Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 April	5 April >

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. Strictly weighing the !votes on policy based arguments, the consensus here is keep. I would recommend the nom and Garlicolive to make their suggestions for a merge or move on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New racism

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

This article should be deleted or merged with its author's article at best, by the reasons that I stated in its 'Talk' page. I will copy them here, so upcoming user's do not need to go there:

"I agree, this article should be deleted. It hardly fits Wikipedia's criteria of notability. It must be remembered that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that summary-only descriptions of works are specifically singled out as non belonging to it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information). Other than its first paragraph, this article barely resumes the concept provided by Barker (along with some citations, which does not necessarily recognizes it as of wide academic interest or respectability) and should be dealt with in that author's own article as a subsection. Having roughly a dozen of citations about a term or work is not enough to consider it 'highly cited', as Wikipedia's guidelines state that these kinds of subjects must be (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes); specially when other works and concepts have them by hundreds. Not to mention, also, that in academic disciplines that are so narrow as the study of sociological tendencies in late XX century European media, further guidelines of the Wikipedia apply: "Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. (The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline...)". Therefore, in agreement with Alfietucker, I shall start the procedures to delete this article. Miguerum (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agreeing with the AfD nominator, this article is too specific, but I vote for a merge instead of a deletion, the parent article could accomodate this term without issues. Garlicolive (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article opens new insights in Marxist ideology that can be beneficial for academic references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WTFS8 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was left on the article itself. I copied it over. Pinging WTFS8. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many academic sources covering this concept found by a focussed Google Scholar search, including nearly two thousand citing the book where it was first described. I note that the nominator expects hundreds of citations for a topic to be notable. This has thousands. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. E.g. this book builds on Barker's concept, but departs from it often enough that a separate article is justified. This topic is also mentioned in There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack. wumbolo ^^^ 20:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:04, 20 April 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. With the nominator withdrawing the nomination alongside the policy based keep arguments, the consensus weights strongest with Keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still Ill

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

This is a Smiths song from an album, it never was a single. The only material on this page - and the references that apparently mean I can't do a redirect - is to prove that an unauthorised film about the band was named after a line in this song. That fact can go on the page about that film. It does not support the idea that this song needs its own article. Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet any of the criteria for a song to have an article: [1]

Ranked on chart: No, never released
Won an award: No, not that I know of
Multiple artists recording: No evidence to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown Temptation (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The song got a little notoriety because one of its lyrics inspired to title of a movie, but that is trivia that can be (and is) mentioned at the movie's article. Any other minor trivia associated with the song can be mentioned at the article for its parent album. Otherwise all we have is that this song existed, and existence does not prove notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song received significant coverage in Simon Goddard's book Songs That Saved Your Life, and in John D. Luerssen's The Smiths FAQ, and therefore satisfies WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Over 100 mentions in Google Scholar [2]. Appears on six of The Smiths' albums: [3]. Covered by multiple other recording artists: [4]. And so on and so forth. Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination as the additional references have shown a notability for the song in itself which was not present when I first looked at the page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:05, 6 April 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) 05:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kweekvijver

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

TV program of questionable notability (found this on the long dormant articles), has no references, I can't find anything online outside of Wikipedia mirror sites. Wgolf (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination,TH1980 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Plaxie (talk) 12:54, 7 April 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) 05:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pat M. Baskin

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:JUDGE, and the sources (obituaries, a self-cited work by the article's author, election returns, etc.) do not support WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- agree with nom, this is not a notable judge.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - author is now a banned user, and judge is not notable. Rockstonetalk to me! 03:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 5 April 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 2019 AAF season#Playoffs. Seems like this is almost evenly split between redirect and delete so going by redirect as one editor wanted to merge stuff over and b) there does not appear to be any particular reason to prefer deletion, other than the headcount as nobody has specified that they find only deletion acceptable; most people just want to get rid of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 AAF Championship Game

