Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 17: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:04, 17 July 2019

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 16 July	18 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Achse des Guten

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, due to lack of WP:RS. The article has self published sources. It also fails following two notability criteria for websites. 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. and 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Masum Reza^📞 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is as blatant case of WP:NN as I have ever seen. Only a primary source and that is a blog (so invalid per WP:BLOGS). It was tagged in 2010 as needing improvement: it hasn't shaped up so it should be shipped out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: Hello, You need state your vote using Delete or Keep in AfD discussions. Please have a look at WP:AFDFORMAT. Thanks. Masum Reza^📞 15:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, this is the first of these I've encountered. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: Also use * instead of colons to start the message where you added your vote. You can reply using colons. Masum Reza^📞 16:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- please look at the interwiki. There are quite a few sources on the German page, some of which would seem to be reliable. matt91486 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or rewrite...), long-term notable blog. From the German Wikipedia's article you can see that their internal quarrels make major mainstream news: [1], [2]. Failing that, redirect to Henryk M. Broder. —Kusma (t·c) 18:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the redirect idea. As a general principle (irrespective of this particular case), what makes a blog notable? Surely the author(s) would have to be very notable indeed? and convincing (RS) evidence produced that it is influential. I suggest also that articles in each language wikipedia should be notable enough to stand on their own after a reasonable time has elapsed to bring them up to scratch. If there are significant interwiki sources, it should not be a big effort to meet this test. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERLANG. English Wikipedia has different notability guidelines than most other wikis. I don't know German, so I didn't bother to check it. You need to add reliable sources here to prove notability. It doesn't matter, if those sources exist there. Masum Reza^📞 19:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masumrezarock100, I have just linked to two reliable sources. I am aware that the fact that the German Wikipedia has an article is at best anecdotal evidence for an AFD here, but the point is that the German article's references show that there are WP:RS talk about the blog, showing that the first of the notability criteria you mention in your nomination is satisfied. —Kusma (t·c) 19:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't true, Masumrezarock100 -- WP:NEXIST means that sources need to exist, not be added to the article. If the German language wiki has reliable sources, that is sufficient. And checking the interwiki is a basic aspect of WP:BEFORE, which should have been done before any nomination. matt91486 (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How I'm supposed to know that sources exist if I don't know the language? True, English Wikipedia does permit us to use sources in different languages. But how would I know if I can't identify what sources are reliable? This article has been almost abondoned. Last substantial edit was adding an image on December 2016. Masum Reza^📞 06:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recency of editing is not a criteria for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly true but in this case the article has been tagged as needing major improvement for nine years. This has two significant implications: either the npov WP:RSs simply do not exist, or the subject is so non-notable that nobody cares. Or both. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt91486: I will have to agree on this one. This discussion is happening because we want to confirm whether this blog is notable or not. I knew something like this would happen, that's why I started an AfD instead of PRODing it. If you want to improve this article to prove notability feel free to do so. Masum Reza^📞 10:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: This is a problematic argument in general: obscurity is not the same thing as WP non-notability; we have articles on plenty of obscure but notable topics that nobody touches for many years. Hence WP:IMPATIENT. It's especially problematic when the article is about a topic mainly of interest for non-English-speakers. The German Wikipedia article gets a good amount of editing interest. I haven't researched this case though so no !vote from me, at least for the moment. (Edit: Have !voted keep after checking the sources.) —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To steal from Terry Pratchett, nine years is a definition of impatient that I haven't come across before. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, the interwiki should be consulted. There are various sources from there that indicate notability. Going through them should have fallen under the onus of the nominator as a step of WP:BEFORE. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. These are all third party, reliable sources (and most of them fairly prominent, though Migazin is a bit more narrowly focused). And this is without any additional searching. These sources were already all present in the German article. The book chapter referenced (I just downloaded it) doesn't talk about it extensively, but provides an additional credible academic cite for classifying it as an anti-Islamic blog. As such, Keep. matt91486 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And to reiterate NEXIST: It doesn't matter if the article is improved if the sources to indicate notability exists -- which these do regardless of if I (or anyone else) takes the time to incorporate them into the article. matt91486 (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand a single one of them. Google translate does no good. I can easily say that those are third party sources but I can't prove that those are reliable. Masum Reza^📞 18:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I take your point that Google translate doesnt help indicate a source's reliability, you could easily look at the English language wiki articles on Berliner Zeitung, Die Welt, Die Zeit, Der Tagesspiegel. matt91486 (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This link (https://taz.de/!539420/) is not about the blog; it is about the author of the blog, so it's not a good source for any WP article about the blog itself. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | yak _ 06:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After verifying the sources listed by Matt91486 above, I believe this is very much a notable topic. Of particular note is the article about it in the Berliner Zeitung describing it as "the most influential German author blog" in the headline. The Die Welt article lists it as being on "the first place" for German blogs. The Migazin article discusses the blog at length. Disputes on the blog are given substantial news coverage. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see the German article for many sources on this topic, demonstrating notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as copyright violation, numerous times over, by Apoorvmehta9 (talk · contribs) of copyrighted (″Copyright © 2012–2013 Udaipur Chamber of Commerce & Industry All rights reserved″) non-free text. I checked the UCCI's WWW site with the Wayback Machine, and the text was already there in 2014. All of the way back to the first edit this was a copyright violation; all of the text was someone else's.

Xe instigated one Hell of a mess doing it, too, with the copyright violations spread across the edit histories of two pages, UCCI and Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the consequences of bogus copy-and-paste ″moves″ of the original disambiguation article, after the original had been simply overwritten with this, meaning that the edit history of the work on the disambiguation by other people was spread across UCCI (disambiguation) and Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry, with ironically none of it in the edit history of UCCI where the disambiguation was at the time of AFD closure.

I have done a somewhat complex dance to sort this all out, with a history merger to get a single edit history back. The only edit history to retain is that of the disambiguation, which I have restored to UCCI where it originally was.

Some of the people who put in and took out in redirects and stuff and argued in edit summaries will find those edits deleted; I did not consider them worth restoring.

Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry

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

Non notable organization (not owned by government, but authorized by government), lacks RS, it has become a major place for advertising local residents. Meeanaya (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The name itself suggests notability to me. But all the concerns of the nom are legitimate. I hope someone finds a few RS before this is closed so we can at least keep a stub, by which I mean I expect it to be a stub if it survives, we need to cut all the BS either way. I got a few hits on google books and local news but have no perspective to judge their acceptability. It seems User:Apoorvmehta9 changed the content toward the current version and some other user moved it, while the original version was a disambiguation page. It seems of little value to notify User:Aymatth2 who created the original disambiguation page about this. Is this like a rule? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is unsourced and reads like an advertisement for the organization, probably much of it copy-and-paste, so a copyright violation. But the subject is I think notable, as indicated by a Google Books search, so technically should be left to be fixed rather than deleted. Deleting it and letting someone start a new version based on independent sources would also be an option, perhaps simpler. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google news gives only 8 results, which are local webblog and not reliable RS. Looking at the book search, all of them only mentions and does not seems to be covering them in detail, I am not sure what is the criteria, but it seems to be failing notability criteria. 14.98.207.62 (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: As other editors have commented, notability is inherent in the nature of the org and is validated by a visit to its website. Fully agree that the article is being used for advertising and promotion but the correct remedy is to edit or attach fix tags, not deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no rule saying all chambers of commerce are inherently notable, or all organizations with nice websites. Notability comes from being noted and discussed in some depth by reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here worth saving, and some of the article, possibly all of it, is a copyright violation. Compare the six points in Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry#Objectives to the almost identical six points in https://ucciudaipur.com/vision-and-mission/ . Language in the article like "We are proud to claim that the VTC has been able to provide 100% placement support to its graduates. Skill development is a specific area where we seek partnership and support." is surely copied directly from a publicity blurb. After deletion an editor may start a new article on this subject based on reliable independent sources, if that is possible. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~WP:CV is not a criteria for deletion.~~I realized WP:CV can indeed be a criterion for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON.Deccantrap (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assuming the whole article consists of copies or close paraphrases of copyright-protected material published by the subject of the article, as seems likely, all the content should be deleted and the revision history should be wiped out. The simplest way to do that is to delete the whole article, which is anyway just puff. That would not prevent an editor from starting a new version from a clean slate based on what reliable independent sources have to say about the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am convinced now, that, as likely as it is that the subject is inherently notable, there is no RS to base content on at this point, having not found it myself and it having not shown up in the past week. The article as it stands deserves TNT, since there is no RS to start over at this point with, deletion is best. This would also allay all concerns of possibilities of COPYVIO past and present, without wasting community resources on a useless article. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that there are sufficient sources to show notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Siddique

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

Being on the list is not enough for notability. Störm (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I lean towards keep due to [8] which constitutes in-depth coverage by a reliable sources. While articles like [9] and [10] don’t go into depth they strongly suggest notability. Agreed that inclusion on a list is not grounds for notability, but they seem to meet much of the criteria after a quick google (cant believe how many people are named Amir Siddique...) which suggests that an exhaustive search would find more than enough for inclusion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered for his activities at Lal Masjid beyond just the UK designation. e.g. - is in depth. Other coverage: [11][12][13][14]Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep above comments prove that it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Masum Reza^📞 18:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alis Rowe

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

Nominating at request of User:Essayist1 at WP:BLPN. Their reasoning: 1. subject has requested the article be deleted on privacy grounds, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. 2. subject is not a public figure. 3. subject is not notable by Wikipedia standards, due to only being an author of some books of niche interest only. 4. subject has appeared as an expert for e.g. the BBC but was not the topic of that coverage. 5. most coverage is self-published primary sources MPS1992 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Just for some background, the subject of this page contacted me through my website asking for assistance getting the page deleted, please see my userpage for the full COI disclosure.Essayist1 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I !voted keep at the first, aborted AFD). I think in cases like this we should respect the wishes of the subject. Wikipedia itself would not be noticeably diminished by deletion. Thincat (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and request at BLPN. Utopes (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline notable, and the subject has requested deletion. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIODEL. There is no compelling public interest for the continued existence of this article, and the subject is only just over the bar regarding notability (see past AfD discussions). With that said: while I have no reason to believe that the subject did not make this request I would feel more comfortable if this request were verified to have come from the subject herself. Theoretically anyone could make a deletion request for a BLP and claim they are making the request on behalf of the subject. Paisarepa (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thegirlwiththecurlyhair has posted this to Alis Rowe: "*delete I would like the page deleted to maintain privacy of my life." SarahSV ^(talk) 18:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem notable enough per WP:AUTHOR Peter303x (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per others. Barely notable and subject requested deletion Taewangkorea (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this will probably be a "delete" ("duh, coola, anyone for snowies?"), however ("here goes contrarian coola again!"), (1) I note that the previous afd was closed as an uncontroversal "keep" (well no protests on closer's talkpage)). (2) Has there been an actual request from Rowe (as is noted above, anyone can claim they are the person or represent the person concerned. (3) some of the above "deleters" state that Rowe is relatively unknown, may i suggest that amongst British autism groups/people with autism this is not the case. (4) To allay concerns about privacy the article could be pared back to a stub of a few sentence, ie. removal of everything from "Early life and education", "Bibliography" (as these books are mostly self-published), and "Personal life" sections, and some of the "Careers" section. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ps. and remove their photo, that looks like a selfie. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pps. someone may need to get onto the French WP, Rowe article here? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just wondering if the nominator or any of the "deleters" above carried out any searches for sources (although it could be argued that the article already has enough)? "Thats a bit harsh coola!" well, a quick search with the goog brings up the following: from The Independent - "8 Best Books About Autism .. Asperger’s Syndrome And Communication by Alis Rowe .. It has simple pictures, is written concisely, and is also useful for people not on the spectrum.", National Autistic Society - "Revealed: Finalists of our Autism Professionals Awards (23 January 2019).. One of the most important categories is Achievement by an Individual on the Autism Spectrum. This year’s finalists are: Alis Rowe, founder of the Curly Hair Project; ..", and National Diversity Awards - "With such a strong impact being made by Alis in such a short time, there is absolutely no surprise as to why she has been shortlisted for the Entrepreneur of Excellence award at the National Diversity Awards 2014." (this source is cited in the article not sure why this award is not mentioned), so with these i reckon its even more of a keep as meeting no. 2 of WP:ANYBIO in the field of autism. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have spoken to Alis via email and again via her Linkedin to confirm. I am 99.9% positive I am speaking to the real Alis Rowe and the page removal request is genuine. Is there an official way for BLP subjects to verify their identity?Essayist1 (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Coolabahapple: I think you may be scraping the notability barrel a bit there, the English Wikipedia specifically asks for extensive coverage in independent sources, a book review, a couple of niche awards and a few mentions in niche publications don't make a person notable, only borderline notable. I think most of us agree that the quality of this encyclopaedia won't be significantly negated for losing the article. Plus the subject of this article has requested that the article be removed so she can regain a bit of privacy, therefore WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies.Essayist1 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:ANYBIO This person has made a major contribution in the field of autism (authoring books, and articles in magazines) and the subject has won awards for the work. Called out as an expert in the field of autism. A person becomes a public figure of interest and notoriety through public appearances in magazines, on the BBC and through, authoring books. Appears in major media by photo and lengthy non-trivial coverage. Also winning awards and self promotion. The page has existed for four years and passed two AfDs. A notable public person does not have a right to delete their WP article. It does not serve our readers to delete this article. Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The last AFD mentioned the Huffington Post article that gives significant coverage of her [15]. I see South West Londoner covering her [16] but not entirely sure about that as a reliable source. Google news search shows them, and 20 Wikipedia articles reference them already, and they have editor oversight and seem legitimate. The Marie Claire article without doubt is significant coverage in a reliable source, I reading the copy she has on her website where she list that and some of the other places she's been mentioned [17]. Able Magazine counts towards meeting the WP:GNG as well. So does Healthy Magazine [18], it a subscription publication. Her official website shows the article, you not able to find it on their official website without paying to subscribe. Dream Focus 04:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Came here because of the ARS posting.) The claim that someone who has written a certain amount about their personal experience with AS is a "public figure" and therefore forfeits all right to prevent Wikipedia editors from digging up obscure details of her life from sources that, for example, briefly namedropped her, and posting them on a very public forum like Wikipedia, is highly questionable. The fact that one of the above links supposedly "calling her out" actually provides photos of 16 other experts (none of whom, I would hazard a guess, have standalone Wikipedia articles) and doesn't give a photo of her seems significant. Having your name appear in this or that publication doesn't make you a "public figure", and given the legal implications of that phrase I would encourage any editors using it in cases like this to refrain from doing so in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Awadallah

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

Promotion for non notable business man. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Article current sources fall short of GNG. Conference bios, database entries, him talking about his company. Restored prod. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found in depth articles about this man from Bloomberg and Forbes, along with a number of smaller, but reliable sources. I also edited the article to be more neutral, and to flow more naturally. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg is just a business listing, not in depth coverage. Forbes is a contributor article, not a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GF. Last relist, no prejudice on closure
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reyna I. Aburto

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage in independent, reliable sources consists of minor name checks and meager passing mentions. Sources presented in the previous AfD discussion consist of the same, and primary sources, which does not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have mulitple, indepdent sources with articles from papers in multiple cities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – None of those sources provide significant coverage, just name checks and very minor passing, one-sentence mentions consisting of routine coverage. Some sources are primary, consisting of sermon quotations and the like. None of these establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I updated the reference list to be more encyclopedic. Per the [table which I created here] to assess the sources, most of them are not name checks, one-sentence mentions, as many of the local news sources have more biographical information later in the article. While the sources originating from the church do not establish notability, the other sources do. In my view, these mentions pass WP:BASIC. Rollidan (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O. Leslie Stone

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searching, this subject does not appear to have received an adequate depth of coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. Sources found are short directory listings (e.g. [19]) and what appears to be short minor mentions (from snippet Google Books views). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep I see plenty of sources that indicate that this person could pass the WP:GNG, but User:Northamerica1000 makes a point by stating that the sources do not have enough depth. I have changed my decision to Delete as a result of the subject failing WP:RS. Keep per User:RebeccaGreen's excellent work. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources out there that aren't of his employer, the Mormon Church. Trillfendi (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given by the others. No independent sources. Changing vote to keep per additions by RebeccaGreen. Rollidan (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hmmmm~~ - I see a two-page long article in this book, and an apparent one-para article here, which appears to be an RS, but I can't read them as they're not accessible online. However, not being accessible online does not dismiss them sustaining notability. Additionally he is one of ~20-30 LDS churchmen to have received emeritus membership of the First Quorum but I'm not sure how big an award that is. I've got to be honest and say that on balance I think sourcing likely exists out there to sustain this guy's notability but, not having read it, I'm not sure how to vote. I guess this doesn't really help anyone but there you go. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Yeah, keep per User:RebeccaGreen's typically excellent work on this thread. FOARP (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have searched Newspapers.com excluding Utah (just to make sure that the newspapers were not affiliated with the LDS church), and I have added 11 references. Most of the significant coverage is from the Oakland Tribune, although there is also some from newspapers in Texas and Idaho. I have added more information from these sources. Other papers in Nevada, Montana, Idaho and Ohio provide supporting information. The articles date from 1961-1978, and cover periods before that too. I believe that he meets WP:GNG, or at least WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I am sorry to come so late to this AfD, but I do wish that editors nominating or !voting on AfDs for people active in pre-internet days would check contemporary news coverage (personally, I think that should be added to the requirements for WP:BEFORE). The sources in an article at the time of nomination are not a valid reason to delete. Perhaps FOARP, and maybe AmericanAir88, would like to have a look at what I've added and see what they think. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I was trying to see if the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history had an artcle on him. I was unable to find my copy. If it does, being published 14 years after his death probably makes it indepdent of him. Either way, the sourcing the Rebecca Green dug up clearly shows that Stone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. This has been open long enough. There is general agreement that the organization is probably notable. However, there is not agreement as to whether the article is so promotional that it harms the encyclopedia. I'm am going to close this as "draftify", as DGG's suggestion seems the most practical here. It will allow Jovanmilic97 and Cunard to continue to improve the article if they wish, but will take it out of mainspace (and indexing). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seva Mandir

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

Non-notable organization page created by the company itself User:Sevamandirudaipur, surprisingly it is live since 2010. Meeanaya (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meeanaya: can you please clarify if you are nominating deletion for (a) lack of notability or (b)because it was self-created by the subject? If the former, I don't think notability is an issue as a quick search of Google Scholar and Google Books throws up with a large number of references in several credible books and academic journals about this organization. A citation needed tag would be a more appropriate response (in fact I now remember I did some reference clean-up on this article not too long ago). If it is the latter, then can you please point to WP policy showing this can be a reason for deletion? Thanks.Deccantrap (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deccantrap:, Seva Mandir is a very common term in India, used by all newspapers, media. If you want to connect to the correct Seva Mandir Udaipur, here is the search result, which are mostly local and non RS. For me, reasons are both, created and edited by the company itself and lack in-depth reliable sources. Meeanaya (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks@Meeanaya:. I was not mistaking references to Seva Mandir, Udaipur, with generic use of the term. I am sufficiently conversant with the subject matter to not conflate the specific name with the generic name. Please refer to the following in-depth and reliable sources about Seva Mandir, Udaipur (which are only representative and do not represent the whole body of literature referencing Seva Mandir; these sources do not only mention Seva Mandir in passing, but study its work in detail):

