20:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yuula Benivolski fails to meet WP:NOTE standards. Page was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuula Benivolski. Not much has changed since the first deletion, except for the inclusion of an interview the subject of the article conducted. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at about 60 search results. I did not see any independent critical coverage. Some good pubs print her photos, but I believe that is as a contract photojournalist.--- Possibly (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The key to Wikipedia is verifiability, which is closely related to the fact we do not create notability, just report of subjects that have received coverage in reliable secondary sources. THe one source her, IMDb is not reliable. A search for more sourcing came across mention on other Wikis, but no reliable sources on Martin John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable actor who fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO as they haven’t taken up any significant roles or won any prestigious awards. Redoryxx (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable actor. Doesn't meet criteria. Who fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO.
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.
Non notable actress and tv host who fails to satisfy any criterion WP:NACTOR/WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO as they haven’t taken up any significant roles in movies/series neither have they won any prestigious awards. A before search shows me this source which appears to be reliable but reads like its an extended announcement and an interview which makes it have no value to WP:GNG. Furthermore an article existing in a different language doesn’t make it automatically notable in the English Wikipedia. Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I knew this was coming. However, an article about her has been requested on the Women in Red project, Puerto Rico women's list. She is a legend in Puerto Rico, you have to type Marilyn Pupo Puerto Rico, however, to find her because most of what is available about her is on Puerto Rican media websites. Alas, a lot of articles that are being requested on the Women in Red project will probably end up on AFD because many of the women being requested are not well known in English-speaking countries. Also, she is considered notable enough to be included in two other wikipedias. Antonio The Legendary Puerto Rican Martin (que paso?) 20:29, 15 March, 2021 (UTC)
Please could you link us to some of the Puerto Rican sources that show notability? I agree that it's difficult for non-Puerto Ricans to find sources but if you'd be happy to link them in this discussion or in the article, and if they clearly show significant coverage, then the article will surely be kept.Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — “You knew this was coming”, So you mean to say you knew an article you were creating was going to considered not notable enough for mainspace but created it regardless? I don’t understand that thought process. It’s inconsequential if an article on her has been requested. Notability policy for actors are outlined in WP:NACTOR, so tell me what criterion she meets there? Like Spiderone stated, Could you provide RS that shows she is “is a legend in Puerto Rico” as you stated above? If we arguing let’s argue with policy. The English Wikipedia is a lot tougher with more stringent rules pertaining to notability. Celestina007 (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I created it because it was requested on a wikiproject I am a member of, but knew it was going to happen because there are too many deletionists on wikipedia, to the point that we have the absurd idea now that "an article existing in a different language doesn’t make it automatically notable in the English Wikipedia." (note: Im not criticizing you personally for saying that, just the notion itself because, notable is notable, period) (that and also that now, even if the article is voted to be kept, it can be deleted because "the one voter who voted for delete had a better argument than the 5 who voted for keep"...and who is the deleter to decide who has the better argument, anyways??) I mean, how come we are not seeing VFD's on her articles on the two other languages? Simple reason: she is notable. I just wrote the stub because of my arthritic and also neuropathic pain on my hands, hopefully others can expand it with better info about her.Slightly off topic, I think while Wikipedia cannot be too inclusionist, it should not be too deletionist either, we need to find a middle point. Deleting articles about people or subjects that are considered notable enough not to be deleted on the other wikipedias tells me that unfortunately, the scale is tipping towards the deletionist side, which would be bad because, in a future, people won't even think about looking at us for information, if we just keep putting hurdles upon hurdles for inclusion, then in the future most articles would be deleted. That's not what wikipedia should be about. Saludos! Antonio boricua Sandwich Martin (aha?) 21:48, 15 March, 2021 (UTC)
Comment — Wikipedia works with reliable sources that can demonstrate notability and not on sentimental basis or guilt tripping, @Spiderone & I have asked you to provide the non English RS that substantiates her status notability status but you are yet to do so, if we can’t verify claims made in an article that article shouldn’t be on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I think I already put at least one RS (the Puerto Rican Institute of Culture's-a government run non profit organization-bio page of Miss Pupo) Antonio Made to Love you Baby Martin (aha?) 02:30, 16 March, 2021 (UTC)
Keep I think, anyway. To be fair I can barely assess the reliability of English language sources, never mind Spanish, but she has a ton of coverage in news articles. [7][8][9] She also has mentions in quite a few books, i.e. Contemporary Theater in Puerto Rico, History of Cuban Cinema and Puerto Rico Past and Present: An Encyclopedia. There are plenty more sources, especially in Spanish, but again I can't really assess them. The amount of coverage I'm seeing brings me down on the side of notability though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -More reliable sources added, plus again, she is covered in two other wikipedias where notability hasn't been an issue. Antonio Agent 006 Martin (loser's talk page) 14:27. 23 March, 2021 (UTC)
Keep Detailed reviews are high-volume. Enough have been provided already in this discussion and on the page, and more are easy to find, for example by searching for Marilyn Pupo actriz. Omitting anything that mentions her husband helps to see why she is notable, but the fact that her husband's death received high-volume coverage in which he, probably an independently notable person, was consistently identified as her husband is also a reflection of her celebrity. Aside from WP:GNG being met, coverage like this in which newspapers publish headlines that assume that she is known by their reader base, as well as her appearance in books about Puerto Rican filmmaking (like the ones identified above) also adds up to presumed notability under WP:NACTOR 1/2. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep - There are many celebrities in other countries that we have never heard of, however that does not make them less notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly per Astrophobe. I'm disappointed by the claim that commenting "I knew this was coming" in response to an AfD is stating you write non-notable articles; you can, frankly, quite easily predict an AfD by writing about subjects in places that speak languages other than English. Vaticidalprophet 20:04, 24 March 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school, a BEFORE search finds nothing beyond directory listings and social media mentions, therefore fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. This has been tagged for notability and inadequate sources for a long time, so time to finally put it out of its misery. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is written like a trivial advert and there are no in-depth, reliable, secondary sources out there that I could find to make it not be written that way. So, there's zero reason to keep the article. Unless someone can come up WP:THREE good sources to improve the article with that pass notability guidelines. If so, I'm happy to change my vote to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2021 (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 20:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school, a search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings and social media mentions, hence fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. Earlier PROD was removed without explanation, so here we are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom: Fails GNG.Poppifiedtalk 17:23, 23 March 2021 (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.
Delete - fails GNG and overwhelmingly promotional. Scary that this survived in its present state since 2017 ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk 13:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC. Grailcombs (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG --Devokewater 19:18, 29 March 2021 (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 article has lasted 10 years but I can't find any evidence of notability at all. The Marca source cited is just a passing mention. The only other coverage that I have found is her name appearing in two beach football squad lists here and here. Nothing even close to WP:GNG coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:14, 23 March 2021 (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 20:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Previous PROD removed by article creator. Donaldd23 (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2021 (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.
Redirect to List of Delhi cricketers Has played 2 FC matches, but I couldn't find any coverage. Searching was difficult due to a number of cricketers with the name/or similar name though, plus sources may well exist offline due to the time of his career. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, current coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not impossible he's covered in offline sources, but this article, after a search and a review, clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyerT·C 21:14, 25 March 2021 (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.