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

I'm recommending this article for deletion. Due to the AAF ending their 2019 season, this game will not be played, and general info about the game (e.g. where & when it would have been played) is adequately covered at 2019 AAF season. Comments welcome, thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No game, no article. What would there be to say? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable event that will likely not occur. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The venue/media section are easily merged into the AAF article; no here there without a game. Nate • (chatter) 02:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not notable because this game is not going to be held.
Redirect to 2019 AAF season#Playoffs. While it is true that sometimes cancelled sporting events can be independently notable on their own (like the 1940 Summer Olympics), there's no indication that that's the case here in the case of this start-up minor league American football league. It is a plausible search term, however, and redirects are WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that merge is more appropriate--the obvious target being Alliance of American Football. I think it's important to include in that article that there was at least an intent to play a championship game in this otherwise failed league... but certainly no reason for a stand-alone article. Merge applicable content, delete the rest.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2019 AAF season per Ejgreen77; there's no reason for the game to have a standalone article as the game will not be played. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2019 AAF Season seems the most sensible result. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 AAF season (lower-case "s") Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The game was hardly notable enough to have warranted an article while the league was operating. Nothing would be lost if it were deleted; the topic was covered adequately in the 2019 AAF season article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 2019 AAF season. The league is on life support, and even if the game ever happens (which it likely will not), it would fail as a combo of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:58, 10 April 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) 05:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Brooks (investor)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Non notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I cannot entirely agree with the statement that this is a page for advertising. I mean if I write an article about any CEO is it automatically me trying to advertise them? However, I assume the main concern is if Ben is notable. I can see your scepticism over his notability as he has not won a Nobel peace prize or anything. However, he has created a state-based stock index which is the first of its kind. He is the first to make an index based on a state which is revolutionary. Secondly, he has funded several industry top performing companies. He owns debatably the largest investment firm in the south-east. I mean he is causing waves in the industry, and I have several sources to back it up. I think you can see his notability so now I will go to the advertising issue. As you can tell when you read it that it is 100% objective at least in my opinion. However, with all this being said I respect you guys much for not just abusing power and just straight up deleting it like others. I think it's clear that this is an objective article, but if you disagree, please tell me why you think it's not, and I will change it no questions asked. Sorry if I came off as mad or rude, I would like to say I am genuinely thankful that I came across reasonable mods. signed by user:Lamarsmith15 by scope_creep^Talk 23:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamarsmith15: That's cool, but never stated it was advertising. I really don't think he is notable and has almost no coverage. If you think he is notable, then fight to keep it. The Afd discussion will last for seven days. I signed your comment for you. Please add ~~~~ or 4 tildes after your comment and Wikipedia will replace it with your signature. scope_creep^Talk 23:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not want to fight but rather have a sound and civilized discussion. I am not disrespecting you when I say this but creating the first ever stock index based on North Carolina and many other indexes based on other states is kind of a big deal. The index now also has a patent so it will be the sole index in these states. Nothing like this has ever been done before not just in these states but on a nationwide scale. Now the masses of both analysts and customers in several states are now following this index. Even the largest business magazine/news company in the whole state of North Carolina wrote articles about this. This alone is likely enough to be noteable but I will continue. He is also the CEO of one of the largest or largest broker-dealers in the whole southeast. This company is now worth billions. He also has funded some of the largest companies in several industries such as Wedding Wire. I believe that you may have trouble finding articles but there are plenty that I found. Way more than just what I put in my article such as https://www.wraltechwire.com/2004/06/29/southern-capitol-ventures-to-support-elon-school-of-business/ just to name one of many. I decided not to write as much so I didn't include unessecary links. Just please explain why you think he is not notable. There are plenty of sources if you look up relateable search terms. Lamarsmith15 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant by fight, strongly discuss. There is no coverage for the person. There must be coverage that satisfies WP:SIGCOV. Best wishes! scope_creep^Talk 11:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage for this person... a lot too. My question is what are you looking up and how. On Wikipedia alone, there are like 7 Ben Brooks. Each one of them out shadow the other in the search index, making it harder for you to find them. You also need to realize that politicians and authors have way more coverage then business owners since there whole career is dedicated to the public and they're opinion. Basically, every statement and vote that comes out of a politicians mouth becomes a new article. When it comes to authors especially Ben Brooks every single book receives tons and I mean tons of articles from the countless book reviewers and other various forms of media. All of these articles further drown out this man's articles. I mean look up ben brooks and the author is the only one that is listed on Wikipedia that can be found until the second page when it mentions the guy I'm writing about right now. I mean yea he might not be the very first link you find but the other 6 Ben Brooks's aren't either. I mean you literally said and I quote "There is no coverage". There is a significant amount of coverage for him, so much that I had to source multiple sources for certain statements said in the article. There is so much more I could have put in but decided not too since it's not from a good source or doesn't talk about him enough like the one I sent you before. But if you are really having trouble finding articles where he is the main or sole subject like the ones referenced in my article then I highly recommend you search for the ones where he is mentioned and has an important role such as these two I found on the first page https://www.techrepublic.com/article/from-textiles-to-tech-north-carolinas-journey-to-becoming-a-startup-epicenter/ and https://www.redherring.com/startups/north-carolinas-research-triange-ready-startups-go-big/. I also would like if you valued the quality of the sources given. I got the impression from Wikipedia themselves and many different editors that quality should be valued over quantity in the sense that if one has a good amount of nonbiased and very credible sources they should be valued more than one with an insane amount of noncredible and/or biased articles. Lastly, i'm not saying you do this but I would really appreciate if instead of doing anything possible to support your side whether it's by making totally incorrect and skewed statements like "there's no coverage" or just flat out lying actually try to read and take into account what I am saying and then form an opinion. PS: Who determines in the end if this article should or should not be allowed and how long will this process take? I also honestly appreciate you reading this and trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Lamarsmith15 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both the references you provided here are merely name drops in connection to his company. They are not the kind of wide coverage that is expected to satisfy WP:V and WP:BIO. There is policy called WP:BEFORE that everybody uses before an article is sent to Afd. I would also have a look at WP:TALK so you indent or thread your comments. scope_creep^Talk

I have blocked Lamarsmith15, the creator of this article, for covert advertising (UPE). Delete as paid-for spam. MER-C 11:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. scope_creep^Talk 19:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Need more than press releases to establish notability. There are plenty of prominent investors who have gained significant coverage to and pass GNG, Brooks just isn't one of them. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 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 is overwhelmingly keep (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick

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

Recreation of a biography of a non-notable living person that was previously redirected per a deletion discussion. DrKay (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I recreated it as I added new information from a news article from Tatler. Lady Marina Windsor's article was recreated too, successfully. He is also the future heir of the dukedom of Kent, after his grandfather and father, unlike his sisters. I don't think there is any reason to delete it again. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as a fashion designer in his own right. In regards to his royal relations, he is second-in-line, after his father, to the Dukedom of Kent, which counts for something. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at the time of the previous nomination in 2017, there were not as many sources published regarding Downpatrick. His fashion label was founded that same year, and two years later there is more substantial coverage out there, which I have added to the article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's enough here to meet WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – same reason as above. --Pjoona11 (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to good arguments made above his position as the most senior member of the British Royal Family to be excluded from the line of succession (owing to his conversion to Roman Catholicism), is also fairly notable. Dunarc (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dunarc and the others. Sources coming along nicely so this should be kept. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there appears to be enough here to meet WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:52, 10 April 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) 05:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D'Asaro Jr.