1) Article in the Asia Pacific Journal of Rural development referencing Seva Mandir's work in forestry development

2) The book 'Civil Society and Democratization in India: Institutions, Ideologies and Interests' which references several aspects of Seva Mandir's work in health, education, forestry, and rural development in general

3) Paper titled 'Health, healthcare and economic development' which references the work by Seva Mandir in the area of health

4) Paper in International Journal of Rural Management referencing Seva Mandir's work in development women's self-help groups

You stated your grounds for deletion are both notability and self-creation. The former ground is not strong, based on the above evidence. In case of the latter, please direct me to the policy/policies which indicate self-creation is a criteria for deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a chance to look up consequences of a subject self-creating an article about itself. As per WP:YOURSELF, an organization creating an article about itself is discouraged but not prohibited as long as WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING are not violated. Because several independent editors have contributed to the Seva Mandir article and I do not see WP:NPOV or WP:NOTADVERTISING being violated, I don't think self-creation provides grounds for deletion. @Meeanaya: please let me know if I am misinterpreting any of the above factors.Deccantrap (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, for reasons noted above. Correct remedy for deficiency in articles is to edit or attach tags to fix, not deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Not suitable for mainspace: insufficient good sources for notability, and written promotionally. . Reading the references above makes it seem that an acceptable article ccould be written, but it has to be written before we can keep it. This is one of the reasons we created Draft space. Before we had craft space, we sometimes used o keep articles usuch as these on the mere promise of rewriting and about two thirds of the time had to remove them when they did not actually get rewritten; now we have a better way. The reason for not writing articles with strong COI is precisely that it is not likely to be a satisfactory article, as is demonstrated once again here--another reason why we have draft space. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deccantrap, I have seen that you have voted strong keep on two AFDs I have pushed, at once place you have later on accepted that you were wrong. I am a local resident here, the company is running in a small room, nothing significant for them. The page was probably created by their digital marketing and it has been spamming the platform from last 10 years. Instead of Strong keep, it is very clearly Strongest Delete. If you don't agree with me, please review the comment of DGG. Let's not waste more time and delete and close this AFD.Meeanaya (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deccantrap, The day this company will be notable, I will create it myself. Meeanaya (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meeanaya, unfortunately your knowledge as a local resident is not helpful for the purpose of implementing WP policies. WP uses a process based on third-party, independent sources. As such, I have provided several credible, independent sources above, which underscore the notability of the subject matter. You are welcome to rebut my argument by indicating why you think those sources do not indicate notability.Deccantrap (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meeanaya I took the liberty of moving your comments and my response, made after re-listing to BELOW the relisting so that the administrator who revisits this AfD nom can identify the later comments.Deccantrap (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 06:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (basically a Keep vote but this discussion is going nowhere) Clearly a notable topic that has been covered in multiple reliable sources in-depth. There is also coverage in a lot of other books [20] [21] [22] [23] and Livemint [24] and there are even more books with just snippets without previews like Fieldstaff Reports: South Asia Series Volume 19, The Bombay Civic Journal Volume 14, Antipoverty Rural Development In India, Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century.... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Notable or not, this is too promotional to keep. Sandstein 11:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Sandstein, this spammy stuff needs a good dose of TNT. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Jovanmilic97 (talk · contribs) definitively establish that Seva Mandir passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline in having received significant coverage in multiple book sources. I removed a promotional sentence from the article and do not find the rest of the text to be particularly promotional. The article text contains factual information about the group. I do not consider this to be a WP:TNT case.
Cunard (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedurally closed. This discussion has been completely thrown off the rails by a disruptive/socking editor. As I refuse to reward such behavior, this discussion is procedurally closed. (Note: This close is without prejudice against a 2nd nomination being opened at any time, by any editor, in good standing.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alis Rowe

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

An obscure activist. All sources cited in this article are autism-related websites, a dead link, and sites like Goodreads (a book review website, I'm not sure you're even allowed to use that as a source on Wikipedia). I can't find a single mention of her in mainstream media. She appears to be completely unknown outside of the "autism community" and is therefore not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. SThompson (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not sourced to reliable sources. Nothing indicates the level of reliable source coverage we need for a writer or an activist. I have great admiration for the work she is doing, but it has not reached the level of attention in reliable secondary sources to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a significant author in the field of aspergers, does have coverage such as Huffington Post here Atlantic306 (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is only featured in a small portion of that Huffington Post article. That is not nearly enough coverage to justify keeping the Wikipedia page. There is a problem with the lack of reliable secondary sources about her which is the main reason I proposed that the article be deleted. While her books may be significant to people with Aspergers, her work has not received adequate attention outside of the autism community to make her notable enough for a Wikipedia page.SThompson (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll take the strict policy-based approach. See WP:BASIC: "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." Alis Rowe has NOT received significant coverage in reliable published secondary sources. As far as I know the only usable secondary sources that have given coverage to Rowe are the aforementioned Huffington Post article and the Reading local news article cited; however, neither article is actually about Rowe and in both she is only mentioned in passing. The basic criteria also says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I would say that the coverage of Alis Rowe in secondary sources is indeed trivial. Also see WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional." One of the sources cited, Able Magazine, describes itself on its website as a magazine that "Highlights and PROMOTES lifestyle issues important to disabled people in the UK." It describes itself as promotional, which means it's considered a questionable source according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Also see WP:SPS: "Self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." One of the sources cited, the Jigsaw Tree, is a group blog so it would not be acceptable as a source according to these guidelines. Needless to say, Amazon and Goodreads should not be cited as sources on Wikipedia. Based on this, my conclusion is that the Alis Rowe article does NOT meet the criteria for notability or for reliable sources and should be deleted.Sdc3000 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability within a specialty field is enough to meet GNG. A magazine such as Able is more than adequate 3rd party coverage… advocacy is not the same as “selfpub” or in-house promotional material. One could as easily say that Car & Driver “PROMOTES” cars and driving. Still would be RS for specs on a Honda Civic… Montanabw^(talk) 08:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A person with notability within a specialty field is only notable enough for a Wikipedia article if that person has enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. As I said before, the main problem is the quality of the sources cited. A mention in Able magazine is not enough to establish notability, and there are very few mentions of her in reliable secondary sources. I don't know enough about Able to say whether or not it counts as a reliable source. If it does, that means there are only three reliable secondary sources that cover her, and two of those (Huffpo and Getreading) only mention her in a small portion of the article. As I also said before, the article cites a dead link, Goodreads (a book review website), Amazon (an online store), Jigsaw Tree (a blog), and Future Horizons (a group that spreads media about autism) but the page cited only has a few sentences about her and I'm not sure that it counts as a reliable secondary source.SThompson (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG seems to be met by my standards along the lines Montanabw suggests. I don't see a suitable merge target. As a comment to Sdc3000 it is of course just fine as a personal decision to take a "strict policy-based approach" but notability is a guideline, not a policy, and it is contrary to the guideline to take such an approach. However, as the guideline says, it is only advisory. Thincat (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that a "strict policy-based approach" may be too, well, strict but I still can't see how you could say that she receives enough attention to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. There are almost no reliable secondary sources that could be used for this article, and the few that do exist say very little about her, and don't contain nearly enough information for a Wikipedia article.SThompson (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources cited are largely unreliable. I went through five page of Google search results and didn't see any good secondary sources. It looks like this issue can't be solved. On the issue of notability, a brief mention in Huffington Post and the Reading Post's free Friday edition does not prove notability. This issue also can't be solved. My two cents is that an issue with two big unsolvable issues should be deleted.2602:30A:2ED1:2EE0:141C:9E8B:6F41:2A29 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor has only made 6 edits, all at AFD Atlantic306 (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought I needed to point out there is an important problem that has not been adequately addressed by people voting to keep the article, and that is the problem with the lack or reliable secondary sources. I have to wonder if they have looked at the sources cited in the article. There are seven secondary sources. One is a dead link (Richmond), one is a blog (Jigsaw Tree), one is a book review website (Goodreads), and one is an online store (Amazon). Everyone should be able to agree that these are not reliable secondary sources. Another (Future Horizons) appears to be a website that sells media about autism. I don't think this counts as a reliable source. Another is a local newspaper article (Reading) about an autism conference. This is a reliable source, but there is only one sentence about Alis Rowe in this entire article. The last source (Able magazine) may be reliable but that could be debated. That makes, at most, two reliable secondary sources and one of them contains only one sentence about Rowe. No offense to whomever wrote the article, but they must have been desperate for sources to cite Goodreads, Amazon, and the Jigsaw Tree blog. That should tell you something about Rowe's lack of notability and coverage in secondary sources. This is the main reason I proposed the article be deleted, and this problem needs to be addressed by anyone voting to keep.SThompson (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear lack of reliable secondary sources. No eligible additional sources found on a quick look either. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BBC interview, Able Magazine national award nominee profile, and other refs meet WP:GNG, though some need clean up. She also appears to be featured as an expert for national organizations and publications such as National Autistic Society (UK), AuKids Magazine and others. Hmlarson (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The BBC Radio link lists her as an interviewee, it does not appear to actually have the interview. I don't see how that could be used as a source in the article. I'm not sure that the National Autistic Society and AuKids count as reliable secondary sources, especially since she appears to be connected to them (a secondary source has to be independent of the subject). This still fails to establish notability and none of these count as reliable secondary sources that could be used in the article. You mentioned "other refs" that you say would establish notability. Could you name them?SThompson (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I just listened to the entire 13-minute+ interview by clicking play on the video. It's the fourth segment entitled, Living with Autism which you can access directly once you hit play on the video. She's also noted as a "public figure" by the interviewer. Hmlarson (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fourth segment. Another example of trivial coverage. It was pointed out earlier that Wikipedia guidelines state that trivial coverage is not enough to establish notability. It doesn't really matter that the interviewer called her a public figure; I proposed that the article be deleted because of the lack of reliable secondary sources about her, not because I don't think she counts as a public figure. My understanding is that Wikipedia judges notability based mostly on significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the keywords being significant, reliable, and secondary. All examples of sources so far have been trivial (HuffPo, Getreading, BBC Radio) in which she is featured in a small portion of an article or radio program, unreliable (Goodreads, Jigsaw Tree), questionable (Able magazine), an online store (Amazon, Future Horizons), or primary (AuKids, National Autistic Society). Do you or anybody else have any examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources?SThompson (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13+ minute interview on BBC Radio is trivial to you in addition to the other sources you note. Ok! You've made your arguments repeatedly in this discussion. Is there a reason you need to repeat them after another editor disagrees? Or is this another case of WP:BADGER? Hmlarson (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC Radio interview is not enough to establish notability. That takes numerous examples of significant coverage in secondary sources. If you want to call the interview significant, then it is only one example. I keep repeating those points because nobody has addressed any of them. I'll ask you point blank, do you think Goodreads, an online store, a blog, and a dead link are reliable sources?SThompson (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the majority of the references you have a problem with have already been removed. Hmlarson (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads is sill there, the Jigsaw Tree blog is still there, the online store Future Horizons is still there. The Richmond dead link was replaced with an active one, but it is yet another example of trivial coverage in which an article that isn't about her mentions her briefly. AuKids and the National Autistic Society article that she wrote are both primary sources because she is connected to them, and secondary sources are needed to establish notability. Still no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. And interesting that you didn't answer my question.SThompson (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Goodreads list is just a list. It doesn't contribute to notability, any more than the list of her books at Amazon wood. A blogs are SPS and don't conribute to N either. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The British Weight Lifting site you added is yet another example of trivial coverage. It is about the coach Martyn Riley and barely mentions Alis Rowe. While it appears you removed Amazon as a source, the article still cites Goodreads (book reviews), Jigsaw Tree (blog), Future Horizons (online store) and Richmond (dead link). Everybody should be able to agree that these are not reliable. The article now cites nine secondary sources which are the four unreliable ones I just pointed out, four reliable sources that give trivial coverage to Rowe (HuffPo, Getreading, BBC Radio, British Weight Lifting) and one questionable source (Able magazine). Your edits didn't solve the problem. There is still no evidence of significant coverage of Alis Rowe in reliable secondary sources.SThompson (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point of the British Weight Lifting piece is it adds a citation for a sentence that did not have one and points to another article in Autism Magazine from the National Autism Society in which she is featured. She discusses weightlifting in the BBC interview prompted by the host. Hmlarson (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the reason you cited it, but it is still trivial and does nothing to establish notability. As for the article it points to, she appears to be connected to the National Autism Society (she wrote the article for which you provided a link in a previous comment) in which case it may not count as a secondary source (a secondary source has to be independent of the subject). Secondary sources are needed to establish notability.SThompson (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time to let other editors have a look and provide their input. Hmlarson (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is that you refuse to address any of the problems I have brought up a.k.a. the reasons the article was nominated for deletion. Got it.SThompson (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting and subjective interpretation of what I said. To each her own. Hmlarson (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. this is marginal. I was heading toward keep because she has published a lot of books but then I saw that they all appear to be self-published, on Amazon's CreateSpace or through her self-publishing imprint, Lonely Mind books. If you take those away, as we should, you are not left with much. I am going to have to say delete for now. This may be a WP:TOOSOON thing. Jytdog (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree that the article's subject lacks notability simply because her notability is limited to a niche audience. WP:N tells us that "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines...." As such, I believe strongly that the subject meets WP:N guidelines with reliable source links coming from the Huffington Post, the BBC and the U.K. National Autistic Society. Her work is now in its fourth year, so her notability has "attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time." In my opinion, the guidelines suggest that articles must meet a minimum standard not an abundance of that standard.73.131.228.245 (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — 73.131.228.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The reasons for deleting the article are less to do with her "niche audience" and more to do with the lack of secondary sources. I'll admit I should've better phrased my original statement. The problem with the BBC Radio and National Autistic Society is that they are primary sources (BBC is an interview, which counts as a primary source, and she wrote the National Autistic Society article), as are AuKids (she is involved with it) and the Curly Hair Project (her own website). Recent edits that have added these sources have actually created a new problem because the article now relies too heavily on primary sources. While she is mentioned briefly in a few reliable sources, that is not enough to establish notability. Wikipedia states "Just because topics are covered in primary sources does not mean that they are notable. Information about an author from the book jacket copy of the author's own book does not demonstrate notability, for example. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep. However topics that are only covered briefly or in poor quality secondary sources may not meet the general notability guideline." The Huffington Post article, the British Weight Lifting Article, the Reading article, and the Richmond article only mention her briefly and are not about her. Everyone should be able to agree that Goodreads, the Jigsaw Tree blog, and the Future Horizons store are poor quality secondary sources. It appears that Wikipedia states this article shouldn't be kept.SThompson (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a good time for an update. There are two new problems that haven't been addressed yet. 1. Due to recent edits to the article, it now relies too heavily on primary sources. They are the BBC Radio interview (interviews are primary sources), the National Autistic Society article (she wrote it herself), AuKids (she is connected to it), and the Curly Hair Project (her own website). The addition of primary sources does nothing to establish notability and there is still no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, therefore no evidence of notability. 2. It was brought up recently that her books are self-published as evidenced here. This should call into question her notability. Wikipedia doesn't generally give much weight to self-published authors.SThompson (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this case is more "borderline" than many, I can see some notability coming from the niche publications. There's nothing suspect about that -- people who operate in specialised areas can be expected to derive their coverage from specialty publications. That's true for many of the academics who have articles here. And it is certainly true for the hundreds upon hundreds of sports figures whose articles are sourced solely to an on-line sports database (and it is difficult to imagine anything more "niche" than that). I also see some notability coming from the BBC interview. Although we tend to downplay the significance of interviews in our notability discussions, the fact remains that the BBC does not have an unlimited amount of air time and that some editorial discretion went into the decision to devote some of that time to the subject. I also note that the nominator here has been insistent about removing sources from the article while the discussion is still on-going, doing so based on their declaration that the sources are unreliable and that, by removing them, the discussants will have "accurate information". But the reliability and usefulness of sources are precisely what we discuss here at Articles for Deletion. The nominator's insistence on hiding them from potential discussants suggests that the nominator does not believe that their argument is strong enough to withstand scrutiny and this, in turn, pushes me even further in the direction of "keep". NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I wanted removed are a blog, online stores, and Goodreads. Everyone should be able to agree that these are unreliable sources. The other source to which I have some objections, Able magazine, is of questionable quality but I have not removed because I think there needs to be a discussion about it. It is questionable because it doesn't come from an established reputable publisher (the publisher is Primas Media LTD. https://www.linkedin.com/company/primas-media-ltd) and it has been pointed out before that the Able magazine article may be too promotional. Here are a few quotes. "Alis Rowe is both an acclaimed author and the founding CEO of esteemed social enterprise, The Curly Hair Project." "With great difficulty and determination, she has managed to overcome such social obstacles." "One impressive example of Alis’ defiance against her Asperger’s is the fact that she has a strong academic track record." "Incredibly, Alis has managed to do this through writing and publishing a range of books." " To date, ‘the girl with the curly hair’ Facebook page has earned over a staggering 9,300 ‘likes.’" "There is absolutely no surprise as to why she has been shortlisted for the Entrepreneur of Excellence award at the National Diversity Awards 2014." Sounds pretty promotional to me, and therefore of questionable reliability.SThompson (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just aren't enough reliable sources. As noted by Jytdog above, the books are all self published. Now coming to the sources available,

BBC This is a brief interview where the subject was a guest. We require sources where someone else is talking about the subject, not where the subject is talking. (And these kind of brief interviews are a dime a dozen)
Autism.org Entirely written by the subject, so clearly not an independent sources
Aukids Self published magazine which simply lists the subjects name in a page called "experts". No indication why and anyway, this is not significant coverage
LonelyMindBook Yes, this the subject's self publishing imprint as noted above
HuffingtonPost The secondary coverage is 2 sentences, 3 sentences are quotes by the subject. This is really brief.
Every single of the other sources in the article are either primary/affiliated or not reliable.