Non-notable cricket career, nothing notable about them. Fails WP:GNG. Störm(talk) 10:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List A match, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Coverage may exist of his minor county career though, especially as he was given a county cap in 1998. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, current coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article definitively fails WP:GNG, and he barely passes the overly permissive cricket SNG. SportingFlyerT·C 16:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players. No significant coverage, only scorecard databases and passing mentions in club cricket reports, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. This trumps the extremely trivial pass (arguable fail) of NCRIC by virtue of playing in a solitary List A match between two non-elite teams – clearly not the highest level of domestic cricket. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:15, 25 March 2021 (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.
Non-notable cricketer, nothing in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm(talk) 10:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moors Sports Club Has played 1 FC match, but I couldn't find any sources. Sources may well exist offline and in Sri Lankan sources, especially with his U19 international career though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As usual I will make the arguments that there must be offline coverage of his U19 Test career somewhere, and that in the current situation there need to be team-by-team player lists. Bobo. 11:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not be proactive and create those lists instead of incessantly complaining about their absence? wjematherplease leave a message... 11:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because every single time I've suggested doing so, people have said that they were unnecessary. Where have you been all this time? It's not me who randomly lists articles for deletion just because I've never heard of someone. Bobo. 11:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, after about eight years, Microsoft Edge have finally installed something that Opera got rid of that was extremely useful when I was originally creating these lists - ability to use vertical tabs and to see complete tab names. Just when it was needed that I needed to load 100 tabs at the same time and view their names and statuses, Opera removed it. Irony. Bobo. 11:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just pick a category and use WP:AWB to create a list. Störm(talk) 14:33, 23 March 2021 (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.
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) Has played 1 FC match, but I couldn't find any coverage. Sources may well exist offline due to the time he was playing, but there seems to be some confusion over his details and whether Thomas is actually his name. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is deleted/redirected, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. The CricketArchive link on the profile is also for a different player. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that he's the father of the Thomas Selby who played for Kent sides in about 1840 and who was super influential in setting up the West Malling team which brought Fuller Pilch to the county (see this source). But I'm not 100% sure. I suspect we'd need someone with access to John Goulstone's book of Early Kent Cricketers to confirm this - and that might show broader notability. I'd certainly suspect that a redirect as above would be a better alternative to deletion, especially as there's the (actually realistic for a change) hope of at least one more in depth source existing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2021 (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.
Zero reliable sources to indicate how this web series is notable, references are all the same recycled press release; see also the related AFD for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lucky_commando_films, which was written by a different editor but does the same press release recycling. OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the webseries. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 25 March 2021 (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 20:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which consensus has been to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.
Vikram Vincent 05:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peer WP:NORG, along with similar AfDs that resulted in the articles being deleted, private colleges have to pass the notability guidelines the same as any other type of organizations in order for an article about it to be included in Wikipedia and this college clearly doesn't have the required sourcing for it to be notable. Therefore, the article about it should be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sourcing available to establish notability via WP:NSCHOOLS. Vikram Vincent 05:05, 30 March 2021 (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.
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-04 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:10, 23 March 2021 (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.
Non-notable cricketer, nothing in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm(talk) 10:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moors Sports Club Has played 1 FC match, but I couldn't find any coverage. A search was slightly difficult due to a more famous actor with a similar name, plus sources may exist offline. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG which supersedes the overly permissive NCRIC, the only sources here are to stats databases. SportingFlyerT·C 21:15, 25 March 2021 (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 20:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Her work is not discussed in depth anywhere. No solid sources found. I tried even translating some articles in French that seemed to be related but they weren't. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had no problem finding sources. Here's a 2016 review of her second novel, La Porte du secret: L'Express (2016). Here's a review of some of her artwork (under the pseudonym Soÿ): Le Point (2014). pburka (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Were you able to find anything else? The first source is good, but the second is a single paragraph in a story announcing a new biennial art show. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that several of her books have been translated (into German, Italian, etc.)[10][11]. While not directly satisfying any notability criteria, it's usually a good indication that a book is notable, and an author of multiple notable books is certainly notable. pburka (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per the sources provided by Pburka. Best, VocalIndia (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By the combination of the reviews above and winning the "Prix du Premier roman de femme", Christel Noir more than satisfies WP:CREATIVE 4c. gidonb (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2021 (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.
Fails WP:NFOOTY as neither played or managed any Tier 1 International Match. Hasn't played or managed in a competitive match between two professional teams as highest his own club got to is I-League div two and its Super League and I-League Div one that are professional in India. Doesn't met WP:GNG and can't find a reliable reference for him being a Sir (knighted). NZFC(talk)(cont) 09:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenkre F.C. - although this Goal source does contain some decent coverage, there's probably not enough for a stand-alone article. I would prefer redirect as per WP:ATD and that club seems to be the only thing that he is known for. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and the article seems like written for promotional puropose.Poppifiedtalk 17:17, 23 March 2021 (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. What the article should be titled is an editorial question and likely should be discussed further. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 01:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced for over 12 years. Two-word phrase that according to Google Scholar, is used in many very different ways, but without any underlying singular notable and independent concept. Even the examples from physics that the article talks about seem to be three separate and unrelated things. Thus, having an article under this term is inherently WP:OR and a fork of various other articles. Crossroads-talk- 05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Path integral formulation, I could not find any source where "multiple histories" is treated as an interpretation, but rather a way to describe path integrals.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added: keep and cross-reference from Many-worlds interpretation and path integral formulation. The most relevant cite is to Hawking arguing that a single cosmic history is impossible. A concept due to Feynman and Hawking probably deserves our attention, even if wrong! -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Hawking's proposal. He is not talking about our present point in time having multiple histories, as the article defends, but that multiple histories sprouted at the origin of the universe. Multiple future histories is vanilla Many-Worlds. Multiple past histories is nonsense.Tercer (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tercer: From Hawking's "Populating the landscape paper": "The top-down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the present time. The noboundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique, observer independent history." Make of that what you will, but it seems consistent with the interpretation in the article. -- The Anome (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, it turns out I was the one who misunderstood Hawking. He is talking about multiple pasts contributing to our present. In one sense this is trivial, as different possibilities interfere all the time to give rise to a single future in quantum mechanics; vanilla Many-Worlds wouldn't call them histories, as histories are usually defined as the possibilities that do not interfere. What Hawking proposed that is non-trivial is to do a path integral without an initial boundary condition, which corresponds to not having a well-defined initial quantum state. For the whole universe, of all things! Tercer (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, redirect or merge -- I came here because it is classified as history related, which it is not. It is a cosmological interpretation from quantum mechanics. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and Tercer's comment below. There isn't a uniquely good redirect target, because the phrase is so common it has a variety of legitimate meanings. And the article has been tagged as needing expert attention since 2009, so there appears to be a lack of interest in making any sense out of it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands the article is talking about two unrelated ideas that happen to use the same name. It can be salvaged if it can be rewritten to be about a well-defined concept, and if secondary sources can be found that discuss it. We should never base an entire article on a single primary source. Also, the relation to the Many-Worlds interpretation seems to be WP:OR: Hawking and Hertog do not mention it, and Hauser and Shoshany mention it only to say that it is not related.Tercer (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has since been edited to address these problems. The lack of secondary sources is still a problem, the article is based only on Hawking and Hertog's paper and a newspiece about it. It's borderline, but I think it is no longer below the deletion threshold. Tercer (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Anome and Tercer's discussion. This doesn't look likely to be the seed from which a good article grows, but I think it preferable to have the comment on Hawking's view separate from any merge target I have so far thought of. — Charles Stewart(talk) 15:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article, as it stands today, is not the same article that was originally nominated. Yes, the old article was deletable. The new article is coherent and meaningful and describes a worthy concept in physics. (Anome fixed it up in the intervening weeks. I recommend that the everyone who voted previously to take a look at the new version; they might change their mind.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to top-down cosmology, since everything not about that has been removed, that's what Hawking and Hertog actually called their idea, and "multiple histories" is just too vague. Currently, top-down cosmology is a redirect to a brief paragraph in Stephen Hawking, so the move would have to be done over the existing redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2021 (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.