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

His Dad is notable, I am not finding evidence that he is. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete college level fencing coaches are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, but father is 9H48F (talk) 21:46, 11 April 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) 05:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Coleman

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

Vanity piece - no citations Sgerbic (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror. We need to do a lot more work on this front. We have way too many articles on non-notable actors, and way too few currently at AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per nomination. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a puff piece site.TH1980 (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Plaxie (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination 9H48F (talk) 21:48, 11 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Murphy

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Failed congressional candidate GPL93 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but this features neither evidence that she has preexisting notability for other reasons, nor enough sourcing to mount a credible case that her candidacy would be a special notability case over and above other people's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unsuccessful candidate, not known for anything else = no article.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for US congress are almost never notable. We still have a lot of work to do to clean out these articles on unelected candidates in the 2000s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Under Lois E Murphy, the subject was elected as a judge for Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas; District 38 in 2009. While this position is not one that would give the presumption of notability, it may help with evaluating whether the subject would meet WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also as a comment, the 2006 Congressional race the subject was in is the focus of one chapter in "Battle for Congress: Iraq, Scandal, and Campaign Finance in the 2006 Election" 2008 by David B. Magleby, Kelly D. Patterson eds. There appear to be other scholarly discussions about the race (as evidenced by a Google Scholar search). While all this reinforces the concept that 2006_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Pennsylvania#6th_Congressional_district is notable, much of the subject's biographical details are contained in those academic sources. --Enos733 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733: maybe redirect to 2006_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Pennsylvania#6th_Congressional_district instead then? The court of common pleas is just the civil trial division of PA's county courts, so not particularly notable there. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe (although her 2004 election was close too). I am on the fence on this one, as there is no presumption of notability for any of the subject's congressional campaigns or local judgeship, but there is some above average coverage of her 2006 campaign and in total, there is a certain volume of coverage that approaches the expectations described in the introduction to WP:BIO. --Enos733 (talk) 03:54, 10 April 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. Frank McInnis

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

Fails WP:JUDGE. Not notable local judge. A Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal judge is not a statewide judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:JUDGE as a non-statewide judge and sources do not indicate WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinavico Group

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

This does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. SITH (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This needs someone familiar with Vietnamese media to evaluate sources such as these. Google Translate shows that most of these news articles are about this company. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - reading through the article it looks like it is a rather significant industrial company in Vietnam. We need someone who can understand Vietnamese to kinda search through some of these hits on Google. Further, being that this is a company in Vietnam, not many of the sources we would expect are going to appear online. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to a Vietnamese, corporate-tracking website (here), the total market value of the company is 6,16 billion đồng, which at current forex equivalency translates to approximately $260,000. A rather small sum but we need to know about the size of Vietnamese corporations. -The Gnome (talk) 12:56, 26 April 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) 05:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Aviation Training Centre

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

I don't think this meets WP:CORPDEPTH. SITH (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Under WP:CORPDEPTH The listing of aircraft training types would be considered product offerings, and they also list their other services provided, all of which is considered trivial coverage. Removing the offerings from the page, leaves very little left. So it fails the criteria, with not much information of note. MegaFlyCraft (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and failing to come anywhere near meeting the GNG. Arguably a viable nomination for Speedy Deletion for being advertising/promotional in nature, or for not clearly demonstrating the notability of the subject. YSSYguy (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 00:18, 12 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Severino