Overall, this is just WP:TOOSOON. The sources are not good enough. There is also clear conflict of interest editing (See Special:Contributions/JustAnotherWiki166), which looks an attempt to promote the subject's books. I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article looks "padded." It's divided into four sections, too many for such a short article, and has two photos; normally only longer articles have multiple pictures. There are also repetitious statements: it's repeated three times that she founded the Curly Hair Project, twice that she as Asperger's and four times that she writes about autism, to provide a few examples. This article is severely lacking substance and this likely can't be remedied since coverage of her in secondary sources is negligible. If you remove the padding-the photos, the repeated statements, the unnecessary section headings-you're left with five or six sentences and a list of her self-published books. Not much of an article. Imalawyer (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has sourcing in Huffington Post and a biography written in Able Magazine. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia states that trivial mentions aren't enough to establish notability and "Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep. However topics that are only covered briefly or in poor quality secondary sources may not meet the general notability guideline." The Huffington Post article, while a reliable source, is not about her and mentions her only briefly (a few very short paragraphs in a very long article). Able magazine may not be a quality source because it doesn't come from an established reputable publisher and may be too promotional. This is not evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, therefore this article does not pass GNG.SThompson (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the Huffington Post is the best we can find, she doesn't meet the GNG, because we do not usually regard it as a RS, at least for living people; the degree of editorial control is much too erratic, and contributors can write about whatever they want to. It's published, not edited in the convention sense. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yet more problems have been brought up.

1. The problem of padding. It was pointed out that the article keeps repeating itself. The picture with Tony Attwood appears to be for the purpose of padding and/or an attempt to establish "notability by association." I don't see why a short article needs two pictures and I've never seen another article of this length with more than one picture.
2. The creator of this article, as you can see here (Special:Contributions/JustAnotherWiki166), has only made seven edits. One for the creation of the article, five edits to the article after its creation, and one edit to another article a year later. It appears this person may have joined Wikipedia for the sole purpose of creating this article. As further evidence, here are a few quotes from the original version. "Alis Rowe is a well-known author and speaker on Asperger's Syndrome in the UK. She is the founder of The Curly Hair Project, which has nearly 20,000 followers and aims to help women and girls with Asperger's Syndrome." "She lives in London and is one of the leading speakers in her field." "Since then she has written over a dozen more books, all of which have received an abundance of praise. "She has also received lots of awards for her work, including the prestigious Temple Grandin Award." This is an obvious example of WP:ADVOCACY, WP:PEACOCK and WP:PROMO. That this article began as an apparent attempt to promote an activist with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is a strong argument for its deletion.SThompson (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is absolutely zero evidence of conflict of interest despite your melodramatic affrontery, the article may well have been written by a fan of her books who may have been a little over-enthusiastic but that has been toned down by later edits. It is also worth noting that this article was approved by the WP:AFC process. Regarding your own editcount it is mainly centered on this AFD and nominating another aspergers author article so by your own logic do you have a conflict of interest regarding autism/aspergers publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantic306 (talk • contribs) 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say conflict of interest, I said promotion and advocacy. Those are different things. The evidence for it is stated above, so I won't restate it. I think the creator of this article is probably a fan of her books, and that you suggested the same thing and called the original version "over-enthusiastic" is an admission that there is evidence for it. Since you brought up the AFC, I thought I should point out that this person submitted two of them, and the first was rejected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JustAnotherWiki166). This is further evidence that 1. this person really wanted the article to be created and 2. the first editor who reviewed it questioned the quality of the sources and rejected it.SThompson (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most successful AFC submissions are declined at first then improved with added references etc and approved on a second, third or more review. That is what happened in this case as after first refusal more references were added so it was approved on second review.Atlantic306 (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears what happened is that the editor who approved it was lenient about sources. The original version's sources included Amazon, Goodreads, and blogs. I don't see how that could be an improvement over whatever was in the first submission.SThompson (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references incorporated including, but not limited to: Marie Claire Magazine (UK), Healthy Magazine, Your Autism Magazine, and Surrey Hills Community Radio. Maybe the not-so-random IP address making edits will find some more or comment below to discredit. Hmlarson (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Surrey Hills Community Radio interview is a primary source. Interviews are primary sources (https://www.sccollege.edu/Library/Pages/primarysources.aspx). We've been through this already. Your Autism Magazine is a primary source because it is distributed by the National Autistic Society, with which she is involved as evidence by the fact that she wrote about herself for the NAS page (http://www.autism.org.uk/get-involved/tmi/stories/alis.aspx). Secondary sources have to be independent of the subject. And only half of the article is about her. I can't read the Marie Claire article because it isn't online, but the title "The Truth About Women And Autism" suggests that it may be like the Huffington Post one, an article that isn't about her and only mentions her briefly. The Unltd. page barely mentions her at all and is an obvious example of WP:TRIVIAL. The Bath Echo article and the Richmond & Twickenham Times article are fine, but a couple articles in local papers is not enough to establish notability.SThompson (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A breakdown of the recent changes. Seven of the fifteen sources cited are primary, which are the BBC Radio and Surrey Hills Community Radio interviews (interviews are primary sources), the National Autistic Society profile (she wrote the profile herself and is connected to this group), the Your Autism Magazine article (she wrote it and the magazine is distributed by the National Autistic Society, with which she is connected), the Healthy Magazine article (a brief article that she wrote), AuKids (she is connected with it, which is all the cited page says), and the Curly Hair Project is her own website. Secondary sources have to be independent of the subject, therefore these are all primary sources. The Getreading article, the Richmond article, and the UnLtd. page all have only one sentence about her, therefore they are all obvious examples of WP:TRIVIAL. The Huffington Post article isn't about her and mentions her only briefly. This is not significant coverage. The Bath Echo article and the Richmond & Twickenham Times article are both from local papers, and generally more weight is given to national media outlets in establishing notability. A one-page Marie Claire article is cited, but it is not available online so its contents are unknown. The lase source, Able magazine, appears to be an example of WP:QUESTIONABLE as the article cited is very promotional, the magazine does not come from a reputable established publisher, and it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Even after these changes this article still fails WP:GNG because it does not have enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and still relies too heavily on primary sources (seven out of fifteen, nearly half) and trivial coverage.SThompson (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Sthompson and Imalawyer are Confirmed socks of Sdc3000--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keeppasses GNG L3X1 (distant write) 18:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Some mentions, but not enough in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Christmas (Jaci Velasquez album). Very clear consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navidad (Jaci Velasquez album)

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

Appears to simply be a Spanish version of her album Christmas, released that same year. Both albums could probably be merged to a single page. Toa Nidhiki05 14:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christmas. This is indeed a Spanish-language version of Christmas, right down to the same tracks in the same running order (some have their Spanish titles, but they are the same songs). It does appear to have had its own separate chart position on Billboard's Latin Pop Albums chart [25], but there's no reason why that can't be included in the same chart table as for Christmas with a note that it's the chart position for Navidad instead, particularly as there don't seem to be any other sources online for Navidad itself. It's unlikely that the two albums would have been reviewed separately, so the best thing to do would be to merge the Spanish track listing into a new section in Christmas and add a chart table for both albums combined. Richard3120 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Christmas per Richard3120. Nate • (chatter) 20:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. It would be more useful for the reader to have information about both on the same page, and there wouldn't be any concern that the resultant article would be too long. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christmas per above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Richard3120 and mention the charts for the Spanish-language version as done on My Christmas (Andrea Bocelli album) which also has a Spanish-language version. Erick (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as has been repeatedly suggested. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect per rationale above. Royal broil 11:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources are simply not there to meet our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Guide Dog Foundation

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

I'm sorry to do this, the subject looks like a good cause, but it appears to fail WP:NORG. Current sourcing is affiliated sites, fundraising sites, and entries in directories or databases. I've looked for independent sourcing, but only found material on Forbes.com from 'contributors' (WP:Perennial sources, unreliable) and some passing mentions in 'look at these cute guide dog puppies' type stories on news sites - nothing that rises to WP:CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if only WP had a WP:CUTE or WP:ADORABLE notability policy/guideline than this article would be okay as it involves labrador/retriever puppies, unfortunately there isn't so this is a delete, and before an editor suggests a "redirect" to List of guide dog schools that is for notable schools only (that article probably needs a bit of a clean-up of the non-notable schools that are listed there). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SwanFest

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

the sources do not show that this festival has obtained sufficient coverage to show notability. In a WP:BEFORE search all I could find was blogs and press releases. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sijo Vadakkan

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

Complete lack of independent sourcing, so fails WP:GNG. I considered CSD A7, but I guess the unsourced assertions of having won some awards might pass the credible claim of significance bar, so thought better to bring here. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Sources are all created by the person the article is about, and one of the sources is a broken link. Does not meet WP:GNG. Article is also very poorly written. ---GingeBro (talk • contribs) 14:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with GingeBro but only because of one of the cited grounds for deletion - that the article does not meet WP:GNG. The other two reasons cited - self-creation and poor writing - are both serious problems, but article deletion is not stated to be the appropriate remedy for either under WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY,WP:EP,or WP:DEL-REASON.Deccantrap (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable businessman. No refs from independent sources. Fails WP:N. Jupitus Smart 02:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletereads like a cut and paste from his business website. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimity that that this list fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed by Yugoslav Partisans after World War II in Zagreb

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

List is poorly referenced and grossly factually inaccurate (see talk page for illustration). The author has refused to address or even discuss the issues. Cleaning up this list would require the same effort as writing it from the scratch, so WP:TNT applies. GregorB (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the concerns raised by GregorB. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, list criteria is too defined and as well the list suffers from WP:OR issues. Ajf773 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on GregorB and what Wikipedia is not. This article serves as a cemetery without any actual bodies, and it's just the list of names. There can never be enough sources to satisfy what the intention of the article was. (That was a weird way of getting my point across, but I hope that it makes some sense. WP:OR here.)Utopes (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also appears to be at least partially WP:OR as others have stated. Highway 89 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT as too specific. The one-eyed horse thieves from Montana now have company. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, thanks, I'll be sure to use the "one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" example some day soon... GregorB (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. The inclusion criteria for this list is far too broad. No doubt dozens or even hundreds of people were killed in Zagreb after the Partisans captured the city, including soldiers trying to defend the place. The list includes notorious Ustashas executed for war crimes, as well as various others who were not even killed in Zagreb, but who fled across the border into Austria and were killed extra-judiciously in what is now Slovenia following the Bleiburg repatriations. The fact that the list doesn't mention who the Ustashas were, and only says they were politicians, indicates a very strong POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Ndambo

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

Moved out of AfC after being declined. Coverage is very limited. Several mentions, but most is either from press releases, blogs. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sourcing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage from reliable sources indicates the subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petropoulos

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

Refs dubious. Smells like advertising. Remagoxer (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Remagoxer (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Remagoxer (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand how an article about a major company is not meeting the criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is covering virtually every existing company, let alone historic companies like Petropoulos. I have corrected some expressions so that its does not "sound like advertising", so that there is no issue regarding this aspect. Skartsis (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to know why the nominator considers the references to be dubious. ²Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I should think that that is obvious. The 2008 text is being after the fact sourced to a 2012 book, written by the same person who is writing the wikipedia article, explaining why it is word-for-word identical to the book. The actual source is direct interviews with people by the Wikipedia editor who is doing primary research, writing it up here first in 2008, publishing the same in a book in 2012, and then citing the book as the source in the article in 2014. Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That actually is not a problem in and of itself - Wikipedia editors may publish in reliable venues, and said publications can be used as sources on Wikipedia. Furthermore, if the author of the source is also the Wikipedia editor, then copyright is not an issue either (though it should be properly paperworked). The problem, in this instance, is that the book in question - Greek Vehicle & Machine Manufacturers 1800 to Present: A Pictorial History seems to be an e-book lacking a publisher - or a WP:SPS - which is not a reliable source. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your assertion that this is unproblematic fails to account for the necessity of a time machine in order for it to apply to this case, ☺ as well as the fact that the first publication venue, by years, is here in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would've been a problem back in 2008-2012 (but we're not discussing an AfD back in 2011, are we?). Has this been published by a reputable publisher - it wouldn't be a problem now (assuming we had copyright all squared away). The problem now is that the 2012 source seems to be a WP:SELFPUBLISHed e-book. Icewhiz (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a problem now, and you keep looking at something that clearly is not the source. Read the edit summary in the aforegiven diff again. Uncle G (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~, not seeing any evidance of any real notability outside of a "book" written by the article creator.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the caviat that I agree specifically with Icewhiz's rationale. P:SPS applies to the source, and as such it's not a reliable source to base notability off of. I did some research and the only other independent sources I could find were blogs. However the fact that the author of the book previously drafted content here isn't so much an AfD matter as possibly a WP:NOT one. Regardless, it's not the relevant deciding factor. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.K.: - any chance you could do a BEFORE here in Greek? I do see some sources in Greek (and I suspect an automative assembler / manufacturer will possibly be notable on local-language sources)? Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is "Πέτρος Πετρόπουλος ΑΕΒΕ" in Greek, though per article often Πετρόπουλος.Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ now a Keep, ~~lacks any notability that I could find, but I may be looking in the wrong places. Somebody ping me if they find anything that's considered reliable on the topic.~~ Utopes (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: Please check below for the list of 15 new sources that I found. Thank you. Dr. K. 21:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dr. K, this was very appreciated. I am now willing to change my opinion on the topic, and my above vote is now correct based on the newfound information you presented. Utopes (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep After Icewhiz pinged me I made a quick search and I found a myriad of specialist Greek trade websites RS referring to various aspects of the conglomerate that is Petropoulos. From bilateral deals with Isuzu Motors to agricultural, banking, and insurance news, including news of the importation of electric buses in Greece by Petropoulos. This is the problem with editors putting up for deletion Greek companies when they have no idea about Greek RS. Here are some of the many RS I found: [26], [27], [28], [29]. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. And no, these are not blogs. They are Greek specialist trade websites and news orgs. Dr. K. 20:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per some of Dr.K.'s sources (some aren't great, but the Greek Fortune and others seem OK) + assessment. A 100 year old company, with a history of local vehicle production (private market as well as military - all be it limited in scope and in the past) - is the sort of company that tends to be notable. @Simonm223: in case you want to reconsider (I stand behind the SPS issue, but there are Greek sources available here).Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on new sources, with thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Here are the sources I found but in a nicer package:

Dr. K. 21:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW Sources found. Thumbs up. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, as it is an existing, well known company Skartsis (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Estenson

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

Promotion for non notable business man. Comments from him are not coverage about him. Article is bombarded with a lot of sources but falls short of GNG. PR, primary, interviews, routine announcements of comings and goings, listings. Claims he won a Primetime Emmy® Award but the Emmys don't mention him. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has multiple secondary source featured coverage in reliable sources. Subject was employed in upper management positions at major media companies. See featured articles, Nashville Business Journal, Hollywood reporter, Adweek, Featured here, here, also more than passing mention in Forbes. From what I have read, the 2007 Emmy award went to ABC – and the award is for Excellence in Interactive Television Programming: the subject was a VP of digital media, and as such the subject was a leader who shares in the Emmy. The subject passes our notability guide. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightburst. Disney and CNN are some of the top corporations and reliable sources accompany his tenure. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The linked feature-pieces are paid-for-spam. ∯WBG^converse 07:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as undisclosed advertising, something I have blocked the creator for. MER-C 09:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jersey Football Combination#Clubs. Fenix down (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Brelade F.C.

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

No specific criteria for association football clubs so per WP:NTEAM, must meet WP:GNG. I can find very few references to the club in reliable sources, just a couple of brief mentions of match results, and certainly not the kind of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources need to meet the WP:GNGs. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the consensus criterion used by WP:FOOTY for many years for UK teams is that they are notable if they play at a level which makes them eligible to enter their national cup (FA Cup, Scottish Cup, etc). Pretty much no Channel Islands teams have ever entered the FA Cup for geographical reasons, which would make them non-notable unless they could pass the GNG. As you note, there's no indication that this one does..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jersey Football Combination as possible search term, but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 14:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nom - I have no objection to the proposed redirect. Makes sense to me. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me - delete !vote struck -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - non-notable team. Incidentally Jersey does now have a team playing against UK sides but the local clubs like St Brelade don't warrant an article unless they meet WP:GNG. There are other clubs listed at Jersey Football Combination#Clubs that should also be redirected. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Binish Desai

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

Article about a subject that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. At this point it serves only to promote as i could only find passing mentions and nothing in depth. Lapablo (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Binish Desai is a notable personality by his work. I found many online news references that are reliable and independent of the subject. And these resources justify the notability of the subject. Here are few references which are reliable and independent of the subject: Forbes 30 under 30, DailyPress, NDTV, Rotary.org, Firstpost, TOI, ChicagoTribune, and TedX. I also added few new references which are reliable and independent of the subject: ThebetterIndia, DeccanChronicle, Times of India, TOI, Firstpost, LittleIndia, Book — Preceding unsigned comment added by FXBeats21 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 06:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Little

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

Article previously deleted as G11. Current article sourced almost entirely to the subject's website, plus a blog; there is one mention in the Irish Sun (can't use a tabloid to establish notability), and a short CNN interview in an article about a campaign the was involved in. I find a couple of other brief mentions in news media online, but don't see anything that would demonstrate she passes WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit_(blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Also reads like an advertisement. Highway 89 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Art is full of OR based mostly on the subject's website. Agree it seems to be essentially an advert. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created for promotional purposes only. This is a comissioned work created by an undisclised paid editor [39]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

For consideration: her profile in huffington post personal more than qualifies as person of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/legal-sex-worker-couples-communication_n_5ca78600e4b0a00f6d3f2a14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC) BBC news documentary of subject[reply]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06ktbgc?ocid=socialflow_facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/sex-worker-freedom-nevada-holds-steady Cato Institute podcast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilysmith/sex-workers-sesta-censorship-free-speech Buzzfeed article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://heavy.com/news/2019/05/alice-little/