Tagged for notability since 2012. Recent talk page discussion resulted in my and User:Randykitty concluding that it seems to have low impact and is not indexed in any major citation indices. Randy observed "MIAR indicates that this is in two databases (Public Affairs Index and Political Science Complete). However, neither is very selective and as you note, the citation record is more than meager, so this fails NJournals". I noted that " The journal uses the obsolete submission system (by email to the editor). Google Scholar shows that their best paper has 61 citations, followed by three more at in the range 20-30, maybe another dozen at 10-20, and rest <10. Microsoft Academic analysis [12] suggest the average citation for their article is 0.5." This publication seems to fail WP:NJOURNAL (and the overall GNG). PS. Some of the content could be merged (and redirected) to the publisher, Israel Council on Foreign Relations, perhaps? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Piotrus has already given my rationale in his nom. No objection to a possible merge and redirect. --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This journal is created by a notable institution (Israel Council on Foreign Relations) and published by a notable publisher (Routledge/Taylor & Francis). Articles in this journal are authored by notable scholars, and the journal is cited widely in scholarly literature. Assessment that this journal is not notable enough to have an article is not supported by facts. Sorabino (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the journal's citation record is very weak. As for the rest of your arguments, please read WP:NOTINHERITED. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a study that would support your claim that citation record of this journal is "very weak"? Sorabino (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many postdocs have more impressive citation records than this journal. Can you cite any studies that would support your claim that this journal is cited "widely"? --Randykitty (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, you have just your personal assessment for your claim? My claim is based on Google Scholars data for this journal. Sorabino (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino, And how is your claim not a personal assessment? Google Scholar reports numbers. We have discussed those. They are small. Although what matters more for me is the fact that the journal is not indexed in any major citation indices; this is something that is easily measured. Public Affairs Index and Political Science Complete are not major (simple test: redirects). If it is not even in Scopus, is is not really significant. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if "keep" !votes could give a little bit more substance beyond WP:ITSNOTABLE or WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Please indicate which sources provide an in-depth discussion of the journal and how it meets GNG or NJournals. Without a policy-based argumentation, those !votes are likely to be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you set an example, by presenting any source that would support your claims? For a claim that an academic journal, created by a notable institution such as the Israel Council on Foreign Relations, and published by a notable publisher such as Routledge/Taylor & Francis, is not notable enough to have an article, one should present some sources, to back such claim. Sorabino (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Israel Council on Foreign Relations. Unless Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs article can be expanded with meaningful information, it is too short to be kept next to the article of the organization for which it is such a central activity. This opinion is given without prejudice on notability. It's purely based on principles of information stewardship. gidonb (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a constructive proposal. In principle, if we have an article on certain organization or institution, and also an article on its journal, nominators should always consider the merge as a first option, particularly if notability of the very institution or organization is not questionable. It seems to me that nobody here disputes that the Israel Council on Foreign Relations is a notable institution. Therefore, simple deletion of content related to its journal should not be a favorable option. Sorabino (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the nom explicitly considered this proposed merge. In general, the nom only has an obligation to do a background check to see if there could be a case for notability despite the wekness of the article as it stands, not consider every possible merge target. This is an exemplary nom and the complaint is unfair. — Charles Stewart(talk) 13:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chalst, there is a proper procedure for merge proposals, and also a proper procedure for delete proposals. Those are two very different things. For some reason, by initiating current AfD, this article was proposed for deletion. That was a radical move, but so far it received no substantial support here. Sorabino (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, while merge is the outcome with the strongest support based on !votes, on the merits of the discussion here and that before between Piotrus and Randykitty, either delete or redirect would also be acceptable outcomes. I see no argument for notability made here that does not fall foul of WP:NOTINHERITED and the content of the article as it stands has little value and some puffery. — Charles Stewart(talk) 15:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chalst, if someone wants to merge an article, they propose the merge. Nominator opted for the AfD, thus demonstrating their primary intention to delete this article. That is why we are here, instead on a talk page, where the merge proposal should have occurred. Fortunately, there is no support for this delete proposal. Sorabino (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AfD debates tend to have a certain inertia to them, where the earlier !votes tend to attract agreement if they are put together well. If the delete rationale had been more forcefully argued earlier on, we might now be in an AfD that favoured redirect or delete over merge. Deletion policy is such that there is a certain amount of ambiguity about best practice with respect to how to handle material/links on articles that we deem non-notable. It is to Piotrus' credit that, while favouring delete, he also pointed out that there might be a merge case to be made. Merge is only definitely preferable over delete/redirect if there is good quality information that we risk losing, and I don't think that is the case here. — Charles Stewart(talk) 08:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Israel Council on Foreign Relations per Gidonb. The article as it stands has attracted a piece of unencyclopediac puffery, 'The journal has been called "one of the best publications in the field" and praised for its quality' by a non-notable journalist, so having an independent article is doing some harm as it stands. — Charles Stewart(talk) 13:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, check your facts. The reference in question is pointing to an article published in The Jerusalem Post, a very notable newspaper. The article reports on Jacek Chodorowicz (Polish ambassador in Israel) praising Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs. Here is the quote from that newspaper article: "In his remarks, Chodorowicz warmly praised the ICFR’s Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, which Weinbaum edits, calling it one of the very best publications in the field". Why did you qualify that reporting as "a piece of unencyclopediac puffery"? Sorabino (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've been on Wikipedia long enough that I assume that outside of the adversarial AfD context you would normally see the MOS:PEACOCK and WP:DUE problems with the sentence I cited. My point is that the problem with the sentence would be more likely to be appreciated by the casual reader in the context of an article about a think tank that in one that might be taken to be about a regular academic journal. — Charles Stewart(talk) 08:11, 25 March 2021 (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 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.