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

Article about an amateur footballer who featured on a Fox Sports reality TV show. There is coverage of his stint on the show in the Argentine press (I added a La Nación link to the article), but I don't believe his reality TV appearances are sufficient to make him notable - and his amateur footballing career isn't either. Jogurney (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough to pass GNG. As well as that tv appearance, Severino had a notable career with Atlas (258 apps 109 goals BDFA) which brings notability: Mundo D - La Voz, Infobae, Clarín, Fox Deportes R96Skinner (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good research by R96Skinner, meets GNG. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think. Per nom. His Atlas career was in the fifth tier of Argentine football, three levels below fully professional, and not many people would consider a long career with a Northern Premier League club to be notable, even if the club did feature in a reality TV show. The articles listed by R96Skinner are different media outlets' version of the same piece, about his emotional five minutes against River in the Copa Argentina a year after he retired from playing, which seems to be as part of the reality show. I don't think that's enough for a GNG pass. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is correct - all of the non-routine coverage in the Argentine press relates to his stint on the reality TV show in some fashion (including the unsuccessful trial it generated at DIM). He certainly was a star amateur footballer, but that's well below our footballer notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – mostly per R96Skinner's research. Rare, but I believe this is a notable amateur football player. The top WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV I see are Mundo, and infobae, and the combination of these two Clarin articles [5] [6]. (Fox Deportes is in-depth but they produced the reality TV show (per our article) so not independent.) Per WP:42, there is plenty of material here to write a decent biography. My Spanish is not good but I think he held the scoring record for Atlas. Leviv ich 06:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted below, three of those four articles are all from the same PR stunt. SportingFlyer T·C 01:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tried, but I don't get it. For years, Mr Severino did a shitty job in order to feed his family and played amateur football but was never able to progress higher up the leagues like he wanted to. A TV station made a reality show about Atlas, the amateur club he used to play for, and as happens with reality TV participants, he had a few weeks of "fame". Some years later, after he'd given up football, Atlas were drawn in the cup against the big club that Mr Severino supported. He went back to the club and begged to be in the team, the management thought it might get them some welcome publicity, and once the team was comfortably losing the game, he got five minutes on the field. It's a lovely feelgood story, the sort of thing that the popular press were bound to cover, and I hope it works out for him. But that's it. How is that not WP:BLP1E? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"A few weeks of fame" is not accurate. The reality TV show was on the air for 10 years on Fox Sports as of 2015. Severino was the captain, and I think later the manager, of the team, as well as (I think) holding the team record for most goals. He was the "face" of the team. It looks like he was a football celebrity in Argentina for maybe two decades. The five-minute televised encore in 2017 was a "comeback"–he was already famous (and notable) by then. For me, it doesn't matter if he was professional or amateur–notability is not a judgment about career success–it matters whether he was "noted" or "worthy of note", and the RSes seem to agree that he is, and for many years. Check out the pre-2017 coverage of him:
2010 article about Severino becoming captain of the team

2010 interview with Severino

2014 profile with a video interview of him. The lead sentence translates to: Wilson Severino is the emblematic player of Club Atlético Atlas ...

2014 story on the club (not really SIGCOV of Severino himself) has Severino as the lead picture. The caption translates to: Wilson Severino, scorer and symbol of Atlas, is preparing to be manager in the future ...

2015 passing mention in a blurb about the club Atlas refers to Severino as ... the incombustible Brazilian striker Wilson Severino.

Not all of those links above are SIGCOV (but some are). In 2017, the coverage really blossomed because of the renewed media attention due to his "comeback" appearance. Yes, that was a publicity stunt, but he was already notable, and the resulting coverage means there is plenty from which to write an article about him. Look at all the references on his Spanish Wikipedia article. The article was CSD'd there in 2014 due to lack of sources from which to write an article. Later it was recreated. They had an AfD discussion about him in 2017 which reads just like this discussion, with editors pointing out that there was now much more SIGCOV of him since 2014, and other editors making the BLP1E argument ("WP:UNEVENTO"). The result of the AfD was mantener (keep). Leviv ich 15:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is effectively a WP:BLP1E. He clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and only has an article as a result of a publicity stunt after appearing on an Argentine reality show. All of the references I've seen only mention him in the context of the reality show. Not a notable footballer. SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he's not notable as a footballer, he's notable as a TV personality (WP:NACTOR). The Argentine reality show ("documentary"), Atlas, la otra pasión, about Club Atlético Atlas won a Martín Fierro Award in 2006 (the top in Argentina, like an Emmy I guess). It was on Fox Sports (Latin America). There's coverage of Severino from 2010–2017. This doesn't seem like a one-time publicity stunt. Leviv ich 20:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Under which part of WP:NACTOR exactly? He was featured in a docu-reality show, that doesn't get you there. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Featured" implies some passing thing like a guest-star role. He was the star for years. Snooki gets an article, know what I mean? NACTOR 2, I'd say, "cult following", as evidenced by the multiple years of media coverage and all the attention that came with the 2017 comeback appearance. Also, he's on Fox Sports, it's a major network on which to star in a weekly, award-winning docu-series. Clearly, he had a significant number of fans for many years. Hence why the team, and the show, are notable (and why this article survived an AfD on Spanish wiki). Realty TV stars of popular long-running reality TV shows get stand-alone articles as a general rule, wouldn't you agree? Leviv ich 20:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I got that, by the way, from comments at the Spanish-language AfD discussion from two keep votes: This footballer, in addition to showing a couple of important records for a historical club of Argentine soccer, also stood out for his participation in a television program related to the club. So it is no coincidence that his sporting career is considered by the main Argentine media (Clarín, La Nación, Infobae) and also by its main sports media (Olé, El Gráfico magazine, etc) and that the River Plate club have honored him as reflected in the text. and The relevance goes beyond his condition of "fifth division player", and this is credited by the sources present in the article. It is a very particular case, which has become relevant as an example of personal improvement. It is not about a character who has been on the news once, but who has had a quasi-leading role in a TV show that has been known for many years. Therefore, it is not any fifth division player, not even limited to being a prominent or historical figure of your club. On the contrary, this condition of marginal, of unknown, actually reinforces the relevance. Not that we're bound by their "keep" result, but I value the opinions of Wikipedians who (unlike me) are native speakers of the language and live in that part of the world. Deletion discussions are more or less the same in any language I guess: ... no se puede tener ese nivel de agresividad, falta de respeto y prepotencia gratuita hacia otros usuarios por el solo hecho de tener opiniones diferentes. Llevamos añares así con tus intervenciones desmesuradas ... Edita tu comentario y opina en forma respetuosa y mesurada, antes de que me dirija al tablón. which translates to ... you can not have that level of aggressiveness, lack of respect and gratuitous arrogance towards other users for the mere fact of having different opinions. We've endured for years like this with your excessive interventions ... Edit your comment and opine in a respectful and measured way, before I go to the board. Leviv ich 20:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree. Reading through the Spanish AfD, I am far more taken with the delete arguments, especially considering his article was already once deleted on the Spanish website back in 2014, notability is not inherited (do all players for Atlas get to have articles since they were on the show?), and the Keep arguments in Spanish mostly related to his "one shining moment:" getting to end his career with five minutes on the pitch against River Plate, which swamp his Spanish language page. SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as I understand it, the reality TV show did win an Argentine television show award in 2006, and has aired for over a decade. It probably deserves it's own article. Mr. Severino certainly appeared on the show, and all of the articles covering his football career derive from those appearances on the show. I think this is a BLP1E issue, as his amateur career isn't particularly notable (there are literally thousands of amateur players around the world who hold some record for a club, just as we could find thousands of high school football or baseball players who hold records for their school's teams). I don't see him acquiring notability as an actor, but that's the only way I could see us concluding the article should be kept. Jogurney (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:04, 15 April 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. Not to be that guy, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is an essay, not actually a policy. Anyhow, it seems like the most in-depth analysis of sources presented states that they are all not substantive or reliable enough and the sole counterarguments presented apparently did not convince anyone. So this is a delete case per the notability guidelines and also per BLP policy concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Farooq Zahoor