Independent news article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing the significant, in-depth, independent coverage to attest the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:ENT. The lack of indepedant coverage is the pressing issue; the subject is mentioned in several sources, but almost all of the information is WP:PRIMARY (much of which stems from Little's self-written bio in the Huffington Post) and thus does not confer notability on the subject. The article is also overly promotional, which contradicts WP:NOTADVOCACY. More independent sources—especially those which actually make a case for Little having a claim to encyclopedic notability—would be required.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The refs in the article are no sufficient to assure me that she is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:AUTHOR based on the cultural impact of the article she wrote. Page should not be deleted. Clean up promotion and add more citations. Rocktober2018 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR is a redirect to WP:CREATIVE, a notability category that has fairly solid notability requirements. The question is, can it credibly be said that any non-primary source cited in the article (or that could potential be added to the article) directly indicates the subject meets the points below WP:CREATIVE without inference.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about meets notability guidelines. I have added some more references. --John B123 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - I took a look at those. You added her YouTube channel, and her 'Guest Writer' profile on HuffPost - neither of those help with notability. You also added a soft-soap puffy interview with Refinery 29 (primary, doesn't help establish notability). The best was probably the Irish Central piece - but to be honest, it's hard to see that as anything but a piece of churnalism - it's just rehashing details from her own website, and her HuffPost piece about herself. I can't see anything of this contributing to notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or to look at it another way, the fact that Irish Central, which as far as I'm aware is accepted as a RS, churnalises(?) an article about her, then they must think her notable enough for inclusion.--John B123 (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that IrishCentral would stand up to any scrutiny as an RS - writing an article based entirely on quotes from her own website, and from an article she wrote about herself, does not chime well with the 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' that WP:RS calls for. Maybe it does proper journalism as well, but literally just copying a few quotes from her own self-publicity does not strike me as the sort of reliable coverage we're looking for. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the page originally, and have tried to cut back some of the fluff. I might suggest reposting, and getting rid of some of the clutter on this page for a better discussion. One thing I've noticed is the general lack of sex worker coverage in mainstream GNG sources, which probably leads to a bigger discussion. Baguettelover (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree about the press coverage, the same applies to porn stars. There is of course also a moralistic attitude of some editors who target articles related to the sex industry. Whilst we argue about the quality of references, the unreferenced tag is used on 225,283 articles, some of which have had the tag for years, yet no nomination for deletion. 56K followers on Twitter shows notability to a lot of people, but unfortunately WP doesn't work that way. --John B123 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John B123 I don't know whether you were including me in your 'some editors' above? FWIW, I don't believe I've ever nominated any article connected to the sex industry or to pornography to AfD before (feel free to check), and I certainly don't target such pages, I just volunteer at WP:NPP. Working my way through the back end of the queue, I came across this article and reviewed it according to standard NPP guidelines. I found that it did not contain sufficient independent sources to establish notability per GNG, and I couldn't find sufficient sourcing upon searching - so, I nominated to AfD. That's standard procedure with new articles. As for the 225,283 articles you refer to - other stuff exists. The fact that there are unreferenced articles out there is not a reason to deviate from our notability standards on this article. If you want to establish a new notability guideline that applies to people who have a lot of Twitter followers but aren't covered in independent reliable sources, you will need to establish consensus for that. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 22:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: My comments were certainly not directed at you, but was a general comment. I have been involved in other AfD discussions where there were comments along the lines of "Delete - Nobody wants to read about prostitution on Wikipedia". The same editors tend join in all the AfDs for a given subject. Most discussions have 10 or less editors so half a dozen regulars with a similar outlook skew the decision. Effectively, out of millions of members, or even thousands of active members, only the views of a handful count. "Consensus" isn't really that when it's only the "consensus" of a small fraction of 1% of editors. I find a lot of WP policies, guidelines and processes fundamentally flawed. Taking notability for example; a scientist in a very specialist micro-field of study may have published significant papers in that field, those works cited by many etc, so far exceeds the notability requirements. We end up with an article, no matter how good, that very few people will read because it is such a specialised area. On the other hand, we have articles on popular people that are of interest to a far greater audience that are deleted for notability. In pre-internet day, the only way of verifying facts was by printed matter. WP hasn't moved on that far from those days. Whilst it accepts online sources for verification, generally that is only the online version of printed matter (or previously printed sources that are now online only). Social media has changed the way "news" is reported, sometimes going to social media only. Although this can be problematic, in that I can post "fake news" if I wanted, taking a stance that all social media is unreliable is to shut off to a lot of information.

Again, not directed at anybody in this discussion, whilst obviously WP needs to be policed, the policing is very subjective at times and policies and guidelines are used to further personal views of what WP should or should not include, and a blind eye turned at other times to the same end. WP comes across at times as having too high a proportion of "school teachers" telling people what they are doing wrong, often in a less than friendly way, compared to the number who are trying contribute to the knowledge base. --John B123 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Blatant advert. None of the sources supports notability per WP:GNG and no evidence the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:ENT. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides the links above (from those pretty much only the BBC link is relevant and a quality link, the rest is irrelevant, the Huffington Post one even says Alice Little Guest Writer which makes it a self-published source) I took the pains of clicking on the "news" (search) link in the AfD template. Here are a couple (at least slightly interesting) results I found: The Irish Sun: Sexy 4ft 8 Irish lass reckons she’s the highest paid hooker in America – raking in $1MILLION a year, XBIZ: Veteran shutterbug Frank Thomas to Guest on 'CannaPornia' Tonight (XBIZ is "the adult industry's leading publisher of business news and information"), Mirror: America's 'highest paid sex worker' on $1m a year 'wants to help people connect', ProSieben/Taff: Alice Little: Die bestbezahlteste Prostituierte der USA (geoblocked, Taff is a "lifestyle" i.e. tabloid magazine of German commercial TV channel ProSieben), Nový Čas: Najdrahšie platená prostitútka: Jej cieľom je spájať sa zmyslupným spôsobom, neuveríte koľko si zarobí! (Novy Cas is the most popular Slovak tabloid newspaper), The Sun: America’s ‘highest-earning’ legal prostitute reveals what life is really like working in a brothel plus some other tabloid newspapers from additional countries (e.g. Poland and Belgium) and tons of local US newspapers (who only mentioned her name in a single sentence). No, this is NOT a notable person, rather someone who's working overtime to become famous. It's also a pity that the ghostwriters she has hired don't know how to google properly even. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple articles confirm notability. She was profiled extensively by ABCs nightline for her work with hookers for healthcare https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/hookers-health-care-fighting-trumpcare-48716509 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiCo702 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See WP:SIGCOV - she was mentioned and briefly interviewed in that news piece, which is about a political pressure group she's involved with - it's not about her, and does not give significant coverage about her. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate information — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristineBriannaMaggio (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm afraid that's rather missing the point - we're not discussing whether it's accurate or not. Please actually read the nomination, and the notability guidelines, then feel free to make an argument based on them. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, two fresh & brand new accounts created today with only a single edit each that happens to be on this (fairly obscure) page. Just a note for the puppet master (you know who you are!): the WP:SPI process has been created exactly for cases like these. -- CoolKoon (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, I think that it needs to be rewritten entirely. Not written in a encyclopedic tone. Otherwise delete. The page author clearly has COI and most likely they were paid. Masum Reza^📞 20:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regarding article status, an editor seeming to have substantial real-world connection to the subject has stated several times, e.g. here and here, that the subject did indeed pay to have the article created. If this is true, it seems NUKEIT is in order. Agricola44 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, Agricola44, that editor has said stuff along those lines a few times in different venues. I've actually been considering whether I should ask an admin to revdel those comments though, they are probably a BLP violation since we don't have any evidence that what they are saying is true. I do think the article should be ditched for the lack of notability, and the likelihood that it was WP:UPE strengthens my opinion on that, but still I'm not comfortable with these accusations remaining visible. @Kudpung: - since you voted on this and have communicated with Cyber69surfer about the paid editing stuff, your thoughts on this would be appreciated - do their comments (particularly their more recent ones here, now self-deleted but still visible in the page history) need to be removed? GirthSummit _(blether) 21:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article and its history have all the hallmarks of a comissioned work. UPE is definitely against policy. With nearly 6mio articles, en.Wiki does not need to keep every possibly keepable article just because it can be kept. Deleting this article will also send a message to its subject that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a vanity platform. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Agree the comments should be removed from the page history. We have know way of knowing if the comments were accurate or even genuine. --John B123 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rhondda Urban District Council. MBisanz ^talk 22:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1896 Ystradyfodwg Urban District Council

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

The results of a local election in Wales, 1896. Fails a combination of WP:NOT and WP:N. We are not an electoral database. We do not carry pure tables of election results without any discussion or context of who the parties, candidates, issues, etc. were. And coverage of such topics is very unlikely to exist for a 19th century local election. Sandstein 11:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been two previous AfDs on urban/rural district council elections, which resulted in merge and merge. Number 5 7 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge also 1894 Ystradyfodwg Urban District Council election. A UDC was a very low level of local government, often consisting of a single parish that happened to be very populous. It is axiomatic that within WP that local politicians are NN, unless for notable for other reasons. It may be legitimate to have a table showing political party representation in the article on the UDC itself. The particular election we are discussing involved the re-election of most of the candidates unopposed. Quite apart from the wider issue as to such e3lection articles generally, this one is about a thoroughly NN election. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rhondda Urban District Council. There is a good source for the information. Ultimately, it would be good to have a political history of all these councils but there's no need for separate articles for each election now. Cavrdg (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rhondda Urban District Council. Not notable enough for a standalone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus appears to be that this topic does not meet notability guidelines. Generally, for an organization to have an article here it is not enough for it to have lots of branches or lots of members; we need that various independent reliable sources have written about a given topic. WP:NCORP has some criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allatra IPM

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

Non-profit organization of questionable notability. No indication of how big they are, or what of any consequence they do, except holding conferences on very vague topics. I can't evaluate the non-English sources, but the English ones seem to be from websites of questionable reliability, or straight-on esoteric fringe nonsense (e.g., [40]). The text also reads as an attempt at self-promotion. Sandstein 11:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very helpful article and reflects the IPM Allatra description fully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjakubis (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trying to find information about this on the net, but the more I try to design precise searches, the less I find – it appears that there are few secondary sources about the topic. I did the following: 1. follow the links in the article, in the section Links all links were dead, of the 2. some of the links in References seems to go to articles which are perhaps secondary, perhaps self-published, 3. Google for "AllaTra International Public Movement" and "Lagoda Movement", but when I forced google to include the words verbatim, virtually all secondary sources disappeared. I think they are non-notable, and perhaps (mis)using Wikipedia as a self-publishing site. They should be deleted. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for what the deal with, I found some Youtube stuff that they believe that they can transform people to gods by putting them into pyramids built from mirrors. But that doesn't matter, Wikipedia may contain woo, but it must be notable woo. C.f. Ectoplasm (paranormal) Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 22:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Thank you for your feedback regarding our article. We have removed the points which might be regarded as self-promotion. At the same time, we would like to emphasize that our organization really includes a great number of participants who have established branch offices in many countries of the world. Taking this into account, we believe that our organization deserves at least a minimal article on Wikipedia. We kindly ask you not to remove the article about us and give us an opportunity to work on its improvement, in particular by adding more weighty proof links. We truly hope for understanding and fruitful cooperation. comment added by Sashko u 10:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only mentions I could find consist of press releases and the organization's own website. Appears to have been created as promotional in nature to use Wikipedia to build credibility, not because they're otherwise notable. 136.57.207.196 (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon! While writing an article, we made a mistake, namely we inserted an incorrect link which is not relevant to the topic. We have now removed this link. We extend our apologies and express deep regret that this link might have influenced your impression of us. comment added by Sashko u 10:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kull Warrior

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

I am the creator of this article, but I did it a really long time ago back when Wikipedia was still where you put fictional cruft about things. Currently it doesn't meet notability standards at all and is better off in Wikia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This content looks good, but I agree that it might not necessarily need to be a stand alone article. Would you be OK if I instead tried to see if I could condensate and summarize this content and include it in the Stargate article? Michepman (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I am concerned about is that all the info comes from sources that are WP:PRIMARY and even if merged would not be notable in secondary sources. I'll leave it up to the discussion though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent point. I'll admit that I haven't reviewed the sources in detail yet, and it may be that all we need is to simply mention that the Kull Warriors exist in the Stargate universe if these characters are significant and relevant enough in the broader context of the show to warrant such a mention. Thoughts? Michepman (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I really, really want to !vote keep here but I do have WP:NOR concerns due to the WP:PRIMARY issue. I'd like to see as much of this retained as possible though! --Goobergunch|? 04:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uparika Sharma

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

A dentist who likely fails WP:N. Her claim to fame is "best dentist" awards from something called the "National Consumer Advisory Board" and "425 Magazine", neither of which seems to be notable, if they even exist. The press coverage cited seem to be repackaged promotional content; the "chicagotribune.com" article, for example is labeled as "This item was posted by a community contributor". This all looks like an attempt at self-promotion. Sandstein 11:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deccantrap (talk • contribs)

In the medical field, notability is a bit different. An Indian born dentist going to USA & then winning Best Dentist award in Seattle with 1000s of dentists is a pretty big thing. Especially when we think about barriers being broken for a woman. Quick look shows that 425 Magazine seems to have a significant traffic in Seattle area. The article does not seem to have any links to personal page, so it does not look like self-promotion. I had TMJ problem myself, so I appreciate Dentist with TMJ expertise & Chiropractor recognition. I am trending towards keeping it and reviewing future coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayrice5 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC) — Jayrice5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: 425 Magazine appears to be an advertorial, not a reliable source. See [41]. The other press coverage reads like ad copy. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sharma definitely doesn't pass GNG, and also doesn't seem to be covered by even Wikipedia:Notability (doctors). I appreciate that notability standards for medical professionals may be different, but I can't find much on her that is from independent, non-advertisey sources. Gilded Snail (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, delete and close AFD. Meeanaya (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability criteria. --Harshil169 (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From a glance article is WP:NOTNOTABLE with no verifiable peer reviewed articles or journals available. Mrbuskin (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bracell

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

Recreation of Bracell Limited. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bracell Limited). The current version which turn the redirect back to article, fail multiple guideline such as WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and may be WP:PAID and WP:CSD#G11. Bracell Limited is a pausable alt name of Sateri Holdings, which by this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sateri, Sateri Holdings is notable. Thus, the bold recreation/split should be reverted, the page history that under this article namespace Bracell should be deleted. A new redirect should recreate with page protection to prevent recreation. Matthew hk (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel obliged to congratulate the nominator for the most reasons for deletion I've ever seen snuck in. I'd appreciate a passing admin taking a glance to see if the recreation-related criteria are, indeed, failed. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 06:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Sidewalk

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

Comes nowhere near meeting WP:TVSHOW. Page for a series...that isn't a series. There was only a pilot episode made and despite the wellknown cast members this series does not seem to have been picked up and get past the pilot stage. The 2 "awards" it won come from small pay to enter festivals and 1 doesn't exist any more (catskill). Page created by a WP:COI editor. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dolph is the only 'known' name here; otherwise this is an article about an unsold pilot that violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Nate • (chatter) 20:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrie Nelson

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

The second source gives the only non-stats details about this racing driver, but makes it clear he didn't compete in major circuits. The third reference states he won one race in the 1979 Australian Touring Car Championship, but nothing else, so WP:SPORTSPERSON is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely 18 starts at Bathurst 1000 counts. Got 7th one year, don't know how the rest went [42]. Looking in two books Greenhalgh, David; Thomas B. Floyd; Bill Tuckey (2000). Australia's Greatest Motor Race 1960-1999. Chevron Publishing Group. ISBN 1-875221-12-3. and Noonan, Aaron (2018). Holden At Bathurst - The Cars: 1963-2017. AN1 Media Pty. Ltd. would tell you more. Coverage also in [43]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any significant independent coverage of him. I found some passing mentions and results, but no significant coverage. I'm not sure if he meets any criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT. He hasn't competed in any series mentioned in those criteria but it's not an all encompassing list. I would lean towards delete since he fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I definitely don't see the coverage necessary to meet the GNG. My search found him in results, lists of competitors, and some passing mentions--none of which is enough to show notability. Don't know why just competing at the Bathurst 1000 would show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final. Commenting seems to have picked up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme. Bookscale (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as The Bathurst 1000 is "Widely regarded as the pinnacle of motorsport in Australia," according to it's article, alternatively he could be merged there Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 15:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Bianchi

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

Winning a silver medal (only) at a university-level competition does not qualify this person under WP:NSPORT and the coverage does not qualify under WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but it is certainly not his only medal. As he was on the podium at the World Cup in Bonn, last year ([44]).-Binbaksa (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a real lack of any decent coverage, so we'd be looking for some kind of presumptive notability on the basis of his sporting achievements, and I'm not sure a bronze medal at a World Cup quite cuts it. No doubt he'll qualify for an article in the future, but not right now. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough reliable sources added with enough coverage, including Tv coverage on Rai2 and RaiSport (the final was transmitted in Live on Rai2, one of the main Italian Channel of television). Not only on Eurosport.-Binbaksa (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. We should not rush to create articles on people who lack a true track record showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep winner of multiple medals in international competitions. consensus is that medalists in junior international competitions are notable; if you want to change that, go to Nsports. Queen-washington (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the guidelines or discussion that establishes that consensus? I'd genuinely be happy to change my !vote if there's clear consensus for that, but I don't think WP:NSPORTS as written gives that impression. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus for most sports is that junior events do not convey notability. WP:NSPORT talks about competing at the highest level and junior events are definitely not that. A podium finish at a world championship would definitely show notability, one at a world cup or university level does not. Papaursa (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it is NOT a junior event, but an international championship for athletes between 18 and 25 years (born in 1994). Bianchi is born in 1997 and he is no more a junior.-Binbaksa (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the incorrect comment that "medalists in junior international competitions are notable". Papaursa (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not seem to meet WP:NSPORT. Coverage is predominantly about the Universiade games, which can be considered routine sports reporting and also WP:BLP1E. WP:TOOSOON seems to apply until his adult preformances become notable. Papaursa (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

always Keep. Because he is an adult (and not a junior) and because he got a podium at World Cup with coverage.-Binbaksa (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the events he's had success at are considered the highest level--quoting WP:NSPORT"highest level (such as the Olympics)". Depending on the sport, and the number of entries, world championships may also be viewed as showing notability. World Cup and University games are not at that level. In fencing, World Cup events convey only 1/3 of the ratings points of the Olympics, 40% of that for the world championships, and only 2/3 of the points for zonal championships. That seems to show a clear gap between World Cup and "highest level". The Universiade games have 0 ratings points. Sports like boxing and kickboxing accept competitors ranked in the top 10, while even world championship quarterfinalists in judo have been put up for deletion. As far as I can tell he's not ranked in the top 50 and has never competed at an adult world championship. Some routine sports reporting on lesser events does not suffice for meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as FIE ranks (Official), Guillaume Bianchi is:

46th (S) as a Senior in 2018/2019
36th (S), 42.00, in 2017/2018.