Article lacks references and is not clearly about a particular thing. A Google Scholar search for the exact phrase has under 300 hits; the few I looked at did not seem to refer to a concept the author expected the reader to be aware of. The article contains unencyclopediac content such as "Notable individuals who have inspired progressive rationalism are Sam Harris for advocating reason, Julian Assange for exposing corruption, and George Carlin for his social criticism. The countries in which the ideals of progressive rationalism have been realized to the greatest extent are the Scandinavian states of Norway and Sweden with their high rates of political trust, secularism, and quality of life." The talk page documents the confusion other editors have about what the article is supposed to be about, but somehow the article has avoided an AfD for ten years. — Charles Stewart(talk) 08:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wow, this sucks. It's a fusion of a bunch of disparate ideas with a smattering of buzzwords and dead giveaways of trying to look perfect (e.g. the Anglospherian obsession with Scandinavia being some kind of utopia). I like the paraphrased-to-the-point-of-losing-poetic-value Philip K. Dick quote in support of a position diametrically opposed to the context he said it in. How did this make it ten years? Vaticidalprophet 10:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How did this slip through for almost a decade? Completely unsourced, doesn't meet the GNG. Seemplez((ping)) me 12:25, 23 March 2021 (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 as G5. 331dot (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda, Washington, D.C.[edit]
Strong keep, and don't listen to the Dan arndts of the world: To any and all users who come across this discussion: simply put, User:Dan arndt is on a crusade. He does not believe embassy articles in Washington, DC are up to snuff, and has spent the past hour adding maintenance tags to any he himself, and only he himself, deemed inadequate. As for why this article is being nominated for deletion and not the others, this has everything to do with targeting me, as he did during obstructionist behavior while the article was on draft. Not having an article for the A&B embassy caused much confusion, because they had moved out of the Caribbean Chancery in Washington, D.C.. Despite what users like Dan arndt will whine and complain about, an article like this does its simple job and deserves to stay. He has thrown everything, from "other stuff exists" to "embassies aren't inherently notable" and every other bad-faith argument my way in order to get his way. The fact that he singled out this article specifically for deletion is, I believe, specifically about getting revenge on me and my efforts. (If any admin happens to be reading this, look into him, he's exactly the type of user who makes editing frustrating for the rest of us.) If this gets deleted, prepare for all the other embassy articles he just tagged to be deleted, as well.WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please contact Google for any issues involving Google searches. Wikipedia has no control over Google and we are not concerned with search results. Can you respond to the policy based arguments made instead of attacking the messenger? 331dot (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how bout this: Notice that none of the embassies User:Dan arndt mentioned are in Washington, D.C. That's because the embassy-in-DC articles have a reputation of excellence and are considered significant due to the US geopolitcal preeminence. Articles about embassies in Washington are granted more than embassies in other world capital. The argument I'm hearing is that inaccurate information (such as still listing the embassy as the Caribbean Chancery) or no information (such as lacking an article) are preferable to putting legitimate information out there, flying wildly against the values of Wikipedia. I would also say that this isn't a Google issue as much as it is a "Wikipedia had inaccurate info that was affecting other websites" issue, but I believe that has now been remedied with the creation of this new article. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so please correct me if I am wrong - are you saying that embassies in Washington are automatically notable because they are in the United States, which is more important than any other country in the world? If however you arguing that the function of the embassy is notable then that information should be contained within an article on the international relations between the two countries in question not on an embassy page. Dan arndt (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not responding to that, you're literally putting words in my mouth. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please offer reliable sources that this specific embassy has a particular importance that merits a standalone article, and not a mention in the article about the diplomatic relations between the US and A&B. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there was no article, where is the information about the incorrect address coming from? 331dot (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot of inaccurate info about the embassy before I got involved. A lot of articles that linked to it had inaccurate information (like still listing the embassy as the Caribbean Chancery), but I have corrected them throughout this process. Moreover, the fact that there's an article about this specific embassy confirms it (i.e. that it is now a separate entity from the Caribbean Chancery) for all time going forward. Also, am I allowed to bring up the articles for other embassies in Washington, or is the "OTHER STUFF EXISTS" red alert button going to be pressed and my entire argument shut down and not allowed to proceed...? 08:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiIndustrialComplex (talk • contribs)
WikiIndustrialComplex, you should be careful about your comments here. I remind you on WP:AGF and WP:NPA, further Dan Arndt is by far not alone - I would have rejected your draft also with the same reasons like Dan gave to you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, more experienced users will trample all over you unless you raise a stink, as was demonstrated here. It has happened to me more times than I can possibly count. This website has a massive problem with insularity and meritocracy. When I see things I don't like and frustrating, bureaucratic behavior is the default over simple human compassion and mercy, I calls it as I sees it. I've stood my ground, and regret nothing. I don't really care if that offends the whole "more experienced users get to act crappy to you, but DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT being crappy to them, let's all hug and sing Kum Ba Yah, and if you don't, you're BANNED!" mindset. The hypocrisy of this website and its editor base truly astounds me sometimes... WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect, or Merge. The nom makes a strong case that embassies are not inherently notable and lists some relevant deletions discussions to show similar outcomes. The references fail fo be what we require. I am open to being convinced otherwise should suitable references be both found and added to the article. The defence by the contributing editor is almost an ad hominem attack on the nom and should be discouraged. Arguments here must be strictly on a policy basis. I can't improve on the nom's quotation of policy FiddleFaddle 08:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet none of those articles he listed were actually permenantly deleted. Huh. How 'bout that. Weird. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how come you get to quote precedent and when I do, I get "OTHER STUFF EXISTS"....? All these links are for discussions that happened 8 years ago for articles that were eventually made. More pointless posturing... WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment they were re-created in ignorance of the fact that they had been previously deleted. Noting that each one of them still doesn't address the issue of notability. The point I was trying to establish is that Washington D. C. is no more important than the capital of any other country. Dan arndt (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, so if I had just created this article in "ignorance," whatever that means it's automatically not even considered for deletion. Good to know. Can you please direct me to more resources regarding the finer points of WP:If an article is created in ignorance of the fact that they had been previously deleted, they automatically stay, no discussion? I'm having a hard time locating it. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) The most successful defences of deletions are made without the perceived need to rebut every point. Those discussions were closed as merges or redirects. Deletion discussions, while not setitng a precedent exaclty, mirror policy in 99% of the cases. Mistakes are also made. FiddleFaddle 08:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have flagged the mainspace article for a history merge form the draft after the AfD is determined. There is editing history here that should not be lost. I have also redirected that draft to the main space article, declining the CSD. FiddleFaddle 09:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User created an article which is a copy and paste of a draft which had been declined multiple times. Greyjoytalk 09:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the very bully who opened up deletion discussion about this very article...? Don't be blind, do your homework. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiIndustrialComplex You have received yet another formal warning about your behaviour. My warning on your talk page was a direct result of this post. May I remind you of WP:NPA and WP:CIVILFiddleFaddle 17:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: I have no opinion on whether the embassy passes our notability criterion, but this is a poor nom: a Google News search for 'Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda' has many results, many of which refer to the Washington embassy. It is up to the nom to look at this material and give us a sense of what encyclopediacally useful reliable content is there. As it stands, this nom is asking AfD participants to do this work unaided. Given that the supply of AfDs outstrips the supply of deletion-policy-skilled labour here at AfD, we are better off just closing these AfDs, without prejudice for future, properly formed AfDs in the future. Speedy keep, because the faster this unhelpful nom is closed, the better. — Charles Stewart(talk) 13:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I very much support this opinion (particularly the statement that calls this process "unhelpful" and calls out some users for not aiding me in any capacity) and encourage all users to consider it. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentChalst, I did actually undertake a search of whether there any reliable secondary sources for the 'Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda' in Washington D. C. and like the article's creator I couldn't find any. If you check Google News search for 'Embassy of Antigua and Barbuda' you will see that almost all relate to the US Embassy in Antigua & Barbuda not the Antigua and Barbuda embassy in the US. This issue was raised repeatedly when the article was a AfC and the article's creator rather than addressing the issue and the concerns about lack of references/sources chose to ignore those facts and create the article anyway, hence the current AfD. If you can find any specific reliable secondary sources that support the article's notability then feel free to identify them. Dan arndt (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antigua and Barbuda–United States relations. I can see that WikiIndustrialComplex is getting a little upset at the current AfD discussion. Wikipedia is not serious business. As often occurs with Embassy and Diplomat articles, there seems to be very little rhyme or reason to what stays and what is deleted. WIC makes a good point that moving out of the Caribbean Chancery and buying its own property (and the news coverage that came with that move) is an interesting development. However, there is not enough content here to have a separate article from the one on relations between the two countries. Here's an interesting example: Draft:Embassy of Moldova, Israel. This article has more written about it than the article we are discussing, but it would probably suffer the same fate in AfD, as the sourcing is all primary sources from each country, the tone is promotional, and the information could be better addressed in an article about relations between the two countries. Perhaps a case can be made about the building/address they are using being notable, but that is not currently addressed in the article. Bottom line/TL;DR: In order for the user's hard work not to be lost, it might be best to add it to the existing article about relations between the two countries. Bkissin (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that some want to delete the article before I've had the chance to add anything. Unlike User: Dan arndt, I happen to live very close to DC, and would love to drive in to take a picture of and gather more history on the physical structure itself, as I'm sure the embassy would love to provide. Thank you for also acknowledging how upsetting this, particularly the behavior of other users, has been for me. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why something like the draftspace or a user's WP:SANDBOX exist, to allow users to tinker with an article that may not be "ready for Prime Time" on the mainspace. Pre-COVID, I was living in DC as well, and there are certainly plenty of stories among the old buildings here, especially in and around Georgetown. If you want to take the information and bring it back to draftspace to work on it, or create a sandbox to work on it there, or even add the information to the article on relations between the two countries and spin it off into its own article when there's enough information on it, those are all good ways to deal with that. Dan arndt is not a bad person, nor do they have some sort of personal vendetta against you. They are just trying to make sure that articles that are live on WP are of good quality and meet certain guidelines. It's important not to take the percieved tone of other editors too seriously, as the anonymity of the internet and the fact that many users have difficulty effectively communicating with other people can lead to some poorly phrased situations. (Not casting aspersions on any user in this discussion, of course). Bkissin (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the user's biggest concern is that Google Maps lists the wrong address, I will file a request with Google Maps to have that changed (Not as a Wikipedia user, but as someone who uses Google Maps). Additionally, they can go to [openstreetmap.org OpenStreetMap] and make those changes as well. Bkissin (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that my greater concern is more that the lack of article will only create confusion, or will still imply that the A&B embassy is still at the Caribbean Chancery. Without an article and sources that state that the A&B embassy is, indeed, separate, only more confusion will follow, and we'll be right back here very shortly. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I checked Google Maps and it puts the Embassy at the correct address. At the Chancery location there was a note about the Barbuda Embassy, which I requested to have deleted. In fact, it doesn't look like any nation still uses the Caribbean Chancery for its offices, and each have their own embassy location, so I'm having that particular article deleted as well. Bkissin (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNominator Creator of the article has been blocked. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2021 (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 20:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I can find about this college are prospectuses and the usual directory listings, plus a very telling, yet 'wikipedia irrelevant' anonymous Quora answer that suggests to me that this is a degree mill rather than a notable educational institution. There is one passing mention in The Tribune (Feb 21, 2018) with no byline, suggesting it is likely a PR piece. This fails GNG and appears to have no potential references FiddleFaddle 07:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need substantive 3rd party coverage to show an institution is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2021 (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 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.
Borderline advertising for a non-notable fashion brand, with non-RS references that barely mention it. I would have requested speedy, were it not for that 'shirt incident', which admittedly has brought a few decent sources into play, but it's basically just a single event with no enduring notability. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. The coverage for the "shirt incident" provides no in-depth details on the company, fails CORPDEPTH. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:53, 31 March 2021 (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.
*Keep - As the author of the article, I apologize. I didn't realize that there was a bio that was deleted previously. It looks like, at that time, he had not received substantial press coverage. However Anthony Ejefoh is notable and he has reliable sources and coverage to pass WP:GNG— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonmabe (talk • contribs) 08:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these alleged sources showing significant coverage? The sources cited all look like press releases and none of them have named authors? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this article shouldn't be deleted because he is quite popular and has good media coverage. There is enough significant news coverage. Sources 3, 4, 5 and 8 qualify as significant independent coverage from reliable sources that passes GNG. Jimjam101 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the references are dreadful. The Sun is not a reliable source and every single one of them is a thinly-veiled press release. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — yet another ADMASQ, created by a sleeper account. All tale signs of UPE present coupled with meat-puppetry and the most imperative problem being the subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. This is definitely not mainspace worthy, not now, or anytime soon. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not draftify. The six sources provided by Theholyground are no use to us because they aren’t in-depth coverage by reliable independent sources. They are interviews and puff pieces and absolutely don’t establish notability in Wikipedia terms. The subject may be notable at a future date but unless there are superior sources nobody has come across yet, there is no basis for keeping this. Mccapra (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Independently published" does not count for an author. Reviews of such books can safely be assumed to be promotionalism , -- and even good newspapers published promotionalism . We don't. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 24 March 2021 (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.
I'm confused as to how this was accepted through the insanely backlogged AfC process in just 5 days. Company is blatantly non-notable with half of the references having only a passing mention of the company or interviews with company executives. The only viable reference seems to be from Forbes, but that passes off as a one-time event of raising capital. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2021 (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.
Promo piece on a non-notable model. Having worked with fashion brands and appeared at events doesn't make a model notable; otherwise they'd all be. And having a bit part in a 20-minute short (credited to Anna, not Anya, so not even 100% sure it's the same person) isn't quite the same as "starred in movie". None of the sources cited offer more than a passing mention (in some cases just pictures); the only exception is the Voyage LA mag article, which is an interview. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NMODEL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. Google search turns up nothing except the VoyageLA source, which is an interview with the subject and does not include any commentary from the interviewer which makes it neither secondary nor independent, and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails WP:GNG right now, the majority of citations in the article are from non-reliable or primary sources like Getty images, magazines, and IMDB. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Model who isn't notable. GNG fail. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2021 (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.
A list of 500 odd locomotives is only going to be of interest to a very select group of hard core railway enthusiasts. Is WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT. Metro140 (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The list was split from the main article because of its length. It's notable, and probably of more interest than other classes because so many Class 47 locomotives were renumbered and renamed (many of these were used on passenger trains including InterCity services) but currently incomplete as it doesn't mention subclasses, some were renumbered again (British Rail Class 47#Class 47/4 (extended range)) and some were rebuilt as Class 57. Peter James (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with British Rail Class 47 renumbering. My preference would be for this title to be primary but that's a minor issue. Fleet lists are sourced encyclopaedic information commonly found on the articles about rolling stock. That this list is a separate article due to size is no exception to this. Thryduulf (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2021 (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.
Unconfirmed and withdrawn nominee for deputy secretary position fails WP:NPOL. What coverage exists of Klein is entirely related to her doomed nomination, a clear WP:BLP1E. KidAd • SPEAK 06:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having been nominated to a post from which the candidacy was later withdrawn, such that the person never actually held the office at all, is not a notability claim in and of itself — her grounds for a Wikipedia article would require evidence that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before she was nominated for the position, such that she could still have had an article on those other grounds even if she hadn't actually been nominated at all. But this shows absolutely nothing to suggest that. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not a low-profile individual so BLP1E doesn't apply. However, I'm not sure enough sourcing about her exists to confidently !vote keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:54, 23 March 2021 (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.