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)

Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY or WP:RS Tramontinaberbera (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject has accrued coverage (both significant and tangential) in a number of reliable sources; this can easily be seen with a select google searches like [7]. Notably, the Norwegian newspaper/tabloid published several stories [8] [9] regarding the subject, and this coverage in turn generated coverage [10]. Regardless, AfD is not cleanup, and the sources available online (I am guessing a WP:BEFORE check was not undertaken before this nomination) make a strong case for the subject meeting both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete - Does not pass notability and seriously violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. A BLP can not be written in this tone. Created by the paid blocked editor Bernie44. Moreover all or most of the controversial information about the person are from a newspaper called Verdens Gang seems to have a personal clash with the guy. All of the sources violate WP:RS. - ToT89 (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the guy in question is not a Norwegian. He is Ghanaian. This article does not maintain Wikipedia standard in any way. I am surprised to see that this article is live in Wikipedia for two years. - ToT89 (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ToT89: see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. if the article violates WP:BLP, it can be altered to address that, and other errors; this does not justify the deletion of a notable topic, nor is it the purpose of AfD. As far as your comment about "all of the sources [violating] WP:RS"... what? Are you sure about all of them? The article as it stands cites articles from The Statesman Online, Deseret News, Independent Online, and Verdens Gang. If you consider articles from these sources to be unreliable, the burden is on the questioning editor to have the source struck down as unreliable at WP:RSN. In addition, please note that AfDs judge the notability of the article subject, and so must consider all potential sources before making a decision on the subject meeting WP:GNG and WP:BIO. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret News article does not even mention the guy in question.

Independent Online trivial mention of the subject, not in-depth coverage.

The Statesman Online No mention of the subject.

Ghana Web No mention of the subject.

Myjoyonline No mention of the subject.

All of the controversial information in the article come from the allegations raised by Verdens Gang. Other sources just quote Verdens Gangs allegations. These sources are not enough to pass him WP:N. And also it's contents violate WP:BLP seriously. - ToT89 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, in a fashion; the Desert, Statesman, and Myjoy sources are used in the article to cite information related to a company Zahoor was affiliated with, as should be the case with a BLP. But as for the others, why should the multiple Ghanaweb sources referencing the subject (both in and not-yet included) be discarded, or the large amount of coverage VG has generated? Nor was VG alone in its efforts; per this article [11] (currently not cited in the article) in The Namibian, said newspaper assisted VG in its research. This seems to be enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO; indeed, several news articles have covered VG's coverage of the subject. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Can't seem to find consensus on simple facts such as the nationality of this guy. Some say Norweigan, some say Pakistani, some say Ghanian. This doesn't qualify as an Encylopedia entry at all. Origins of information come from one source, which seems more like an opinon piece. Hardly meets sourcing guidelines required to be on the Wikpiedia mainspace. --50.253.53.121 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I keep quoting this policy, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If there are doubts about the subject's nationality, that should be addressed, but such an issue has nothing to do with notability. Also, noting that this is this IP editors first ever edit, which seems a little off.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. All allegations can not be supported by reliable sources and when those allegations are gone, the topic fails WP:BLP and WP:RS. --Plaxie (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Chart information was found here and here. (non-admin closure) Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Return to the Sauce

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

Never charted nor received sales certification, not enough reviews to warrant significant coverage, fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 4 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IM the Supervisor

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

Never charted nor received sales certification, not enough reviews to warrant significant coverage, fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 4 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B.P. Empire

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

Never charted nor received sales certification, not enough reviews to warrant significant coverage, fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 4 April 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Mushroom

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

Never charted nor received sales certification, not enough reviews to warrant significant coverage, fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 4 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gathering (Infected Mushroom album)

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

Never charted nor received sales certification, not enough reviews to warrant significant coverage, fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 4 April 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. Deleting as nn and a clear blp issue too Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pulikkodan Narayanan