So you are completely wrong saying that « he’s not ranked in the top 50 » but you are right for the fact he has never competed yet in a World Championship: ahah, he is an Italian, one of the best countries in foil ! If you think that Universiade is not very important, consult again please the results of the 10 last Universiades (and even the most recent one: Fencing at the 2019 Summer Universiade) and you will notice many great champions (Olympic and World). We do not share the fact that a direct coverage on Rai 2 (the second main channel in Italy, you can see the video here) is enough for the notorious. Seen by millions of people. Live. It is enough for my point of vue.-Binbaksa (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I can't access the FIE website on my computer so I looked at the World Cup article that said he was ranked 64th at the beginning of that event. The point is he's nowhere near the top 10 and you haven't countered the fact that he's never competed at the highest level (World Cups are the 4th highest level event). It's irrelevant that some Universiade winners have become notable because notability is not inherited. Being in a live event on TV is nice, but thousands of American college football players have that every year and yet are not deemed WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spout _ 06:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also finished top 3 in the World Cup and won gold at the European championships. Seems notable to me.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the European event was a junior (U23) event.Sandals1 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under-23 is not junior. And Under-23 champions are notable in other sports.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many others athletes are notables just for the individual Summer Universiade medal. --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete One podium finish at, as Papaursa points out, a fourth tier event isn't close to meeting the requirement that athletes have "competed at the highest level". Success as a junior also doesn't meet this standard, which is why junior success generally doesn't show notability. The Universiade competition is the same (limits on competitors). Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting of results and fails to meet the GNG. The editors voting to keep the article, all of whom are pretty new to AfD discussions, are ignoring WP:NSPORT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:ROUTINE while relying on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and incorrect interpretations of what it takes to be a notable athlete.Sandals1 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether he meets WP:NSPORT is irrelevant because the sources are enough to meet WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Fakri

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

The mentions here only cover him in passing (and ref. #3 locks a visitor into an infinite loop of "click cancel to OK" which does nothing). Certainly not enough here to warrant keeping this article. I do not speak Bengali, so if others can find sufficient discussion of this subject in Bengali sources, I will rescind my nomination for deletion. A loose necktie (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 10:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several references in the corresponding Bangla article at bn:হাসান ফকরী and a Google News search for the Bangla name "হাসান ফকরী" generates several more possible references. The content of this article is based on its Bangla equivalent on Bangla Wikipedia.--Nahal^(T) 10:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very poor nomination, national award wining person with huge media coverage. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 12:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is funny, because the only reference mentioning the national award he won mentions neither his name nor the film for which he supposedly won it. If he did indeed win such an award, and the award is indeed competitive and national, then finding a reference that says this shouldn't be so very difficult. Including a reference that supposedly supports this claim but does nothing of the kind, now.... How do you account for this? And while there is indeed an article at the Bangla Wikipedia with its own references, this is only of limited use since each language Wikipedia has its own set of standards for what counts as a valid reference. The references that appear here don't seem to qualify him on the English Wikipedia; I would like to see the references from the Bangla one which meet the standards of the English Wikipedia and which support claims made in this article. The last reference, at least, seems to fall rather short

I am also noting that the English article on the film makes no mention of him winning this award, which is surprising. That article also has no references supporting any claims made in it. A loose necktie (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See here award list 1993-1995 line no. 14 ১৪. সেরা গীতিকার- হাসান ফকরী (চাঁদাবাজ ও বাংলার বধূ), follow 2nd para পুরস্কার ও সম্মাননা পেয়েছেন জাতীয় চলচিত্র পুরস্কার ১৯৯৩ (শ্রেষ্ঠ গীতিকার), জাতীয় চলচ্চিত্র পুরস্কার ঘোষিত হলে এই গানটির জন্য শ্রেষ্ঠ গীতিকারের পুরস্কার লাভ করেন হাসান ফকরী — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 03:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sea also BFDC 11 pages serial no. 10 — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 10:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hasan Fakri is a Lyricist who won Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Lyrics in 1993. So must keep the article.--Anup Sadi (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably will be a significant person because he received the National Award in Bangladesh. According to this source 1 2 he is a writer, national awardee for best songwriter. WP:GNG for passing a significant poet, songwriter and should not be deleted.--Nahal^(T) 07:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FitNesse

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NSOFT. A search of Google Scholar [45] and Google Books results in plenty of sources and manuals about the subject. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nom's No reliable sources seems disproved by the article's book reference 978-0-321-26934-8 by Laplante which appears WP:RS. Gojko Adzic's book is self published but in mitigation he is recognized by a wikipedia article and he has other published works and awards in the field so he is not to be discounted. I'd notice IBM developer works has tutorials on it. [[46]]. I don't really need to dig further.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AmericanAir's findings. Utopes (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 16:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Jarvis (author)

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

Non-notable author, couple of works, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello. I would argue for notability for two reasons. First, originality of approach, technique, and subject (in the spirit of item 2. of WP:AUTHOR as I read it - apologies, I am a novice), and the author's participation in a notable collective body of work (in the spirit of item 3. of WP:AUTHOR - this point I will seek to clarify, with refs, promptly).

The three works listed are recognised as 'firsts' on the subjects, which would not be notable in itself except that those subjects are significant (an indication of this may be the significant attention / discussion that the corresponding Wikipedia articles generate) - Carlos Duarte Costa, Ngo Dinh Thuc, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. It could be considered remarkable that there has been no previous monograph ever written on these topics, and therefore these first scholarly publications on the subjects are notable.

I will aim to add more references and sources as they appear (the works are fairly recent).

Another aspect of notability, I would argue, is the subject's significant founding role in the UK branch of a significant international movement, the Catholic Worker Movement.

I would argue that it is in keeping with the overall goal to properly identify the significant individuals of a) a notable but comparatively little-researched area of academic and social interest, and b) a notable and comparatively little-researched international social movement.

I hope these comments help - as I say, a mere beginner! Apollinari (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that source does not state that he helped found the Catholic Workers Movment - which was founded in 1933, by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin - but only that he was part of a group that established some sort fo a "house" for a London branch of that movement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:AUTHOR. Much/most of the sourcing is PRIMARY. The claims to notability are co-founding a Catholic Worker's house, sourced to Catholic Worker. Writing 2 books, but no book reviews are given. If, someone manages to find INDEPENDENT reviews of the books in WP:RS publications, please ping me to revisit. I am always willing to change an iVote when shown solid sources. This, however, appears to be PROMO for a non-notable author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ To clarify, three book reviews are given, one from a journal (an established print periodical) and two from a serious blog. May I ask whether the subjective comment about the article being a PROMO (above) is intended to cast doubt on the good faith of the submitter? Apollinari (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with "RENEW" magazine, but the like given on the page is [47], which did not look like an edited periodical, and may not be INDEPENDENT. A wrodpress blog by an non-notable person is not useful in establishing notability. The forward to the book is not INDEPENDENT of the book. Is there a review that I am missing?

Nor does PROMO posted on the publisher's page. And the fact that he had written articles does not contribute unless those articles are discussed in reliable publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see that you are new here, and, therefore, probably unaware that it is customary when comment at AfD about a page you created to identify yourself as the page creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking good faith duplicate iVote made by new user presumably unaware that although we can comment repeatedly, only one bolded iVote per customer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance, it is truly appreciated. Sorry to insist but I see this accusation of doing promotion as unwarranted conjecture and speculation. I am new, yes, but Wikipedia guidelines enjoin us to presume good faith, and I am doing my best! And what does "And the fact that he had written articles does not contribute (etc.)" mean? Who had written articles? Me?Apollinari (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to Jarvis. Publishing a book or an article does not show that a writer is notable. Books only support the notability of the author by Wikipedia standards if multiple WP:RS publications review or engage with the book. Such material must be WP:INDEPENDENT. And if Jarvis publishes an essay in a the New Statesman or The Guardian, that does not establish notability. But if he publishes such ab article, and The Nation and The Times write articles about the article Jarvis wrote, the discussion about his writing contributes ot establishing his notability by Wikipedia standards. for a dramatic instance of this, see Michael Anton. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Indeed. I believe I never contested that. Apollinari (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with caution? Could there be an appropriate alternative to deletion? The article has issues but also potential. The Sources problem looks like a quantity issue rather than a quality issue. The Notability question does not look cut-and-dried, but difficult to assert. Edits are being made. Vintage-vintner (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)— Vintage-vintner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep sources may be Catholic-related, but that has not necessarily stopped us from using them to establish notability in the past.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. As my editing record will show, I am happy to cite small faith publications. Even happier when they are WP:RS. If you are familiar with the editing process at RENEW, please share what you know. Or, if you can access the article cited to 2019, please let us know whether it is by or about Jarvis.19:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)

The 2019 article is a book review by a Paul Dean, as indicated in the reference. Apollinari (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the sources, one by one:

Soources # 2 & 3 are a blog VagrantVicar are NOT WP:RS.
source # 4 : Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, Christian Anarchism: a political commentary on the gospel,]] (Imprint Academic, Exeter, 2011, pp 355-356, p 408ff) is a WP:RS, althogh I cannot access the relevant page online. The page, however, uses this source only to claim that Jarvis was part of a group that established a residential house in London as part of the Catholic Worker Movement. A worthy activity, but not a notable one. The fact that a newsletter of the Catholic Worker movement mentions him does not contribute to notability.
to understand how inadequate the sourcing here is, look at citation #5: [48]. It is an announcement for a Catholic Worker panel discussion, but Jarvis isn't one of the panelists, he's the contact person. Ditto for source # 6, 7, 8 & 9. \
Source # 1, #11 not INDEPENDENT; it is the preface of a book by Jarvis.
Source # 12 is a blog
1. 13 is Jarvis' publisher
Sources # 10, 15 [49] are to a Catholic magazine called RENEW. The 2018 reference is to an article Jarvis wrote; the 2019 reference is behind the subscribers-only paywall. ~~it is very likely to be an article Jarvis wrote,~~ as the 2018 citation was. This would leave us with the mention in a book of the fact that he was part of a group or committed that opened a Catholic Worker residence in London as our sole SECONDARY, WP:RS source. It ≠ notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2019 article is a book review by a Paul Dean, as indicated in the reference. I wonder why it appeared "very likely to be an article Jarvis wrote" when the reference is clear and we are Assuming Good Faith Apollinari (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying this citation (Paul Dean, 'Book Reviews', RENEW, No. 189, March 2019, p 17 ), the nature of which was not at all clear to me. I guessed that it was "very likely" to be an article Jarvis wrote because the first citation was to an article Jarvis wrote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renew - small publication backed by Hans Küng, Mary Grey, Elizabeth Stuart, Tony Flannery and others, among the most influential (and controversial) figures in the field. Leaning is progressive, feminist, LGBT theology. No question it is WP:RS. So the total is two WP:RS references? As I commented, the issue seems quantity of quality sources, not quality itself. Could use more voices, insights and sources on this but I imagine that would require some time to pass (WP:POTENTIAL). I don't think deletion would be a travesty but this is not clear outright fail of WP:AUTHOR WP:GNG either, as I'm sure many cases are. Borderline case.Vintage-vintner (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
summing up We have 2 WP:RS items for Jarvis' career. 1 review of a book he wrote. 1 book (page view not available when I searched) that discusses or mentions the fact that he was part of a group that established a Catholic Worker Movement something in London. Not clear what it was that the participated in crating. a newsletter? a residence? a London chapter of the movement? It is not clear what the claim is. One book review in a WP:RS does not pass WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find the claims clear from the article, which is where the claims should presumably be found. Catholic Worker is described as an international network of branches, co-founding London Catholic Worker would mean co-founding the London branch. It's amazing what can seem clear to one person and not to another, I agree that it's terribly confusing sometimes. I don't think it can be a decisive argument that an editor cannot access one of the WP:RS book references and therefore discards it. It is not a criterion of WP:RS that it be free online access, how would that work? But I get it, the more you contribute the more rules you get to invent.Vintage-vintner (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We still have only 2 sources on this person.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- That is much more a discussion of verifiability of sources, not of notability. He has clearly undertaken research on dissident Catholics. I note that he is now in his mid-40s, and has recently published three books, all with the same publisher. The article says nothing of what he has done before. I suspect that his doctorate is a recent one and the three books are a spin-off from his thesis. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His books may have impact going someday, in the form of scholarly discussion, citation - but they don't have it yet. I have searched - I presume some of the editors arguing keep have also searched - and I just can't find sources. Plus the fact that User:Vintage-vintner is a WP:SPA account created the day after this discussion began, and has edited only on a narrow range of closely connected topics edited by the page creator, User:Apollinari. (The arrival of this 2nd editor, so similar to page creator, makes me suspect WP:PROMO & WP:COI.) The only other editror arguing to keep this newly created page, User:Epiphyllumlover, argues that Catholic-related sources are WP:RS. I do not dispute that . I only argue that we need more than a book review in a single, very minor publication and a book that names subject as one of a group of founders of the London branch of an organization. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something to keep in mind is that this is a niche topic area, additionally Wikipedia articles on Independent Catholicism are currently often challenged by lack of notable sources/authors. I understand deleting a fringe non-notable church, but in general leaving the author/scholar articles undefeated will help people find reliable sources in the future. BTW, I have not searched for sources for him, at least not yet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately for the article I agree with the source analysis done by E.M. Gregory - this is a borderline AfD on a niche subject so don't terribly mind if it's kept, but he just doesn't quite pass WP:AUTHOR IMO. SportingFlyer T·C 05:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaria Venturini Fendi

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

No RS, most of them are interviews, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More reliable sources (books) have been added to references and bibliography, thanks for checking --Laviniastampa (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why would interviews not be valid for establishing notability? She also has non-interview sources covering her, anyway, such as [50][51] and she has enough mention in GBooks hits for me to think she's an easy pass. — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are usually seen as invalid for establishing notability because most of the time the only substantive content comes directly from the subject of the interview without any fact-checking. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of Italian language sources such as this, this, this and this to demonstrate that she meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Amakuru, as well as an additional search to confirm that the findings are true, and that this article does indeed met WP:GNG. Utopes (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Outsourcing Professionals

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

No evidence for notability according to the rules in WP:NCORP. The first two "NY Times" refs are just pages where it is mentioned based on press releases . The 3rd NYT is just a mention. The other refs are plcements on lists or their own site. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment - If "Five items about IAOP were covered during the first half of 2019 by The New York Times" is correct, does that mean NYTimes is no longer WP:RS, and is just a press release publisher? How many companies can get 2 items in one month, and then one each month for three months in a row? Pi314m (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author feedback - Per WP:NCORP - notable? A Congresswoman cited them, albeit negatively, as being on the side of the bad guys. Computerworld had an article, 1/3 of which is about them, the rest is about Outsourcing training and certification, as it related to computer people. A University of Oxford/Oxford University study, posted on the National Center for Biotechnology Information's website, wants them to "update its ethical standards to be more in line with the worker protections needed in a digital economy." The awards and hall of fame part, by itself, may not be A-1/top-of-the-line notability, but when a different Member of Congress is pounding away about "a malicious attack meant to break the backs of organized labor in Ohio" that has a certain amount of notability too.
The article even has a caveat from 2009 IAOP Hall of Fame inductee Peter Drucker regarding outsourcing and "large numbers of people" that begins "there is a price..." Pi314m (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pi314m, I don't understand what you are trying to argue here. "Five items were covered" and it's sourced to a page with Google search results? That's a terrible practice--but it gets worse when one actually goes and looks at the things listed on that page, which includes stuff like this--which is clearly marked as a press release. In other words, "covered by the New York Times" is just completely untrue: the NYT merely reproduced a press release. Even reference 18, falsely claimed to link to coverage by the New York Times, is a press release, as revealed by the very URL, https://markets.on.nytimes.com/research/stocks/news/press_release.asp?docTag=201902130900PR_NEWS_USPRX____NY52388%26feedID=600%26press_symbol=6694205 . Oh, the Congresswoman--you cite the record, from the House, which is a primary source, and thus also adds nothing to notability. So no. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: directory information and press releases are inflated to create the idea of notability. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per both Nom and Drmies. It's also significantly promo. Either press releases, or in a couple of non-promo cases, non-secondary/independent. I don't think it would meet GNG but it definitely doesn't meet NCORP. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Analysis of the sources by multiple editors lead to a consensus that, despite a superficially large number of sources, there is not enough actual, in-depth independent coverage to demonstrate notability by Wikipedia's standards. A reliable article cannot be produced from promotional material, and the vast majority of the offered sources are nothing more than that; a consensus of all editors in this discussion other than the article creator and primary contributor supports its deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 15:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B-Nasty

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

Promotion for non notable rapper. No good charting. No gold. No national rotation. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Looking closely at some of the sources used.

21. Reviewindie. Who? "We want to give Indie artists a new promotion vehicle that will get fans talking." [52]. So not an independent reliable source. The article itself reads like pure PR. "In addition to her vocal gifts, the song showcases her exceptional lyrical phrasing, stylistic uniqueness and a truly catchy melody and rhythmic undertones." [53], Posted April 18, 2016 by Peter Burns. Same article also appears at Soundlooks, BY JEENA JOHNSON ON APRIL 17, 2016. Even has the same formatting error at the start. Also appears at Tunedloud, by Staff April 20, 2016.

22. Jamsphere. The article itself reads like pure PR. "I doubt anybody else raps like this in Australia and if anybody else ever will." [54] , Posted By: Rick Jamm Posted date: December 30, 2015. Same article also appears at Soundlooks, BY JEENA JOHNSON ON DECEMBER 31, 2015 and Reviewindie, Posted December 31, 2015 by Peter Burns. Same problems as above, PR, not independent coverage.

23. Soundlooks. The article itself reads like pure PR. "His lyricism, flow, wordplay and meter is on point. At the same time, he is a master of delivery, groaning his braggadocio tropes in a charismatic and powerfully layered rasp with a practiced blend of bravado, world-weariness and posturing idiosyncrasies." [55], BY JEENA JOHNSON ON DECEMBER 10, 2016. Same article also appears at Jamsphere, Posted By: Rick JammPosted date: December 10, 2016 and Reviewindie, Posted December 10, 2016 by Peter Burns and Tunedloud, by Staff December 10, 2016. Pattern continues. Same problems as above, PR, not independent coverage.

18. Tunedloud. The article itself reads like pure PR. "Arguably the face of Australian Hip Hop’s present indie momentum, B-Nasty’s command of musical time is apparent; he can flow over anything. Depending on the mood, he can almost always adapt to the music, even if the final product isn’t the most remarkable. Just capturing the vibe is sufficient for him to kill it." [56], by Staff June 9, 2016. Same article also appears at Jamsphere Posted By: Rick JammPosted date: June 09, 2016 and Soundlooks BY JEENA JOHNSON ON JUNE 9, 2016 and Reviewindie Posted June 10, 2016 by Peter Burns. Pattern continues. Same problems as above, PR, not independent coverage.

24. Amnplify. by the Australian Musician Network. they say they are "one of Australia’s leading music content websites that provides promotional services to musicians, bands, events, and music festivals around the country and artists worldwide.". They offer multiple services, such as Albumn reviews for $100. [57]. So this is a paid for review, not independent coverage.