Okay, so I probably could've prodded this one. But I am completely baffled as to what is going on here. GNIS entry is sourced to a NOAA chart, and the coordinates point to what USGS topographic maps show as an uninhabited swamp along the Rappahannock. Newspapers.com brings up nothing, Google books brings up nothing relevant, and Google search only brings up the standard wikipedia mirrors and GNIS-spawn. So I tracked down the NOAA chart this comes from, which shows two buildings on the other side of the river of where the GNIS coordinates point to. Going back to the topos, this spot is labeled as "grave" or "cemetery" on topographic maps. With the nature of this "place" unverifiable and WP:GNG not being even close to met, I don't see a way this article can be kept. Hog FarmTalk 05:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete We need a systematic approach to Virginia articles, since it's clear that the mass-production from the WP:GNIS, as in California, has introduced a significant amount of non-notable, if not unverifiable, if not outright false content. We can't go through 2,000+ pages in AFD. Reywas92Talk 06:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92 I'd say that PROD is probably fine, except for the corners, which can't be prodded and should probably be bundled by county. I've PRODded about 40ish VA places this month, with no issues. Hog FarmTalk 14:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete I haven't been able to look at the old chart, but as a rule GNIS entries taken from nautical charts have been spurious. There's no sign of a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The weight of policy-based arguments is that this article is not subject, the lone !vote to keep does not provide a policy-based argument for why the subject is notable. Hog FarmTalk 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NBIO - article does not cite any independent secondary sources about this person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It appears that on Sept. 1, 1988 the President of the United States announced the appointment of the subject of this article to a position in his administration. The press release is already present in the references. I find the suggestion that significant staff members of American presidential administrations might not be note-worthy incredible, and I suggest that the value of Wikipedia as a work of reference would be much diminished if this were to become general practice. Anyone who worked in the White House (in any administration) whose job was important enough to merit a press release surely belongs in Wikipedia in my opinion. Tillander 11:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being a presidential appointee to a minor position is, indeed, not an automatic free pass through WP:NBIO. I ask again - are there any reliable secondary sources to cite about this person? If not, we can't write an article about them. Press releases are not independent secondary sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mr. Judge's position was not default making him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are Judge's own works, not works about Judge. Hundreds of people work in the White House at a time, many of which get press releases and it is not a basis for automatic notability. Reywas92Talk 18:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There cannot be articles about every person to have ever worked in a presidential administration or even the White House. The question of an individual’s notoriety must be based on what a person themselves has done that is noteworthy, not working near someone else who had achieved WP:NOTEWORTHY status. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2021 (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.
On her own does not fit into WP:NMUSIC, perhaps NMUSIC#10 as a redirect to the band because the band WILL perfom on the Eurovision Contest. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, excuse me, but I am well aware that all of the members of biggest groups and bands had their own Wikipedia pages, even before starting their solo careers. Maroon 5One DirectionFifth Harmony Could you explain why the members of Little Mix have their own articles even though their only references and the whole discography are connected to the group? None of them has music outside of Little Mix. Plus, Ivana is a famous dancer for many popular artist and a national champion, none of you recognized that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usedtosingmesweetmelody (talk • contribs) 15:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The artists that you mention are independently notable because they appear in multiple WP:RS outside of their affiliation with their bands. Being 'famous' is not the same as being notable. If Ivana is the recipient of a notable dance award, please make that clear and provide references. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the winner of multiple dance championships, collaborations with many other Serbian notable artists. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which dance championships? Which notable artists? Where are the references? SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hurricane (Serbian band) - it's still a stub, it has barely any refs and text. Someone should work on the article so that it can meet the notability in the future. Vacant0 (talk)
Comment Hi @Aseleste:, are you eligible to close AfDs and so for Relisting? I thought only sysops are eligible to do so - because Relisting is per WP:RELIST only "allowed" for users who are eligible to close AfDs ("it may be appropriate for the closer"), but perhaps I missed something. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2021 (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.
Fails WP:NBIO -- People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There are no reliable secondary sources cited in this article at all - every citation is a self-published biography from an organization they worked for, or an article they wrote. A search reveals no substantial sources which would be used here - they simply haven't been biographically discussed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all of the primary sources - that leaves literally no sources. This version shows what it was like - a bunch of PR biography blurbs from organizations he worked for, and a bunch of links to articles he wrote. Not a single published secondary source independent of the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
commentSpiderone this is because of WP:NPROF is specifically designed for academics which often are not well covered elsewhere. But in this case it seems that GNG apply and not NPROF. However, here I dont really see a good argument for NPROF here, so in that case GNG would apply. --hroest 17:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes, sorry. --hroest 17:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject's notability is established pretty clearly and in a way not unusual for academics, think tank personnel and journalists. Tillander 13:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are no reliable secondary sources cited? If someone is notable, secondary sources will have written about them. The article currently cites nothing but PR blurbs written by organizations he's worked for. Those aren't independent sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
commentNorthBySouthBaranof see my comment above, under WP:NPROF no secondary sources are needed. But the question is whether NPROF can apply here. --hroest 17:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete it seems WP:NAUTHOR would have to apply here or WP:NPROF#8 as the editor of a journal, but it seems this was more of a magazine and not a well regarded academic journal so it will not count. I found very few reviews of his work on JSTOR or Google scholar. Only [13] this review, actually. GS says his book has 15 citations in 16 years which is way too low for WP:NPROF. --hroest 17:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is an author published by a traditional publishing house and is an academic often called upon by magazines and newspapers to opine on education topics and current events, as in The Hill, Forbes and The New Yorker. Clearly a notable journalist and academic. Passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment none of the articles you linked have more than a passing mention of the subject, eg Forbes "Enter my friend George Leef of the James Martin Center, who told me about some new research by one of America’s foremost labor economists, Edward Lazear of Stanford." and the article is then about Edward Lazear. --hroest 17:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to having only a passing mention, the Forbes item is a "contributor" piece and thus should be avoided, per WP:FORBESCON. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only potential case for notability seems to be through WP:AUTHOR and his two books. I found one published review of one of them (the same one found by hroest) but that's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per David Eppstein. Merely having written does not imply notability; we need evidence that the subject's writings have been influential, and the occasional passing mention doesn't cut it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RS PBS News hour referred to him among "vocal and influential public figures". His work has been the primary basis of subsequent academic papers, such as the one in UC Davis Business Law Journal. RS Washington Post referred to him as a "commentator".Nweil (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2021 (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.
Renominating, as the first AfD was closed as soft delete and then challenged. This is a well-disguised advert for a non-notable individual. It has been bombarded with references, but not one reference meets the requirements of WP:GNG: (1) significant coverage, in (2) reliable, (3) secondary sources, (4) independent of the subject. There is also an excessive number of WP:PRIMARY sources. Given how far this article is from achieving these criteria, this article is unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia today. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly masquerading as a notable subject, yet utterly fails WP:GNG. This is a firm delete. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Fails GNG, CEO of non-notable company. There is no significant coverage of him. Contributed articles to various Singapore's newspapers which could nudge him to being notable. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for the opinion, which I had requested because the first nomination saw minimal participation. Just writing to add, for policy context, that Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-4 says as follows: Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability.Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete For openness, I was pinged here by Kohlrabi Pickle to give an opinion. Article presently fails WP:GNG based on its current structure as pointed by by the nominee. However, a source labels the subject as a "public intellectual" and asked if he would enter politics, while the subject himself was embroiled in a controversy with a politician last year. Subject has also authored a few books, one which had its foreword written by an active minister. As an outspoken ex-civil servant (unique in Singapore), he could qualify for notability if the article is rewritten bereft of its promotional content. Unless someone is willing to rewrite it and engage the page's main editors however, the article presently fails guidelines. Seloloving (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for the opinion. I feel I should add a short response to the claims of potential notability because as nominator, that is what I am challenging:
The subject was not involved in the dispute with the former politician Calvin Cheng. That was a Dhevarajan Devadas, whereas the subject of this article is Devadas Krishnadas. The dispute was over a comment, which Cheng had written on the subject's Facebook page (which is the extent of his involvement).