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

I can only find passing mentions of him, nothing that passes WP:NBIO. There may be more sources in Hindu but I don't speak the language and can't find any Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's an e-mail at OTRS Ticket:2019040410002251 where the poster claims that As per the supreme court verdict he is free from all the charges against him - assuming that is true (the poster offered to send more data if needed - but I'll point him here as well), then there does not seem to be much of an article at all. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an attack page written from a pro-Naxalite POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Rajan case. Mid-ranking officer involved in a single notable incident when he was even more junior. Not enough for individual notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 10 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accrediting Commission International

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. It gets a few paragraphs in articles about people with degrees from associated institutions, but with just a single dedicated piece in QuackWatch, seeems to fall short. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing looks fine to me. The subject of the article appears to be notable precisely because it is not accredited. Mccapra (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is one of those cases where the keep argument makes the delete argument about poor sources explicit Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Numkena

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly sourced as clearing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for an actor is not simply the ability to list roles that he played -- having roles is the job description, so every actor who exists would always get a guaranteed Wikipedia inclusion freebie if all you had to do was list the roles. Rather, the notability test requires some evidence that he received some reliable source coverage in media about his having of roles -- but the only sources present here at all are his IMDb profile and a NetDetective search being used to dox his private personal life post-retirement, neither of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. And no, an actor isn't automatically notable just because you make an unsourced claim about one of his roles representing a historic first, either — lots of people in history have been claimed as historic firsts when they actually weren't, just because the source making the claim didn't research hard enough to be aware of the predecessor(s), so there still has to be proper reliable source verification that their "historic first" status is actually true. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are way too many unfounded first claims to make such in an article without widespread sourcing worth while. Basically extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, and if being the first Native American child to appear in a film was a notable thing we could source it to multiple reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Anthony Numkena was not the first native American child to appear on the screen (see Michael Hilger, Native Americans in the Movies: Portrayals from Silent Films to the Present, Rowman & Littlefield, 2015).^[1] But in the 1950s he became the first native American credited with the professional role of "child actor" in a long series of films in cinema and television (see Anthony Numkena, in boyactors.org.uk).^[2] Before him leading roles of native American children featured "white" actors, as in the case of Little Beaver, the "saddle pal" of Red Ryder, who appeared in numerous films in the 1940s, played by "white" child actors Tommy Cook, Robert Blake and Don Reynolds.Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Boyactors.org.uk" is not a reliable source. IMDb isn't a notability-supporting source, and other people's IMDb profiles are even less relevant to Numkena's notability or lack thereof than his own is; the way you added the Hilger book to the article indicates that it doesn't contain any content about Numkena, but just tangentially verifies stray facts about other people; and Racism, Sexism and the Media just mentions his name a single time while containing no other content about him whatsoever. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make an actor notable. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point (this is what we got). It remains the fact that this actor was credited in the fifties in at least 5 movies and more than 30 episodes of TV shows. He was not an extra but had leading roles. At least, we can say that his activities are well attested in reliable sources (his name is reported in several publications, even though his biography to my knowledge is never discussed in details). There are actors that have done much less and have an entry in wikipedia. He is certainly not the first native American child to appear on the screen, but the claim that he was the first Native American to have a (credited) career as a child actor seems to be likely. I have not seen any other case mentioned in academic sources. I am not the one who created the entry, but if possible, I would rather like to see the article improved than deleted.Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 00:38, 6 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Hossain

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

Has been created in order to circumvent an AfC process; Draft:Sonia Hossain has been rejected multiple times.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Would you elaborate on your deletion rationale? With rare exceptions, AfC is an optional process. The article is different from the draft that was declined for failing to demonstrate notability. Are you saying that the topic is not notable? --Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how the topic is notable, and I do not see how the article is different from the draft.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- DisagreeThe draft has been canceled, given the reason for the comment option of the draft. This draft had no references. Notability cannot be established without references, so the draft is rejected.But this does not prove that this article is also removable. Because, there is a reference to the article to be verified.-Dot71 (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: If you think the article is not significant then you have a few hundred articles related to the Bangladeshi model in the wiki that must be removed. See the category- Bangladeshi male television actors, Bangladeshi female models, Bangladeshi television actresses-Dot71 (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Ymblanter - As your AFD is presented, it is subject to Speedy Keep. It is quite true that the draft was declined three times and has now been declined a fourth and a fifth time. That is not a reason for nominating the article for deletion. Do you mean that the actress does not satisfy acting notability? The draft was declined because it was not properly referenced and did not establish notability. The article has better references. One can still argue notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Moving a declined draft into article space is (with exceptions involving conflict of interest) permitted, in particular as a way to request the opinion of the community as to whether the draft should be in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Neither this article nor a Google search shows independent third-party in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Google search shows that she exists and uses social media and is not the same person as Sonya Hussain. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Subject does not appear meet WP:NACTOR, and I cannot find any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. The coverage I can find are passing mentions and routine television programming announcements. Leviv ich 15:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since two editors have presented notability arguments, which are policy-based, for deletion, a Speedy Keep is no longer in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 8 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pirtua, pirtua