Other coverage is the artist talking about himself, press releases, listings, primary, blog and shops. Sources that don't back up claims made. There is a lack of anything that is good for GNG or NMUSIC. Pure PR backed by PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, out of the 24 references that you chose to raise this debate you have missed the notable press about this artist The Music, X-Press Magazine and scenestr all three are recognised national magazines within Australia. Also on a seperate note those other citations where used to be able to show the artists singles and album that he released. Obvious bias but i'm for a strong keep. The artist has also worked with multple international and national acts, and also is Wu-Tang clan affiliate. if it is determined to delete, I would like it go back to a draft/stub. as this article was already "reviewed" from a draft state and was then made a start article. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Passportgang (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't miss all of them. The Music does many things. One of those things is to publish press releases as they have done here. You can also find the same article here. And it's not exactly significant coverage. Xpress (not national) is just B-Nasty talking about himself, not independent coverage. So that leaves one local street press article and they are largely PR services for local scenes containing a lot of indiscriminate coverage. Not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you, in my option The Music is independent and a reliable source. it seems to me that oztix just mirrors the site for news. and now that we are talking about oztix? is that not notable? Let's be honest that is notable in its own right?! Passportgang (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article is deleted, sub-articles and misc to be deleted include B-Nasty videography, B-Nasty discography, Category:B-Nasty, and Template:B-Nasty. To say I am concerned about COI and the promotional nature of these articles would be an understatement. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – paucity of independent reliable sources, indicate subject does not qualify at NMUSIC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Stub This article was reviewed already from a draft state, i'm more then happy to come to a "resolution" of a stub article, but I do believe the artist to be notable. " multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." also "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" Passportgang (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He Has NOT become one of the most prominent representatives ... And that false claim is not supported. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete nothing on Soundcloud or Spotify. Fails WP:BAND and WP:NMUSIC and WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO. Both the category and discography needs to go a well. Completely non notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Debate I don't want to be rude but did you even google the artist? There is a knowledge box on google that links all of the streaming link, such as YouTube, Spotify, Google Music, Deezer, Soundcloud and a Verified Facebook account. And as I've stated it does not fail WP:NMUSIC in my opinion, maybe yours. but since you didn't even google the artist, I think the administrator that reads this should Nil your vote. on a seperate note on the original post "No national rotation" The artists latest single was also distributed through Amrap's Airlt, so in my opinion that would classify as national rotation. Passportgang (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Passportgang:, there is some social media links, streaming links, but insufficient to establish WP:NMUSIC. There needs to be sustained coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, a significant number of plays on music sites like Spotify. 250k listeners is a typical figure for signed bands. For social media 250k fans a typical number that seems to be the standard on Wikipedia. The subject satisfies none of that. He is completely non-notable. So the disco, the cats and the article has to go. I know it is difficult when your article gets deleted. My first article was deleted. I know how it feels. scope_creep^Talk 20:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: "there is some social media links, streaming links" That is wrong, if you see the references that are on the article that might help. now if regards to the 250k listeners/fans. we are talking about an Australian artist here not an American. I would make a point to see the other australian artists within the category of hip hop / rappers. as i've stated before I am happy for the article to become a STUB removing the disc and the cat but I believe it still hits notability with WP:SIGCOV, especially since the artist has worked with prominent artists within hip hip, and has the press/articles to back it up! Yes, I will admit its a sting that my debut article is up for deletion, however I believe my debate is firm especially after the points I have made further up. Passportgang (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Passportgang: Ok. Post three good references here per WP:THREE and let the good folks of Wikipedia have a look. Working with other prominent music artist has no meaning. The person must have stand-alone notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: No problem, I appreciate you engaging with me! The Music National Magazine also has a Wikipedia Article [58], National Magazine [59], National Magazine [60]. These are the best articles on the artist. What will be great about this discussion is to find out for "Australian" artists what is classified as notable?! Because if we look at the category of Australian rappers these magazines have been used as references. And yes your latter point I do agree with, and I understand. Passportgang (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not anywhere enough for a BLP article that must satisfy WP:ANYBIO. One is name drop and other one is a mention of a mix tape. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And one is an album review? I guess the question is what will satisfy WP:ANYBIO for an Australian artist, and what are acceptable? Just ARIA articles? WAM Articles? I need to know this information before even trying to create another article. Passportgang (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above that album review is paid for, not an independent source. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme:I have gone through archive.org since I do believe Amnplify did not provide those services back when the review was published, tbh that's why I used it for the article, I have provided the link here. [61]. It seems to be a recent addition, possibly to raise funds. Passportgang (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've gone through all the cited references and unfortunately I can't find anything that sufficiently addresses any of the criteria under WP:NMUSICIAN. The majority of the references provided are either from questionable sources (such as Setlist.fm, iTunes, Musicbrainz, Discogs etc) or primary sources (such as Doughboyproductions) or reproductions of press releases (such as Unearthed, RTRFM). Even the Triple J unearthed chart doesn't indicate that he received any airplay on Triple J or Triple J unearthed. I think that it may be best moved to draft and when more reliable sources can be found then be re-assessed. Dan arndt (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: Please refer to the above, I do believe the article is stub worthy, however, more then happy to concede for the article to go back to a draft. I would like your opinion on the matter. Passportgang (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with it going back to draft. There is insufficient sources to support such a move. The articles subject started his career in 2007 and still not notable, 12 years later, so putting it to draft will just waste more time for other editors. @Passportgang: If you need a hand to determine what constitutes article for a musician, I can give you a hand. scope_creep^Talk 18:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about it not going back to draft. Years ago when I first started editing I created an article on a little known rapper from Perth and had to argue and fight with editors, who had much more experience than I did, to have the article retained. That article was Drapht and I'm glad that I stuck to my guns. It took Drapht eight years before he received national recognition. Now I'm not saying that B-Nasty will receive the same level of notability as Drapht. However in this case allowing the article to revert back to a draft is not going to hurt anyone and in the fullness of time Passportgang may be able to demonstrate B-Nasty is notable (or possibly not). Dan arndt (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: Oh wow, that is actually really dope! I might actually be able to pick your brain about a few things! Yeah, Drapht did start off quite small but then blew up nationally! Dare I say Internationally! I remember articles of Drapht in TheMusic Amplify & X-Press Magazine. I guess what I'm really trying to say, what is notable press for an Australian hip hop artist?! I mean he has worked with Wu-Tang and also a few other notable artists. I know that it does not transfer however in the scope of Australian artists how do we confirm?! Is it only Aria charted artists? but I appreciate the Draft vote. Passportgang (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zamir Jaffri Cricket Stadium

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

Cricket ground with no coverage in reliable sources. Not a ground which hosts international or domestic cricket events. Complete failure of WP:GNG. At best, it is a ground used for local club matches which aren't notable for WP. Störm (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the refs does not even mention the ground, the other is a database listing on cricketarchive and only games it lists are local ones. No indications that any major matches have been played here, or that it passes GNG. Spike 'em (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE except blog-entires. Fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A regional stadium frequently in the news for hosting large political rallies, including led by the current Prime Minister of Pakistan.[62], [63], [64] and, in one case, a rally in which nine people were injured by police bullets.[65]. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not about the stadium. Rallies held, okay, but why stadium is important? Störm (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the fact that the now Prime Minister of Pakistan held large political rallies at the stadium might make one stop for a moment and consider whether their denial of the stadium's notability might be just a little bit anglocentric. Would a large cricket stadium in any city in the Western world really not meet the GNG? Of course not. Why would the answer in Pakistan be any different. And, of course, recourse to Urdu sources, which should have been done before nominating for deletion, confirms this answer and confirms that deleting this article would be patently absurd. For example, this article is entirely about the stadium and its dilapidated condition. Just run it through google translate and see. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A stadium need not host national events to be notable, it just must pass WP:GNG/WP:NBUILD. There are a number of articles in English about rallies which have been held in the stadium without being about the stadium specifically, and I can't do a local language search, but I imagine there would have to be local sources per WP:NEXIST, especially because the government specifically updated the stadium. Also, since it's foreign, the stadium appears as Jafri Stadium, Zamir Jafri Stadium, Syed Zamir Jaffri Stadium, et cetera. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain, how it meets WP:GNG? Don't use loose claims that it would meet if we got local sources. You have to bring them here to support your claims. Störm (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has a number of passing mentions in English without any specific "ground construction in Jherum," and from the photos the stadium was clearly sponsored either by the cricket board or by the local government. From the English sources alone you can patch together a decent stub. I can't search in Punjabi or Urdu as I don't know either of these languages, all I have is what's online in English, but given the stadium is used for tournaments by the Pakistani cricket board I would assume there's online and offline sources in both of these languages. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If my reading of WP:CRIN is correct then I would be inclined to head towards very strong keep. This is based on:

Re a venue (aka ground), WP:CRIC has agreed that its regular usage by a notable club ensures its own notability per se. Beyond a purely cricketing outlook, a venue is a recognised named site with a fixed geographic location and established community associations of a permanent nature which themselves ensure notability

the second sentence of which suggests to me that any ground used by any community group whatsoever is considered notable by WP:CRIN standards. I find this odd, bizarre and so on, but I don't see how it means anything different to that.

I don't particularly agree that this reading is desirable or workable to works in any way to determine what is or isn't notable - it seems bizarre that my local cricket club's ground is, by definition, notable when there are no independent sources on it.

I've just suggested on two other AfD that WP:CRIN needs a total rewrite in some areas at least. This does nothing to suggest otherwise to me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: I'd argue WP:CRIN has nothing to do with buildings (see WP:NBUILD, but the test is also "regular usage" by a "notable club" as opposed to "any community group whatsoever," so I'm not too fussed. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: - I was looking at the second sentence from he quote which seems to suggest notability per se. Of course, I think that's silly, but there you are. I checked on WP:FOOTY but couldn't find a notability criteria from there and that's usually my go-to place for sensible sports notability criteria. I'll try baseball and hockey as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: Since we're a gazetteer, geographies tend to have a lesser notability requirement than anything else (ie, does it exist), but buildings still need to pass WP:GNG. I think it's overplaying the first part and downplaying the latter. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I'm a big fan of using GNG as the benchmark myself. In that case this article is clearly much less likely to be kept - it does appear to have been used in some political rallies but I can't find anything suitably in depth about it as a place: but then I don't have access to sources in the local language(s) which might have those details. It's that second sentence in CRIN that needs to be dealt with then, isn't it? It strikes me as far too all-encompassing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not too fussed about the CRIN since if you read it narrowly it just implies ovals used by notable teams should also be notable, which is likely true. Also, for the purposes of this AfD this ground appears to be covered locally, as was my guess. See [66]. Can't make heads or tails of the Google translate. SportingFlyer T·C 16:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination that didn't check local-language sources? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source has been provided in a local language though, and we need more than one to sustain notability. If you can provide another reference then I can see myself flipping my vote to keep. FOARP (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one that discusses the stadium in the context of the 2014 political rally, talking about the stadium's capacity. Here is a December 2017 article that follows on from the July 2017 article I linked above and which again talks about the dilapidated condition of the stadium. At any rate, this is the google search page that comes up when you type in the name of the stadium in Urdu script. I get the sense that the nominator didn't do this. It is, of course, the nominator's onus to do this work, and not the onus of the keep !voter. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata: Thank you for doing the legwork to search in Urdu. I know that's something I wouldn't be able to do very easily and I appreciate your work to do that. I'm not sure that it's very productive to criticise anyone for not doing so, but I really do appreciate your work here.

As you clearly know what you're talking about, I don't suppose you could add them in to the article could you? It could use plenty of work and I haven't a single word of Urdu myself. If you can get the basics right then I'm sure other people can do any tweaking. Much appreciated - I hope I'm not being presumptuous by asking you to help us out here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't speak a word of Urdu either. It's just that (a) it appeared plainly obvious to me that a large provincial stadium would have a fair bit written about it in the local language, and (b) it's also obvious that because our page on the stadium links to a sister page on Urdu wikipedia: [67], you can use the title of that page to search for sources and then run a rough google translate to confirm the gist of what they say. That's more than sufficient to confirm that this stadium meets the GNG and it's something the nominator should have done. Moreover, now that it has been done, it should be causing the nominator to withdraw the AfD. I think it is productive to criticise a nominator when they have wilfully put forward someone else's work for deletion on the basis of a grossly deficient WP:BEFORE effort. The reason that it is productive to do so is that we need to make sure it does not happen again. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides above mentioned large political rallies, including led by the current Prime Minister of Pakistan, i would like to add that stadium may not host international events but it does host some official domestic matches and domestic events. Here Pakistan Cricket Board's 2015 talent hunt program held at this stadium in Jhelum, similarly 2014's talent hunt event for region and Elections of District Cricket Association Jhelum and list of activecricket clubs. Urdupoint is a reliable newswebsite, it has an news article regarding Spring celebration festival named Jashn-e-Jhelum held in April 2019 at Zamir Jaffri Cricket stadium. This video is of Jashn-e-Jhelum Festival in which host is mentioning that he is present in Zamir Jaffri stadium at 13th second. National news channel Hum News also mentioned celebration of this festival in news here and here. Also we have a link to a TV program (District Diary) on a national TV channel Kay2 TV regarding Zamir Jaffri Stadium. 24 News HD also noted the deteriorating condition of this stadium. Most of these sources are in urdu language, but i think they qualify the article for notibility. i would again say Keep. --Talha^Discuss ^© 15:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sport in Jhelum. Certainly this is not for deletion. OTOH it lacks the substantive material to justify standalone article. All the key information is already at the suggested target. The way forward looks to be to redirect for now and it could be broken out in the future if the necessary content has been found. Just Chilling (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Talha and sources obtained by Mkativerata. Seems to be notable enough and has enough RS to justify keeping the article. Bookscale (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Srinivas

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

Article about a civil servant that fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The sources are either passing mentions (2 sources) or mostly identical appointment notifications (5 sources) or affiliated (2 sources) or an interview (1 source) or do not mention him (1 source) Dom from Paris (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Dom from Paris' assessment regarding current sourcing, and a search did not reveal the type of in-depth coverage needed to meet notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourcing is either passing mentions or WP:ROUTINE announcements, and I don't see any assertions in the article indicating that he is notable under any SNGs.GirthSummit _(blether) 18:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nitanshi Goel

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

This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON article speedied once and prodded once Dom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need better sources to create and keep an article on a 12-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For a detailed explanation of the assessment of keep !votes, please read User talk:Lourdes. Post relisting, the only Keep !vote editor claims they heard the group on a show; and therefore the same should be kept. Again, nothing based on policy or notability guidelines. If any editor has an issue with the closure, they can contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 08:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JK! Studios

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

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

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

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

Sources are not enough to show this company passes WP:NORG or WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. Article speedied already once and prodded and deprodded. The sources include a puff piece of mostly interviews. It is difficult to know if this article is about the youtube production company or the group of comedians. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While several of the sources do include interview snippets, they are from reliable sources. But I do agree that the article itself is not written very well, If someone were to edit it I would change my vote to "Keep". ---GingeBro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, quality isn't a reason for deletion unless it gets to the point where TNT is required. The real question here is whether the topic is notable. --Slashme (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. I never nominate for reasons linked to the quality of an article...a lot are so poorly written that it makes my eyes bleed just looking at them! Dom from Paris (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Some sources reliable but snippets do not establish notability. WP:SIGCOV lists "significant coverage (which) addresses the topic directly and in detail," as a requirement. Ifnord (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I agree with all above points, but the notability may change given their recent activities (e.g. competing on Bring the Funny) that may lead to more significant coverage. I think the article, if kept, definitely requires cleanup, which can be added to the task list of Wikipedia's cleanup task force. However, should the article be deleted and more significant coverage emerges in the future, the article could be restored then. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 03:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your comment that "the notability may change given their recent activities" indicates that you are currently of the opinion that it is not notability but that you hope they will become notable in the future. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would contend that they have achieved notability, likely more than many in the List_of_YouTubers. Their members have appeared on various shows including Bring_the_Funny and Conan_(talk_show). They are all 10 original cast members of Studio_C having almost 2 billion YouTube views and collaborations with various other YouTube stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:2:40E2:667E:4E1D:BD4C (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC) — 2001:4898:80E8:2:40E2:667E:4E1D:BD4C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep for reasons in the immediately preceding post. Meets WP:GNG and WP:Sigcov. No compliance with WP:Before, which sets forth a series of hurdles before a WP:Prod is filed. A quick search of the sources (listed at the top of this AFD) shows no compliance with WP:Before. While sourcing can be improved WP:NEXIST. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Creating a show that gains 2 billion YouTube views is impressive and the group is doing numerous other projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1f05:da00:a8:c457:25fd:dfb7 (talk • contribs) — 2600:8801:1f05:da00:a8:c457:25fd:dfb7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Their most popular video has 866 thousand views. [68] Dream Focus 21:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deseret News [69] is a reliable source giving them significant coverage. [70] and the two Herald Extra articles, among others give ample coverage. Note the two IP addresses that made one edit ever, that being the KEEP statements in this AFD, you probably work for these guys so please ask around the office and see if you got coverage outside of Utah. Dream Focus 21:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject passes our general notability guide. Coverage exists WP:NEXIST. Doing a WP:BEFORE should have discovered the sources to show notability. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, this topic is being examined under WP:NCORP since it is an organization. It would be impressive for any organization (founded in 2019 according to the website to meet the criteria for notability which requires at least two different sources providing significant (WP:SIGCOV) in-depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) coverage containing independent content (WP:ORGIND). Many of the Keep !voters above have stated that such coverage exists (which is not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability) or that there is "ample coverage" (again, not one of the criteria for notability) but in my opinion, have no clue as to the rest of the criteria including the guidelines for independent content as per WP:ORGIND. Rather than stating the nom should have complied with WP:BEFORE, my advice would be for those very same editors to take a good long read of WP:NCORP and especially WP:ORGIND. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. An evaluation of the sources contained in the article and mentioned above are as follows:
- NBCUniveral reference is a mention-in-passing in the "Sketch Act Division" and contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.
- The various YouTube references fail as they are not regarded as reliable sources
- The Deseret News reference (also mentioned by Dream Focus above) is based on an interview with Matt Meese and Stacey Harkey and contains no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
- The Salt Lake Tribune reference is also based on an interview, this time with Stacey Harkey and Whitney Call and contains no Independent Content and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. It also contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The second Deseret News reference is also based on an interview, this time with Natalie Madsen, Mallory Everton, Whitney Call and Stacey Harkey (and Michael Dunn, BYUtv's Managing Director). It mentions the company name in passing but contains no significant or in-depth information on the company, failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also no independent content on the company (clearly all information has been provided by the company or people connected with the company), failing WP:ORGIND. There is a review of the Loving Lyfe series but this is not coverage on the company but on one of their products.
- The BYU Magazine reference doesn't even mention the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- The KUTV reference is a review of one of the sketchs and contains no information whatsoever on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH

In summary, I am unable to locate a single source that meets the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. Sure, some of their sketches are very popular and perhaps there's a really good argument for an article on the Series as opposed to the Company, but company fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I would ask any of the Keep !voters above to provide links below this comment (and stating reasons) to any references that they believe meet the criteria for notability of the company so that we can examine them and I'm very happy to change my mind if any can be found. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent review of the sources, and one that should be taken very seriously by the closing admin! --Slashme (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: thank you for taking the time to write what I should have explained myself. This was exactly what I meant when I said it is difficult to know if we should be considering this as a WP:NCORP discussion. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable policy is more likely the policy that covers actors, artists and other entertainers WP:creative and or WP:ENT is applicable: and this troupe: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. In any event reasonable people can disagree. The HighKing votes to delete at AfDs 89.2% of the time. WP:NCORP: Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc. NCORP is the wrong policy for entertainers IMO. Per NCORP: If another subject-specific notability guideline applies to a group, it may be notable by passing either this or the more specific guideline. For example bands are covered by WP:MUSIC.Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be using High King's afd stats as a means of discounting his !vote as per WP:ADHOM but seeing as you insist please note that they are "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 94.4% of AfD's were matches and 5.6% of AfD's were not." Which shows that they master the criteria especially when you consider they have !voted in 1883 discussions and left 14 comments without voting. You might want to compare your stats to his, you have participated in 350 discussions of which 278 there was no discernable !vote so he has voted in more than 26 times more discussions and has a 94% record...I shan't give your voting stats because it is a pointless exercise as I think I have just proved. What is important is the quality of the !votes and please remember the advice for participating "Always try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions, Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)" Simply stating that an article passes the criteria does not help. And whilst we're at the WP:ADHOM bit it states "As well, be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found." And I would also point out that you have added no sources here or on the page. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good analysis and nice to know I vote with the consensus 94.4% of the time! HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a changed user name, so I voted in many more under my previous name. But lets keep it to the AfD. I added two sources a while ago, and reverted some IP potential vandalism.One, Two.