I'm not aware that the subject is known for being outspoken in Singapore because his views are relatively uncontroversial, but even if that is true, it is not unique in a Singaporean context. A very large number of politicians are former civil servants. Admittedly, they mostly populate the ruling party, but they also include the opposition politicians Hazel Poa, Sylvia Lim, and Leon Perera. There are also a number of other former civil servants who are much better known for being outspoken, such as Ngiam Tong Dow and Bilahari Kausikan.
I make these points only to establish that the main issue is not the writing (which is undoubtedly, as Seloloving points out, mightily problematic) but that the subject simply does not meet Wikipedia's tough criteria for notability and that is a problem that rewriting cannot fix. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. My research was incomplete and flawed. Apologies. Seloloving (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question the veracity of the claim that "not one reference meets the requirements of WP:GNG: (1) significant coverage, in (2) reliable, (3) secondary sources, (4) independent of the subject." Many of the references stem from reliable mainstream media in Singapore, including Channel News Asia and the Straits Times, and several are book reviews by third parties on his many published works. Can the nominator point to the excessive primary sources? 61.13.18.130 (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed many news references, all with trivial coverage of the subject. Book reviews count towards the notability of the books, not their author. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment works by the subject of course count towards his notability such as books and if they receive reliable reviews that counts towards his notability as per criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR (only one criteria needed) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, with a slight clarification. Book reviews count towards the notability of books. Notable books count towards the notability of the author. I don’t mean to be pedantic; the difference is important because it clarifies that a book review cannot, on its own, be combined with other instances of coverage to cross GNG. They can only begin to count when the notability threshold for books is crossed, and then it is the notable books which count towards WP:AUTHOR rather than WP:GNG. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2021 (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.
Consensus was that existing sources do not qualify for meeting WP:GNG. The 4.5-year-ago AfD discussion did not seem to have established an consensus on whether the subject meets WP:GNG, and wp:consensus can change.
Fails WP:GNG. Evening Standard and Telegraph references do not constitute significant coverage as they are about the two incidents that have happened and not the route itself - they only mention that it happened on a 328. The other sources are bus tender news which is WP:ROUTINE coverage and the sale of a company that operated the route, which is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. All other sources are primary and I can't find anything in searches. A redirect to List of bus routes in London is fine. SK2242 (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of reliable sources as established in previous AFD discussion. Hemerstoine (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London per nom. Nothing notable about this route that we can see, content consists of mostly routine coverage about contract tendering. Ajf773 (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - doesn't appear to have independent notability, and the details of what bus route is operated by what contractor doesn't seem encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable bus route Devokewater 19:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Explain why please. Ajf773 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2021 (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.
Elected at a local level only, so does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. I don't think he falls under, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", as those cited have been around the by-election or Renua, not McKee himself per se. Links to this page include a television series that included a writer that is not this McKee, and a page that incorrectly notes him as a TD. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable, surprised this one evaded capture for this long! ser! (chat to me). 22:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question for @Ser!: please could you be specific about which part of GNG (or other) you think this fails? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answer for @John Cummings:: I fail to see any sigcov of the subject within any of the sources around. Most of the sources listed in the article are duplicates of the same two events - just him joining Renua and leaving Renua. If you can find any more I'll happily amend my vote but unfortunately I just can't see GNG passed, nor the aforementioned WP:POLITICIAN. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as one of Ireland's few openly LGBT politicians, including being one of the first openly gay councillors, and one of the first openly gay Fianna Fail representatives. --GeneralBelly (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator that while there is some local coverage, fails WP:POLITICIAN and not all the sources are actually this Patrick McKee. Redoryxx (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked at each of the sources and they all refer to the same person. Many of them have photographs of him. Most of the sources are national newspapers/outlets. --GeneralBelly (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question for @Redoryxx: which sources do you think are for someone else? I've also looked and can't find any that aren't for him. John Cummings (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County council is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia, people don't get articles just for being candidates in by-elections they did not win either, and the depth of sourcing here is not sufficient to suggest that he should be seen as markedly more notable than the norm for either of those things. I really don't see how being an openly gay county councillor can make a person special just because he's gay, in a country that's already had an openly gay Taoiseach (and doesn't have any particularly galling shortage of people already filed in Category:LGBT politicians from Ireland, either.) Bearcat (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:As I have mentioned below, it is misleading to frame the existence of a gay Taoiseach here, as McKee was elected 6 years before Varadkar came out while serving as Minister for Health, and when he was already an established politician. Smirkybec (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is irrelevant, because the timing of when one person did or didn't come out relative to some other person coming out has nothing to do with anything. The claim I was responding to was that Ireland has so few openly gay politicians that his sexuality automatically makes him important in its own right, which obviously isn't true. When Leo Varadkar did or didn't come out has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether Patrick McKee clears a Wikipedia notability criterion or not — the mere fact that Leo Varadkar did come out at all puts the lie to the idea that Ireland lacks for openly gay politicians, and his relevance to the matter ends there. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who brought up the chronology, in (your italicisation) "already had an openly gay Taoiseach". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The chronology of it all is utterly orthogonal to the actual point of what I was saying. It's not a question of who did or didn't come before or after who else — the claim was that being an openly gay county councillor should make him special because openly gay Irish politicians are virtually nonexistent otherwise, which is very obviously not true. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"6 years" appears to be inaccurate. According to their respective articles, McKee came out in 2011 but was elected to his only office in May 2014. Varadkar, who was already in office, came out in January 2015. That's an eight-month gap, not six years. --Metropolitan90(talk) 15:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep McKee is notable for his status as an openly gay candidate since 2011 - especially when running within very conservative circles, as he has continued to do. Most other LGBT politicians that are in Category:LGBT politicians from Ireland are more liberal politicans, so McKee is relatively unusual for his political alignment given that he is a gay man. Varadkar did not come out until 2015, and only after being an established and elected politician. A bit of work on it would elevate the article very easily, as it just suffering from a little lack of input in the references since 2016. Smirkybec (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our notability criteria for politicians do not include "the relationship between his sexuality and his ideological beliefs is a bit different than people might expect", and the question of whether a gay politician came out before or after launching his political career also isn't relevant to anything. If a person doesn't pass NPOL, then he isn't exempted from having to pass NPOL just because he's a gay conservative instead of a gay liberal, or because he came out earlier in his career than some other person. Either he passes NPOL or he doesn't, the end. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not automatically passed by just every county councillor who can show a handful of run of the mill local coverage in his local media — every county councillor in every county everywhere can always show that, so our established consensus that county councillors are not inherently notable enough for inclusion would be meaningless if every county councillor could always exempt themselves from it. GNG is not, and never has been, just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number"; it tests the sources for their depth, their range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and discounts some sources as contributing much less toward a GNG pass as others. Campaign coverage, for example, does not necessarily help to build the permanent notability of a non-winning Dail candidate; local interest coverage in the context of serving as a county council does not necessarily help to build the permanent notability of a county councillor; and on and so forth. The notability test a county councillor has to pass is not just "he's met or surpassed two footnotes"; it is "he has so much, much more, wider and deeper coverage than every other county councillor also gets that he's got a credible claim to being special", and the depth and volume of coverage here isn't passing that bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"GNG is not automatically passed by just every county councillor..." Indeed it isn't. Would you like to show me where I said it was? As for "local coverage in his local media", you do know Ireland is a country? Its newspapers are national newspapers, as has already been pointed out above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question for @Bearcat: which sources did you identify as local media? I can only see three of the 17 sources are local sources, two from KCLR 96FM and one from Kilkenny People. John Cummings (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on national sources, these are for most part references to the fact of his candidacy, including defaced posters, or the fact that he joined a new party. The articles are more about the election or the party than McKee. It's in the nature of a new party that defections even at a local council level get national coverage, but that doesn't add notability to McKee himself in this instance. The cited references also include one to the excellent Irish Election Literature site, which hosts leaflets from candidates at all levels, regardless of their notability. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest the fact he's one of Ireland's few openly LGBT politicians be more clearly described in the first paragraph as its part of what makes him notable. John Cummings (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politician is not met, and the coverage is not really in depth enough to pass any reasonable consideration of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question for @Johnpacklambert:, please could you be specific about which part/s of GNG you think this fails? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable politician. Spleodrach (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The justification for maintaining the page seems to be based on McKee having been notable as an LGBT councillor, as he was elected in 2014, as against Varadkar who came out as a gay TD and minister in 2015. But in 2011, John Lyons and John Halligan were elected to Dáil, Buttimer came out in 2012, Cian O'Callaghan had been elected in 2009 at a council level. Not to mention the Seanad, whether Norris, O'Gorman and Zappone. Being elected as openly gay in 2014 is not enough to qualify them as notable. If someone had been the first LGBT politician in Ireland, but had only been elected at a council level, they probably would be notable. That is not the case here. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Currently heading towards no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per information provided by Iveagh Gardens. --Metropolitan90(talk) 15:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Google News search for "Patrick McKee Fianna Fail" and "Patrick McKee Renue" shows sufficient coverage in national news sources to be able to write an article. Not all of it is positive, as well Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per Ritchie333 - I did a quick search, and it looks like there are a number of sources supporting the subject is notable. VocalIndia (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have any stronger feelings on McKee than two other local politicians I tagged for deletion around the same time, where there was consensus to delete. But as discussion has continued, I might respond to the various arguments for rentention. The article was created in 2015, before he was as a by-election candidate. Running for election to a national office doesn't make him notable. By-election candidates receive disproportionate notice, because they are held on their own, the success of parties is taken to mean something for general popularity, and all sorts of other reasons. But it doesn't make the candidates notable for WP:GNG purposes.
McKee has also received coverage because he switched parties from FF to Renua, and then re-ratted back to FF later, to borrow the Churchillian phrase. But lots of local politicians do that over a given five-year period. McKee wasn't the only sitting councillor to move to Renua, and get coverage for doing so, but other councillors who joined Renua like James Charity or Keith Redmond aren't considered notable. A lot of councillors left SF during the same five-year term that McKee served, and if we went through them. Newspapers cover these stories, not because the councillors are themselves notable, but because it's a story about the national parties.
Being a gay councillor doesn't make him notable given that he was elected in 2014. I made this point above, but to consolidate, with three gay TDs in 2014, it wasn't a notable event that there was a gay councillor elected that year. The most notable local authority achievement had been reached in 2012, when Cian O'Callaghan became Cathaoirleach of Fingal County Council. Malcolm Byrne was elected as a gay Fianna Fáil councillor in 2009 in Wexford, Tiernan Brady for the town council in Bundoran in 1999, so McKee isn't notable even for his politics or being in a rural area. The non-notability of the event is indicated by the fact that the page wasn't created in 2014 on his election as a gay councillor, but in 2015, on his candidacy in a by-election.
I'll leave it at that. It seems to me to be a case of coverage of multiple non-notable events leading to perceived notability. If the closer moves to keep, fair enough, I've made my case. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Downes wrote his own Wikipedia article for promotion purposes. The article suffered for years with original research and unsourced content. Downes also created a Wikipedia article for the institute he runs the Centre for Fortean Zoology. There is a serious lack of independent reliable sources that mention Jonathan Downes or his work in any in depth coverage. I believe the Jonathan Downes article should be deleted and redirected to the Centre for Fortean Zoology article which he is best known for. There is some minor coverage of Centre for Fortean Zoology but not enough for a stand alone article for Jonathan Downes. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From WikiProject Paranormal link - Wow what an interesting person (I had not heard of him before)- I was reading through and thinking - this guy deserves a Wikipedia page. Then got to the citations and was surprised to see how sparse they are. If this is the best of the citations then this is a clear delete. Reading this AfD I see that Psychologist Guy says that Downes wrote the page himself. No wonder it looks so good. Tempted to ask Downes to write some pages I know are notable but just haven't gotten to writing yet. But in the meantime - this is a delete vote. Merging with the Zoology page? Well that seems a better fit. Sgerbic (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable, no need to redirect. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are not adequate for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to rise to the bar of WP:AUTHOR or any other applicable guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above, plus WP:FRIND. A redirect is not needed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater 19:20, 29 March 2021 (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.
Article does not seem to meet WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Subject never managed a professional team from 2012 onwards, and before 2012, they were an assistant manager, which does not confer notability for NFOOTBALL if they are assistant manager for a professional team. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's paywalled but this newspaper article may have some significant coverage. A lot of news articles have popped up that mention him since this AfD started, interestingly. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Potentially sources out there, no harm extending given minimal participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:15, 23 March 2021 (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.
Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Band of Horses. This article implies that Reynolds was nominated for a Grammy award, and his own websites and social media outright say it, but in reality the band got the nomination. Reynolds was also a member of the notable The Blue Rags, but Band of Horses is a better redirect target because most of his media notice is in relation to them. His other work as a producer has not generated any dedicated media coverage per WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NOTINHERITED. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 23 March 2021 (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.
A few buildings then, and a few buildings now, and nothing that looks like a town. But searching finds, maybe, a reference to a library, and the topos don't go back past the 1950s, so I'm not sure about this one. But indications so far are that this wasn't a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and GEOLAND, "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." No objection to a redirect per GEOLAND, but there is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for an article. // Timothy :: talk 14:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never come across a school district named after and serving a geographically discrete isolated settlement where that settlement isn't recognized in law. This certainly isn't a subdivision, business park, housing development, informal region of a state, unofficial neighborhood or anything analogous to those examples. It therefore passes GEOLAND as a legally recognized settlement.----Pontificalibus 14:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some places that look like nothing today turn out to have significant history. I've worked on articles for such places in California. Sadly, all that I can find in this case is that Miss Myrtle Tomkinson ran the free library here in 1918. Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a very small populated place on the SJ&E Railroad. It clearly had a very small population - only eight students in the school in the 1930s, but all with a perfect attendance record, according to one newspaper clipping. The clear evidence of the small school district is really what pushes this over the WP:GEOLAND line. SportingFlyerT·C 22:39, 29 March 2021 (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.