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

Non-notable film. Of sources provided, one is regarding the filmmaker, and merely mentions his newest film in the first line. The only other is from Elonet, which is a DATABASE of Finnish films which does nothing for notable, same with IMDB external link. I don't see anything establishing notability for this film. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Proquest news archive search comes up absolutely blank. Film is already included in list of a dozen non-notable films on page of filmmaker Visa Mäkinen. Thereis nothing here to merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Elonet is a database and probably lists every movie and actor in Finland, but it also has some information about this movie and it quotes three reviews from three national newspapers/magazines. Unfortunately it's probably impossible to find the reviews online so I don't know how long they are. It seems it was also reviewed in the film magazine Filmihullu, but that's not online either [12]. Elonet also quotes an interview about making of the movie prior to the release, but again it's impossible to find it now. Also according to Elonet, the film was released on DVD in 2009 and 2017. -kyykaarme (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is evidence given above that the film has been reviewed in four national newspapers and magazines which means it passes WP:NFILM but those sources are not easily found online so it needs Finnish editors to expand the article with offline sources Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How can we verify these sources exist? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, after looking further, as per Kyykaarme, NFILM requires "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The article shows the film sold 1 650 tickets, which would go against "widely distributed." Further, no evidence that these are "full-length" reviews, and NFILM requires both. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG can be passed separately from WP:NFILM and if the reviews are in national newspapers they are likely to be sig cov Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to find the sources as we can't keep on assertions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:17, 20 April 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Next? (magazine)

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

Non notable and defunct magazine, created by a COI account Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 4 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visit.org

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

Non-notable wesbsite BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination 9H48F (talk) 21:51, 11 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Peizer

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

This was deleted via AFD in 2007 as an autobiography. Another author (with a limited topic interest range recreated it in 2012. Claim to fame is chiefly his tenure as CIO of Open Society Institute. Most of the sources are primary or otherwise don't meet WP:RS. Of the sources that do meet WP:RS (San Diego Union Tribune, Times Higher Education, Wired), the first two are inaccessible, and the Wired article has a single mention of Peizer. Still no evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources. This is not the only instance of the subject attempting to use Wikipedia for self-promotion; see this long thread concerning his objections to his commercial green tea site being added to the spam blacklist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to WP:GNG, sources don't have to be online to count. That said, the Union-Tribune source is a reprint of a Chicago Tribune story [13] and only has a quote from Peizer. The Wired source is an interview with Peizer. The total coverage of Peizer in the Times Higher Education piece (which is a book review still sitting around in Google cache [14]) is "He gets tough with only one interviewee, Jonathan Peizer, who set up the Soros Foundation's internet programme in Eastern Europe. Peizer is one of the few people in the book who is doing something useful instead of criticising what everyone else is doing." So, primary sources and insignificant coverage, none of which counts toward notability. Bakazaka (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete news archive searches show that he gets quoted about stuff "says Jonathan Peizer, a computer expert for ..." but I can't find any SIGCOV that is ABOUT him. It appears to be PROMO, for a MILL tech/social media professional.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 8 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Mostafavi

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. Having worked as a production manager on a notable film does not make the individual notable. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss Mostafavi in a significant way, in English or Persian. ... discospinster _talk 14:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delet: There are not enough reliable source to confirm his notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hispring (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To stay: Greetings and greetings are becoming famous ویلیام علی اللهياری (talk) 13:56, 5 April 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 delete arguments have made a more convincing case as to why the pertinent guidelines are not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Torres

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Overly promotional article created by a WP:SPA, very likely autobiographical or written by someone close to Mr. Torres, seeing as it's full of unsourced original research. Half of the sources do not mention him at all, and there are many claims of notability by association. Once you remove the promotional detail and name-dropping, there's nothing left of any substance.

Music-wise, Mr. Torres' two supposed claims to fame are the 1995 single "Put Down the Body" by Thierry and the 2000 single "Power" by Zelma Davis. On the former he is merely listed as co-writer and producer (indeed, the review of the single criticises the production, but this is conveniently ignored by the article creator); on the latter he just produced one of the remixes. Neither single charted anywhere, not even on Billboard's specialist charts – the claim of "Power" reaching number one on the Dance Sales chart is misleading, as it actually was the Maxi-Singles Breakout chart... in other words, the singles Billboard considered most likely to chart, given reports of sales, but which hadn't actually charted yet.

The animation award given while he worked at Urban Box Office Network is non-notable and was given purely for the animation content: Mr. Torres' music is not mentioned at all. The song for Picture This is a co-writing credit on a single song on the soundtrack of a straight-to-DVD movie. The song for The Next Three Days is also a co-writing credit on one song that features during the film, and is not included on the soundtrack album. In short, there is nothing to demonstrate Mr. Torres' notability in any of his fields. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to above claim to not delete. Rafael Torres Writing/Production of the single Power did chart on the Billboard Dance charts at #43 ^[3] As well, Rafael Torres has contributed music for theme for many notable award winning network tv shows such as big brother ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.76.178 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC) — 75.114.76.178[reply]

References

^ Michael Hilger, Native Americans in the Movies: Portrayals from Silent Films to the Present (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015).
^ Anthony Numkena, in boyactors.org.uk
^ "Billboard Dance Charts". October 28, 2000. Retrieved Mar 21, 2019.
^ "Big Brother".

As stated in my argument above, the Maxi-Singles Sales chart is not one of the main notable Billboard charts, and in any case simply being listed as writer and producer is not evidence of notability, we need in-depth sources that describe his involvement with the song. Please provide reliable sources that describe Mr. Torres' involvement in TV theme music in detail – iMDb is user-edited content and not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see reference noted Billboard Dance Charts - as you see the Single Power was listed on the Official Billboard Dance charts at #43 ^[1] and remained on the charts for several weeks thereafter as found in later Billboard Magazine releases. Aside from the Sales charts as you noted. I think involvement as a writer/producer credit is evidence of notability.. Not all releases in the industry have in-depth sources of involvement. Also the Billboard write up of the single does go in depth about how the Latin Mixes produced by Rafael Torres was involved. ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.76.178 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Power on Billboard Dance Charts #43". October 28, 2000. Retrieved Mar 21, 2019.
^ "Power Latin Mixes".