Couldn't agree more, let's avoid the ad hom. I just looked at the 2 sources you added and one is a passing mention in a very short piece in a student publication with no byline and the other is a credit in an affiliated source. I do not think they help to meet the NCORP criteria. If we consider that this is not a production company but a youtube channel then we should use WP:WEBCRIT and I believe that the sources do not show it meets the criteria. There are too many WP:INTERVIEWS and affiliated sources to meet the 1st criteria and they have not won an award yet so fail the 2nd criteria. So still NN for me. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable editors can disagree. I added two sources to contribute to the article. Note: Actors and artists are known by their work, and by their audience and their reception. Just because there is not RS to show the artists in rehab, or getting arrested, it makes their work no less notable. The troupe passes WP:ENT and that seems clear enough. Also to your points about the web, and Youtube, they seem to have gone beyond Youtube: now on Network television - adding to their notability. I will bow out now to avoid WP:BLUDGEON Lightburst (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actors and artists are individuals. And while a band or a singer is covered by WP:MUSIC, a record producer or publisher is not - they're covered by WP:NCORP. Also, you may describe these people as a "troupe" but in reality, that only recognises the artists in front of the camera. What about Stephen Walter, the CEO? I don't think troupes even have a CEO, or bands? Clearly this belongs under WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By your estimation those with management must pass NCORP criteria. Bands, actors, artists all have management, agents, roadies, staff, executive assistants, drivers, camera people, web site developers, social media personell etc. Even if what you say is true that this is an NCORP situation, we can determine notability based on criteria set out on the NCORP guidelines. The actual policy states: If another subject-specific notability guideline applies to a group, it may be notable by passing either this or the more specific guideline." It is a stretch to say they we are only allowed to use NCORP: but it is not a stretch to say they are entertainers. In fact it is logical. Lightburst (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I find myself in agreement with HighKing and Dom from Paris; ~~a majority~~ *several* of the references (of those that mention JK!) refer to it as a company, venture or business, and even the first sentence of the lead paragraph within the entry describes it this way. So it would seem to me that NCORP is the more specific criteria, and as such, it is the criteria we must apply. Interestingly, I did find notability criteria proposed for comedy-related subjects, alas it was abandoned in 2007 due to lack of support. Pegnawl (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pegnawl The reference for that sentence in this article, calls them a "troupe". Some WP editor wrote that language "company" in the opening sentence. In any event we wouldn't make the rock group Metalica meet WP:NCORP - we would use the :subject specific notability guideline. WP:MUSIC. We wouldn't judge Penn and Teller by WP:NCORP we would likely use WP:ENT. Even large groups of athletes or sports teams like the Green Bay Packers would be judged by the subject specific WP:NTEAM ....even though the Packers have a corporate structure and a CEO, a President, shareholders, etc. So it is NCORP or "subject specific" Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but JK! isn't a musical act, nor a BLP about an entertainer or entertainers, nor a sports team. Because there is no comedy-group specific subject guidance, that leads me to believe that we stick with NCORP, the most specific category that can be used at present.

That said, I'm going to walk back my comment that a majority of refs call it a company; it's more of a mixed bag than that. Because I've now done the legwork, I'll leave this here in case it helps others come to a determination:

Publisher / Title: Qualifier(s) used
Deseret News / Original 'Studio C' cast members...: Comedy Network, Project
SLTRib / 'Former BYUtv ‘Studio C’ cast...': Troupe, Company (granted in this instance, 'company' might be used in the more Shakespearean sense)
Deseret News / Life after 'Studio C'...: Venture, Startup, comedy-focused media company
BYU Magazine / Last Laughs: online network
KUTV / JK! Studios impresses...: Group
Herald Extra / JK! Studios sketch wins ...: Comedy group

Given the above, and the content they purport to serve across various channels, I'm leaning towards media company/network and therefore still NCORP (but not strongly enough to cast a !vote quite yet). Pegnawl (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good points both. My 2c = unless there are guidelines for specific topics (like bands, sports teams, etc) which are special types of organizations, the default is WP:NCORP. It isn't a perfect system - there has been a lot of debate here in relation to a requirement for specific guidelines for specialist record publishers or specialist book publishers. I believe there is also a case to be made for entertainers on social media or streaming channels although it doesn't get around the problem of deciding the criteria for notability. The best we have right now is to find (at least) two references from reliable independent publishers that contains Independent Content which is in-depth. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing: Thanks for those comments. I think this was a healthy debate and you provided a sober and rational assessment. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would have gone ahead and deleted the article given the evident consensus, but just on the side of caution as someone might find a couple of reliable sources (as suggested by multiple editors), relisting this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are writing about them, or doing interviews with them, its significant coverage either way. The news source felt them notable enough to take the time to interview, not just write something about. Dream Focus 14:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The !vote here currently is 5 6 Keeps and 53 Deletes. This is not even close to a "Delete" WP:consensus. I recognize it isn't just 'voting" but the voices of those who visit this page and express their opinions means something, unless it is just supposed to be the closer's whim. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why it isn't a simple !vote count and why the closer reads the discussion. It is to place appropriate weight on the arguments and especially with an eye on those arguments that are grounded in our policies and guidelines as opposed to more simplistic "agree with op" type !votes. For example, we have two Keep !votes from anon IPv6 addresses which fail to identify any reasons which are based/grounded in our policies and guidelines. We have another "Weak Keep" !voter who says that they agree with all of the above (reasons to delete) but basically says "lets give this a chance" because "notability may change" - again, no grounding whatsoever in any of our policies/guidelines. Your own !vote provides as a reason an agreement with one of the anon IPv6 !votes based on have lots of YouTube views - which also isn't grounded in any of our policies/guidelines (and in fact is specifically stated as *not* being a reason for Keep) as well as providing a google search list of mentions (again, specifically stated as not a reason to Keep in the guidelines). The only real engagement was from Lightburst who I believe understands what is required and has providing some reasoning for why WP:NCORP may/should not be the guidelines applicable to this topic but appears to accept that NCORP is the applicable guidelines and appears to be unable to provide any sources that meet the criteria for notability.

So by a count of arguments based on policy/guidelines, I'd say there's a clear consensus to delete as they're the only !votes that have provided any arguments based on our actual policies and guidelines rather than pulling reasons our of thin air which amount to no more than "but I like it" or "that's my opinion". HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The “clear consensus” for deletion is clearly biased against this group for some reason. My reason is not based on thin air per prior argument but is rather based on my actual experience as a wiki user (with very limited editing experience) who found this site when looking up JK Studios on Wikipedia; I was surprised to see the potential deletion note which has led me to this page. I had heard of this group via the NBC show, and my kids who know them from YouTube. Deleting this page would be a disservice to the credibility and reliability of this site. Please keep. Thank you. Elocone07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elocone07 (talk • contribs) 22:09, August 2, 2019 (UTC) Elocone07 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ...hi this is Elocone07...going to defend myself against the passive aggressive attack on my credibility ...I’ve used Wikipedia since it’s inception and to your point I’ve made few edits as I represent the POV of a reader, not a editor. On that note I as a reader would be very disappointed if this were deleted. Per my keep vote I came to Wikipedia looking for info on this comedy group, which I found; I only chimed in because the possible deletion note on the top of the page encouraged me to do so. It would be foolish to ignore the POV of users like me simply because I am not an elite editor who likes to police the site and delete helpful articles by others. (Elocone07)
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is definitely WP:NOCONSENSUS. The arguments are logical on both sides - I think more logical in my interpretation. High King made an argument for calling this comedy group a corporation, and I made an argument to say they are entertainers WP:ENT. I think if we polled the ivoters 6 would agree with me and the WP:ENT rationale and 3 or 4 would agree with the High King and the WP:NCORP rational. That is a clear WP:NOCONSENSUS and if anything, leaning Keep. I went to the relister's page to question the relisting comments, and I got a very condescending response. I only hope that a different uninvolved admin closes with a fair reading of this AfD. Lightburst (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative comment – I am sorry if my response sounded condescending. I was pointing out to your apparent lack of understanding of our reliable sources/verifiability guideline/policy and misunderstanding of what consensus means. I listed out exactly why none of the keeps were worth consideration. While you may continue believing that consensus is equivalent to voting, it is actually not. If you find even two reliable, independent non-primary sources that have covered the subject significantly (please don't include interviews or press releases; read WP:RS), there's no number of delete !voters who would be able to get the article deleted.... And vice versa. On your other query, there's no hard and fast rule on my closing this AfD; any other admin can too. Or I will, if I reach here first, when the re-listing period is over. Thanks, Lourdes 07:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, you don't understand WP:RS. We will have to agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lourdes That is not correct. WP:CLOSEAFD The AfD needs to be closed by an uninvolved admin or editor. And I think I had excellent arguments that you have summarily dismissed: even the High King acknowledged the validity of the arguments, and I acknowledged the High King's argument as well. This is a clear WP:NOCONSENSUS so far. Lightburst (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative comment – Sure Lightburst. Any uninvolved admin including I can close this AfD. My reply to you above is an administrative comment; and so is this. For your benefit, I have marked them so. Thanks, Lourdes 00:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I am saddened by your display of power - it does not benefit the project. Retroactively marking your very involved comments to pretend you are not involved is not appropriate. I am out of this AfD now. Lightburst (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up your misunderstanding. An uninvolved admin is one that has not edited the article or !voted in the discussion. Lourdes did neither. They simply analysed the discussion and the different !votes and explained their analysis and despite the result they gave the discussion a bit more time. If anyone should complain it is certainly not the keep !voters. You tried to get them involved by complaining on their talk page but this doesn't make them involved. Just because someone doesn't agree with your arguments that you consider excellent (we shall agree to disagree on that point) doesn't make them involved either. From what I can gather an "uninvolved admin" is one that agrees with you? It just doesn't work like that.Dom from Paris (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC) p.s. To further understand what uninvolved means please read WP:UNINVOLVED. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the summary provided by Lightburst above. I agree that there was an attempt to examine this topic under a different set of guidelines than WP:NCORP but a suitable set of guidelines could not be found. I agree WP:ENT is applicable for a comedy troupe but I disagree that "JK! Studios" is a comedy troupe - it is a media production company. It is incorporated and has a CEO and President named Stephen Walter. One of the founders (who is not one of the comedians), Alex Madsen, describes it as a "media company".

I also don't see any point in conducting a poll on this page - either we have guidelines that we apply consistently or the alternative is that every topic will have a poll that becomes nothing more than a popularity contest.

I agree with the summary provided by Lourdes on their Talk page and above but I feel I have to voice my opinion on some of the commentary on this page. I am dismayed at the lack of understanding demonstrated by editors on this page on how this community decides which guideline(s) to apply, which policies/guidelines are applicable for particular topics, how to respond at AfD pages, how a closing admin weighs up the various points of view, etc. But I am most dismayed at the ad hominen commentary. Nobody here that has !voted to Delete has any particular axe to grind with this topic and yet various Keep !voters have taken potshots at various editors who have voiced an opposing view. Please stop.

The point made in relation WP:RS should be read in conjunction with the guidelines on which sources/references meet the criteria for establishing notability (e.g. WP:ORGIND). In summary, there's a difference between how we treat RS depending on the context of use. While RS (even RS that includes interviews/quotations or based on press releases) can be used to support an assertion or facts within an article, these RS may not be used to establish notability. Editors here who participate regularly at AfD and who are familiar with the various applicable policies/guidelines will have seen this point raised many times previously. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You choose to ignore the many sources, a number of which were added after theinital WP:PROD. Thiere is an evidencet violation of WP:BEFOREand a disergard of WP:NEXISTT. You apparently believe that Ipse dixit gives you a Liberum veto over the existenced of articles. You seem think that your voice outweighs consensus on this page. There is nothing more to discuss. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More ad hominen comments... Tell you what - why don't you post a link here to any two references (or the two best ones) you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? I'll provide an analysis using policies/guidelines and that way you can be 100% sure that nothing is being ignored. The only advice I will freely give you (and those other Delete !voters) is to be absolutely sure you have read and understood WP:NCORP, especially the sections on WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus that the subject is notable with significant coverage. No copyvio concerns because an interlanguage link was provided immediately after the article's creation. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Fielmann

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

no notability of his own--inheritor of a family business. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is one of the CEOs of one of the largest European eyewear companies. He is just succeeding his father. An he is CEO in day-to-day business - [71] - Blinky11 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim of being Germany's youngest CEO is specifically about the subject and there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with the article about the company – see WP:PRESERVE. Note also that there's an equivalent article in the German wikipedia. Andrew D. (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CEO of company worth 5 billion, son of a billionare. The notability question here isn't the merits of the subject, but coverage of the subject. Considering we have a full length profile by Bloomberg - [72] (covering the business, finance, wealth side) as well as coverage on topics such as the subject's marriage - [73][74] - we have WP:SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being the son of a notable person is one of the provisions excluded by WP:NOTIHERITED as implying notability. Having an article in deWP does not necessarily imply having one in enWP, though, as I said, what meets their standards ususall meets ours also. Youngest CEO does not imply notability. CEO of a large company oftern does, if there are sources supporting the article, but there are not:

Sources--ref 1 is his own website profile and not a RS--ref 2 is a bloomberg profile, which is always subject-provided information and therefore not independent --Ref 3 is about his marriage, which is not coverage of anything distinctive about hte person ref 4 is from his company and therefore not independent --ref 5 is more about his company than it is about him. So the only even possible independent RSs are the marriage and the Bloomberg news article. I do not think that's enough. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing in enwiki is not good. The Bloomberg profile is significant([75]), the marriage coverage is on top of that (and shows coverage of a different aspect). dewiki is usually more strict than us. And there is more profile coverage in German - [76], [77], [78]. And there quite a bit of more coverage with him (which of course requires sifting through - some of it is routine company reports). CEOs (and in this case - with a future ownership stake) of 5 billion dollar companies tend to be notable - WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (Fielmann is listed in the MDAX index - the 60 companies beneath the 30 top companies in DAX (so - companies 31-90) - which in converting to the UK (which has an entry in NBUSINESSPEOPLE) is approx. the same tier as a FTSE 100 Index (100 companies)). Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of large multinational company. Via Google News you will easily retrieve dozens of articles published by independent news outlets. German-speaking media has published >100 articles alone last year. Note that most of the article has initially been a copy of the German Wikipedia article. Klaus 22:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:SIGCOV. policy that applies: WP:NEXIST. Sources in German coverage as cited above. I see how a WP:BEFORE could miss the sources. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, article created in German WP since 24 April, with more edits on 22/23 June (see here), now looks like this, article here created on 27 June (see here), not quite word for word but very close, are there copyright issues here? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Good sleuth work. I see no issue with going to the German Wiki to find sources that were hard to locate, but not sure about the other than refs. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, 1st statements of most "keepers" above revolve around Fielmann being CEO of a large multinational company/youngest CEO/being rich. This is irrelevant (although may indicate that sources will be available) to notability, what is needed are sources that discuss the person, thanks to Icewhiz for providing these above so it is a keep as meeting WP:GNG. ps. even if there were not sources available, at the very least this could have been a "merge/redirect" to the company, not an outright "delete". Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC) note: this comment/keep was accidently deleted i am reinstating it. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Instacart with no prejudice against any relevant sourced material being merged from the history, which will remain. This might seem a close call, but only one of the keep voters offered any analysis of the sources, while on the other side I see a consensus that such sources do not establish independent notability. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva Mehta

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

Apoorva Mehta is non-notable, most of the news revolves around Instacart. Merge or Redirect to Instacart. Created by a new user, made only 12 edits to get the auto-confirmed account, high possibilities of vandalism. Meeanaya (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added some cnn articles on him. Seems like a useful article regardless of the publisher.Ayepaolo (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Ayepaolo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Does not have the kind of significant coverage to establish independent notability. There are sources for things like interiews and inclusions on lists but these don't help establish notability. Instacart is an obvious redirect target as an AtD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - the subject seems to be a run-of-the-mill CEO. Given that topics do not inherit notability from eachother, I doubt that Mehta is notable when removed from his company; indeed, much of the content in the article as it is seems to be related to Instacart than to Mehta himself. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found specific articles on him from CNBC, LA Times, and India Times Catladyz6 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Catladyz6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Catladyz6, are they about him or are they about Instacart? Are they reported articles or are they interviews? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage of Mehta in the mainstream press shows he is notable. These articles are about him as founder, not about the company. Interviews are perfectly good evidence of notability, quoting from Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability: "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability". There is nothing in Wikipedia:Notability (people) to suggest that interviews are not evidence of notability. Railfan23 (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC

WP:Interviews is an essay not a policy or guideline. WP:GNG, which is a guideline, suggests that notability should be established by secondary sources "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Interviews, as established at WP:PRIMARY are not secondary sources. What are the WP:THREE that establish notability in your mind? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going dismiss WP:Interviews because it is an essay, then don't make WP:THREE a requirement - it is also an essay. The LATimes one is secondary because it is reporting on a discussion with Mehta, not merely reproducing his words. This CNBC article is about Mehta, not an interview with him. This Entrepreneur article is about Mehta. Railfan23 (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Entrepreneur article is by a 'Guest Writer', with a byline explaining that the opinions of 'contributors' are their own. See the discussion at WP:Perennial sources concerning Forbes.com contributors - it's the same kind of thing, it's not an RS. I don't agree that the short, soft soap interviews in LA Times and CNBC one establish notability.GirthSummit _(blether) 16:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I bring up three not as policy but as a method to have a useful discussion. The LA Times is more substantial than I gave it credit for the first time I looked at it. The CNBC article doesn't hit enough notes to strike me as notability inducing and Girth hits my concerns about The Entrepeneur. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Instacart. The interviews being used here to argue for notability are exactly the type described at Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability as being broadly unhelpful in establishing notability - they're just there to keep him talking. There isn't anything significant in reliable source about Mehta (rather than the company) apart from these puffy interviews. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Guruvayoor

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

non notable screenwriter (1 significant film only) and director (1 not very notable film so far) Most of his career is as assistant director. He's director of a film about to come out, which may explain the creation of this article at this time DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable screen writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG is upcoming not notable as this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus, further discussion to talk pages please (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Mackaben

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

GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. I cannot find any sources online. Those mentioned at end of article are largely local. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Mackaben's work is held at Tucson Museum of Art (see here), and the University of Arizona Museum of Art (here, and here), his work was exhibited after his death ie. 1998 exhibition, Tucson's Early Moderns, 1945-1965 held at the University of Arizona Museum of Art (here) (have added this to article), so with the info already in the article (unfortunately without inline references) may be enough to meet WP:ARTIST? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that the way that TucsonArt (talk · contribs) cited sources in xyr original article was fairly rubbish, and has got no better via any cleanup effort since. The ″American Artists of Renown, 1981″ is actually a biography of this person, in a book of artist biographies. It has stuff that this article has not gained in 9 years, including the location and precise date of birth of the subject for example. The one item of TDC coverage that I checked includes biographical information and information about one of the artist's works (Mexican Market Scene, not mentioned in our article), with a reproduction of it above the piece and a report of a prize that it won. I suggest a more thorough review of the citations already present from the initial creation of the article, to see what is being cited and how in-depth they are. I have improved those two. Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article needs the referencing to be improved, but there are some decent sources to be found in the Arizona newspapers. Curiocurio (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having works in permanent collections of [[Tucson Museum of Art and University of Arizona Museum of Art grants passing WP:ARTIST. The referencing and the overall strcuture of article needs to be improved though. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 09:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F. Harmon Weight (director)

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

I'm not seeing anything much more than passing mentions and credits which don't satisfy WP:FILMMAKER. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created his article(Harmon Weight) and have added a few cites for flavor. Some info on him from old trade publications if you can find them. Since he was a silent film director, I created an article on him as most other people who were even near a film camera at this time have a Wiki article.Koplimek (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seem to be notable enough per WP:AUTHOR Peter303x (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AUTHOR? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the director of eleven notable films with multiple reliable book sources and more offline as mentioned above. It seems a strange nomination as silent film directors are of historical, encyclopedic interest and there is no promotion involved, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. It already seems apparent that the nomination will not be successful. See WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natural-language programming

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

"Natural-language programming" is not in the Oxford English Dictionary or other dictionaries. It is difficult to establish notability because "natural language" and programming are high frequency combinations. Google ngram shows that "Natural language programming" has very low frequency [79]. Notgain (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Not being in a dictionary (DICTDEF anyone?) or nominator finding it difficult to search for the them is not an indication of a lack of in-depth, secondary, reliable sources. Besides the sources in the article, which probably establish notability in and of themselves, a cursory search comes up with the following well cited journal articles: Miller, Lance A. "Natural language programming: Styles, strategies, and contrasts." IBM Systems Journal 20.2 (1981): 184-215., Biermann, Alan W., Bruce W. Ballard, and Anne H. Sigmon. "An experimental study of natural language programming." International journal of man-machine studies 18.1 (1983): 71-87., Mihalcea, Rada, Hugo Liu, and Henry Lieberman. "NLP (natural language processing) for NLP (natural language programming)." International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006., Dijkstra, Edsger W. "On the foolishness of" natural language programming"." Program construction. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1979. 51-53..... Which would easily satisfy notability by themselves. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also speedy keep. It's a poor article, but did the nominator make any effort at WP:BEFORE? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Batman. Seems like a good consensus here that the nickname itself isn't notable enough for an article, none of the keeps has presented a counterargument except for Erik but it doesn't seem like anyone else was convinced. The principal objection to merge is that Batman itself is already too large, thus the proposals here to either split or trim that article or to create a Nicknames of Batman page need to be given serious consideration during the merge process but it does not really address the concerns about this topic. I'll thus go for a redirect so that the page size issue can be addressed concomitantly with the merge one as part of a talk page discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Knight (nickname)

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

I'm not sure why the nickname of Batman is independently notable of Batman himself. There seems to be no reason why this cannot simply be mentioned in the main Batman article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Batman. I agree the term doesn't seem to be independently notable, but a merge with a redirect to the relevant section seems like a good WP:ATD. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Batman is already too long with so many details about the fictional character. It is over 143 KB, and WP:SIZESPLIT says to divide up content if the article is over 100 KB. Considering the scale of the character, it should be completely appropriate to have a variety of sub-articles related to different aspects of him. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My first inclination was to vote for a merge to Batman, per Zxcvbnm, though I will say I am impressed how the content of this article is focused not on the Batman character, but on the nickname itself – its origins, meanings, applications to the character, explanations/analyses, etc. It did get me wondering, though, whether Wikipedia might be better served not by an article on this one nickname, but by a Nicknames of Batman article that discusses all of his nicknames in this fashion. It could focus on the major ones (Dark Knight, The World's Greatest Detective, Caped Crusader), antiquated ones no longer in regular use (Masked Manhunter, Dark Avenger), and what specific characters call him ("B-Man" from Harley Quinn; various names from Joker like "Bats," "Batsy," "Dork Knight"; etc.). Perhaps there could even be a section about the differences in use between "Batman" vs "The Batman", which I know is something that's been debated and discussed a lot. I guess you could even discuss the term "Dynamic Duo" about Batman and Robin in such an article. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but it's just a thought... — Hunter Ka hn 14:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support a broader nicknames sub-article idea. I don't support bloating Batman more than it is already bloated at this time. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Batman, per stated concerns about the nickname not being independently notable from the character. The concerns about the length of the target article isn't really an issue when you consider that the bulk of this article's length consists of copious amounts of direct quotes copied straight from the sources, which really would not need to be transcribed over. I do, however, like Hunter Kahn's idea about a "Nicknames of Batman" article, and I would have no problem at all with this article's content being merged into an article like that if one is ever created in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIZESPLIT, the article Batman is already too big for any more content at 143 KB. It is at 100 KB that we need to start splitting out content. This will only bloat the main article further where it is perfectly framed here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, that doesn't mean this article should stay just because of that. The size of the Batman article has absolutely nothing to do with whether this article is or isn't notable. The Batman article should be dealt with in other ways, possibly by paring down non-essential WP:PLOTSUM information, which would be mentioned in the comic book article anyway._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is notable. There is significant coverage about the nickname, and I literally just found yet another source talking about it in detail that does not exist in this article at this time. See screenshot. And the Batman article has a lot of good information already. It is false to claim that it is in any form too much of a plot summary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into relevant areas—Batman and The Dark Knight Returns seem to be the obvious ones. Of all the content to fork from the article, I'd say this is one of the least sensical ones (and I'd argue the parent article should first be trimmed because it could stand to be.) I don't really see enough evidence of its notability independent of the parent subject. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Fuchs Do you have any thoughts on the Nicknames of Batman option, or would you be opposed to that as well? — Hunter Ka hn 23:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Batman. I like the idea of a Nicknames of Batman, but remain skeptical that it could pass WP:GNG. If enough can be done to meet that threshold, then merge there. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Erik and Hunter. Batman article is very big. I like the idea of merging all nicknames to Nicknames of Batman. Masum Reza^📞 07:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that this singer fails our notability guidelines, at present, but may cross the threshold in the future as her career develops. Just Chilling (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teddi Gold

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

Lacks RS, WP:TOOSOON Meeanaya (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:TOOSOON with debut album schedules to release August 16, 2019. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SPA / OR / bad refs suggest possible vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Amended Career and Discography to reflect only past releases. Re: RS, there are pages of Google Search results articles about this subject and many indexed in Google News. "LA Weekly" for example is a print and online pub. Dzz134435 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify move to draftspace because if the album is reviewed in multiple reliable sources or charts then she may well be notable and a move back to mainspace via WP:AFC can be a valid option, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A start out singer with only one album released would take many years to be notable and she is and meet WP:MUSICBIO then the page can be recreated. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:SINGER. Masum Reza^📞 20:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icon Savings Plan

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

Lacks in-depth, WP:TOOSOON Meeanaya (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New fund/company. Coverage doesn't come close to meeting WP:NCORP. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way WP:TOOSOON and entirely referenced by primary sources. Nothing I see in GNews is going to help at this time. Pegnawl (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siarhiej Stasievich

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

Non-notable priest. Doesn't pass GNG or WP:NCATHOLIC. Madg2011 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. St Anselm (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- merely a NN priest. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of significance or notability Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Railfan23 (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) William2001^(talk) 00:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiro Martín Lago

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. William2001^(talk) 02:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree. Doesn't satisfy WP:NFOOTY MaskedSinger (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was Tiro Federal not in the Primera B when he played for them? Will look for sources later. SportingFlyer T·C 05:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tiro Federal did play in Primera B Nacional in 2007-2008 as per this and this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the above passes WP:NFOOTBALL (@MaskedSinger:) but struggling to find online sources, just transfer stuff like this and this. However I'm willing to assume he meets GNG given the length and nature of his career. Giant Snowman 08:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY and has had a long career and has played in the Europa League and is currently playing.Through did not search in depth in Spanish and Italian could find this this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want to withdraw Thanks everyone for letting me know that Tiro Federal was in Primera B Nacional during Lago's time. Since Primera B Nacional is in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, I agree that this article meets NFOOTY. I want to withdraw this nomination and close it, but there is a "delete" !vote, so @MaskedSinger: what do you think about this? William2001^(talk) 01:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who am I to argue with you all? Especially the wise William2001 Also withdraw my delete vote. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the response. I will withdraw this AfD. William2001^(talk) 00:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) William2001^(talk) 01:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cream Box

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

No indication of notability, not to mention that it is unsourced (probably because it is not notable). William2001^(talk) 01:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- there are a *lot* of sources on the Japanese page. I'm not on a particularly good position to evaluate them, but at least a few of them seem at face value to be legitimate. Did the nominator look at interwiki before nominating? matt91486 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt91486: Wow, how did I not see that? I can read Japanese, and some of those websites seem to be independent news websites, so I will withdraw. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 01:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirecting was also proposed, but there was little indication that either content or history are needed and no consensus as to the redirect target. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of known languages

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

How is this page different from List of languages? William2001^(talk) 01:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recently created (17 July), un-referenced, un-complete (gets to b), and plausibly also a WP:A10. A qualification of "known" is indeed unnecessary as we don't, as of yet, have a list of unknown languages - for if we do, the language would become known. This indeed duplicates content linked to from Lists of languages, and specifically List of language names, List of languages by total number of speakers, Index of language articles, .... Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, completely useless article that already has another article that suitably covers the topic. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I created this article because I couldn't find a complete list of languages on wikipedia. The difference between this article, and other similar articles, is this article will become a complete list of all the languages. I'm using Ethnologue as a reference of what languages we know of: https://www.ethnologue.com/browse/names, I am going to work on adding the complete list, and will add a reference to ethnologue. I hope that's ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CcfUk2018 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a better name for this article would be "List of languages according to Ethnologue"? CcfUk2018 (talk) 12:52, 17th July 2019 (UTC)

That's already available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/List of ISO 639-3 language codes (2019) (there's a one-to-one relation between ISO 639 codes and ethnologue language entries). A glance at the links there should reveal why such long lists are difficult to maintain. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for the link. At the same time, I think this list is useful as it provides a clear list of languages in their English name, in alphabetical order, and will be able to be linked for easy use to all language. It can then be further expanded to include where the languages are spoken, if they are living or extinct, and how many people speak that language. I hope that makes sense. I'll do my best to create the full list. It can also be used as a reference to quickly see how many languages there are in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CcfUk2018 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is viable as a list article. There are over 7,000 languages listed in ethnologue, simply enumerating those languages, without providing any additional details, will already get you well over the recommended maximum article size. More generally, lists of this type (even if more circumscribed in scope, as in "Languages in Country X") tend to quickly deteriorate over time as they can't easily keep pace with all the changes (ISO codes created or retired, wikipedia articles renamed, merged or split...) and as they're difficult to police against well-meaning editors introducing inconsistencies. Looking after such an article will be a tremendous job and in my opinion there's not enough encyclopedic benefit to justify it. Maybe there could be a way to dynamically generate a list of all language articles? – Uanfala (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Uanfala for explaining that. I see what you mean. I wonder if it will one day be possible to have a list on wikipedia of all the languages, the number of speakers, and where it is spoken. I see now that this article can't, in its current state do all that. I would like to see this article be kept, but for the time being, it might be better to delete it. I apologise for the issue this article created. I wanted to be able to find a complete list of languages with the number of speakers, and where it is spoken, but can see that isn't viable at the moment. Thanks again for explaining this to me. (CcfUk2018 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe redirect to List of ISO 639-3 codes is the simplest option. Pichpich (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or possibly merge if necessary) to List of ISO 639-3 codes. A more complete lead section or at least a note on that page might be in order, since the current lead is just a one-sentence definition and an index. But that discussion is beyond AfD. Cnilep (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of languages. Incomplete list, no need to keep it. Masum Reza^📞 20:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of languages. Although, the optimist in me would prefer to rename this to List of languages Wikipedia is written in. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of named trains in Victoria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The West Coaster (Victorian train)

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

No WP:SIGCOV apparently available under the current title or the alternative spelling "Westcoaster". Unusally for a named train, there is no reference to it in Trove newspapers or more recent news archives. The mentions in offline sources I have are in passing only, such as lists of named trains - no indication of independent notability. The unsourced statement in the article that it appeared on modern-era V/Line timetables is accurate - 2006 for example - but again, there is no indication that this confers notability. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Victorian Railways or Port Fairy railway line (the train company that ran the service, or the line that it ran on - the second one probably makes more sense, but either are fine)~~ List of named trains in Victoria (as per WP:ATD) Bookscale (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, it is mentioned in this article, out of interest (where it is spelled in one word "Westcoaster"). You're probably better off looking at a book on Victorian railway history which will probably deal with the subject and show how notable it actually is. Bookscale (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found that picture caption – and that's all it is. And I should have been clearer that the offline sources I inspected were Victorian railway histories, but I freely admit I don't have much to hand and there may be something I've missed. I do wonder if the name was something of an attempt to emulate the popularity of The Gippslander, which is far more well-reported despite being a very similar service. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Triptothecottage - I agree with your point. The Wiki article presently has no sources so merging to the relevant organisation or line will enable an article to be recreated if sources are found in future. No reason to keep at the moment. Bookscale (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. The current content doesn't justify a stand-alone article. Mackensen (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I was inclined to say delete. We had this issue some time ago over named trains in India, where they all have names. If merged the merge target should be a list of named trains within the target article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The remaining named trains in Victoria either have their own article (and lots of sources) or are merged into a larger article about the line or train type. Bookscale (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and ping @Bookscale, Peterkingiron, and Mackensen:: there's now List of named trains in Victoria, which is probably a better/alternative merge target. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Triptothecottage - happy for a merge to that page (agree it makes more sense than my suggestions). Bookscale (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That'll do nicely--though it seems more a summary article than a list, so Named trains in Victoria might be a more appropriate title. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Denys Desjardins. Deletion or merging have also been proposed, but there is no clear preference for deletion over redirecting and so WP:ATD applies, and for merging editors have stated the content is already at the merge target. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Dame aux poupées

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

Short film of questionable notability, it apparently won a award, but don't know how notable it is, to make it even more strange-film does not even appear on the IMDb. Wgolf (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect to the filmmaker given RebeccaGreen's improvements to his article which left room for a short plot summary. NFILM does not automatically extend instant permanent notability to every winner of every film award that exists — the AQCC has some potential to be a valid notability claim if the article were actually citing reliable sources, but it's not an instant notability freebie that would exempt a film from actually having to have any proper sources at all. Based on the creator's username I also suspect a direct conflict of interest even if I can't prove it outright. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Denys Desjardins, though in fact with no sources, there is not much to merge. I found a source which verifies that he won this award for this film, but that's all. I have reorganised the filmography section of Denys Desjardins, and added columns for others involved in creating the films and for the theme, with info for this film from this article. I suspect that some of his other films may not be notable either, but information about them can certainly be included in an article about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a really nice job on that table. Thanks for that. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Glad it's useful. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am happy with Delete for this article - as I said above, I have incorporated most of the info into the filmmaker's article. I don't know that either the French or English title of this film would be a likely search term, so I don't think a redirect would be necessary - but regardless of that, a complete article is not needed, and as far as the history of this article is concerned, it has the same creator as the article about the filmmaker, so little information would be lost by deleting rather than merging. (I know I should strike my vote above, but I still haven't figured out how to do that without striking everything that follows, so I have just unbolded it!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wrap <s> </s> tags around the specific pieces of text you want to strikeout. If you're have problems striking text, it's probably just a matter of forgetting to close the strike tags. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denys Desjardins, per RebeccaGreen. Since the article content has been effectively integrated into there, I don't see a need to keep this stub any longer. JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Real estate investing. Low traffic AfD but there is no support for a 'keep' and 'merge' looks as close to a consensus as we are likely to get. Just Chilling (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BRRR (real estate)

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

Not sure about the article's notability, so inviting debate on whether it is notable enough or not for Wikipedia. There seem to be some references on the internet about this 'method' (just googled "brrr real estate"), but not sure whether they are enough to merit an article, as many seem to be self-help-styley websites. Therefore I am inviting debate on whether it is notable enough or not. Seagull123 Φ 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Real estate investing. The term definitely seems widely used, but most of the sources I can find are 'how-to' type websites, discussion forums, books etc. What I can't find is enough decent secondary coverage of the term/approach from an independent perspective (i.e. not from people trying to show you how to invest). Tbh it's borderline for me, I think you could just about make a decent article out of this and prop it up with some 'nearly good enough' referencing, but it's not quite there, and the merge is an obvious solution. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milagros Schmoll

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

One of the innumerable amount of articles that relies on the obsolete, defunt NYMag directory (which does not establish notability) and Fashion Model Directory (which is a last resort at most). Outside of that notability can't be established (no, Perfil doesn't count it's a tabloid.) Trillfendi (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The Spanish Wikipedia also links to this interview in La Nación and there's another in the same paper, so it seems there might be some RS from her home country of Argentina if a Spanish-speaking editor wants to look into it. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 09:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is they don’t address the verification aspect of the BLP template. None of them give the adequate information required for her career. Therefore it comes down to: what’s the point? Trillfendi (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model. Interviews do not add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die Achse des Guten}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Siddique}}