I repeat... the official Billboard dance chart is the Club Play chart in the left-hand column... the Maxi-Singles Sales chart is not considered a major Billboard specialist chart. The write-up of the single does not go into any depth at all about the Amp Latin mixes – the entire mention of them is "...the Amp Latin mix, whose Spanish guitar and salsa piano and rhythms will benefit from the recent Latin craze". That's it, and no mention of Mr. Torres in the review at all. "Not all releases in the industry have in-depth sources of involvement" – correct, which is why this single doesn't pass WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If those charts were not a specialist chart for Billboard then why do they exist? If you see reference #2 you can clearly see Rafael Torres involvement in the Single.. It clearly states, Remixes Produced by Junior Vasquez and Rafael Torres. As well, the Amp Latin mix - Rafael Torres. Anyone reading would know its relating to Rafael Torres produced the Latin Mixes, which it does pass the WP:NSONG. Also the WP:SONG Requirements. #1 "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews." This single POWER meets that. #2 Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. This SINGLE POWER was on the Billboard Sales Charts. Which again passes the WP:NSONG. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.76.178 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Maxi-Singles Sales chart is not a significant national music chart - it's a sub-component chart of the Dance Club Play Chart, and therefore does not meet the criterion of being a significant chart. I'm not denying Mr. Torres produced a mix of the song - what I'm saying is that there are only 19 words written about it, none of which mention Mr. Torres, so there is no in-depth source discussing his involvement. Richard3120 (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG and sourced. If we think it is promotional it should be improved, not deleted Lubbad85 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubbad85: could you please show how this article passes any part of WP:GNG? And what sources do you propose to use to improve the article if there aren't any that pass WP:RS? Richard3120 (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO Subject has released multiple albums on major or independent labels with years of being in business as stated in the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. "1.Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)". Such as Abaco Music - A division of Imagem Music Group and Vanacore Music

^[1], ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.76.178 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC) — 75.114.76.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:MUSICBIO. Artists release albums, not producers/mixers. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO After reviewing above references, all credits on the albums show Mr. Torres as a writer, composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVFILMBIGFAN (talk • contribs) 12:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC) — TVFILMBIGFAN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All that those four references immediately above show is that the albums exist, nothing else – there is no indication at all that they are in any way notable and pass WP:NALBUM, and they still don't show that Mr. Torres passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. And the fact that TVFILMBIGFAN and the IP 75.114.76.178 edit each other's posts makes me think that they are the same person, and therefore at least one of their "keep" votes above should be struck. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It’s obvious when you look at this article for what it is that the assertion of notability is only connected to who he has allegedly worked with. Charts data certainly don’t create notability. Trillfendi (talk) 17:53, 7 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damon J. Smith

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

Fails notability test. Article created by SPA, likely to be an alias of subject of article. Many superfluous non-notable citations. Appears to be blatant self-promotion.

I found this article from a suspicious entry in List of jazz fusion musicians and became suspicious as the music published by this artist is amateur (in comparison to other artists listed on this page such as Miles Davis). After checking edits by user who added the entry, and a quick google search it became obvious that this account was an alias of Damon J. Smith himself, and this page is being used for self-promotion. Ludston (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Name does not return any results. The sources present in the article are not enough to support WP:GNG as most are brief mentions. AmericanSoil (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Confirmed sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. 13:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment

I created this page many years ago after meeting Mr. Smith and being impressed by his many varied accomplishments. He is a celebrity in the Northern California area, very well known in the motocross industry, and I felt his status warranted the page. I've compiled over 50+ verifiable media sources to ensure this page was always in line with Wikipedia's BLP criteria. I feel as though this page is being attacked by users who may have alterior motives and are hiding behind aliases in order to remove a valid page. It's curious that a previous user actually got the the page deleted a few weeks ago, and then as soon as another user restored it, that user disappeared and now this "Ludston" user, who has no prior contribs, is attempting to delete it again. His basis is the same accusation the prior user made, saying that my username is an alias for Smith himself, which it most certainly is not. As I said, I met the man, but I am not him. I am happy to set up a Skype or provide other means to verify my identity. I do not hide behind aliases in order to tear down anyone else on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter. I am happy to edit the page if there are constructive critiques of what I included, but there is no basis for deletion of the entire page. Taryndejesus (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi again - I just did a little cleanup of the music section of the page, removing any citations that may be considered superfluous or non-notable, leaving references Billboard magazine and No Depression magazine, which should certainly be considered notable enough to include. Please let me know if this suffices to remove the AfD flag. Thank you!Taryndejesus (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having looked at the article for about 2-3 weeks. The article is highly promotional spam, full of puff and I'm verging towards delete. The music section alone is terrible and is coming out, particularly since he has less than 4000 plays on Spotify and 1005 on Soundcloud. It is plain native advertising and plainly cack. The rest of the article would need a significant rewrite. I think he is perhaps borderline notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Where does it say in Wikipedia's guidelines that a musician has to have 4K+ followers on Spotify to be worthy of referencing their music on Wikipedia? Not every musical artist promotes him or herself on Spotify. If you look at his Instagram he has over 30,000 followers there with a high level of engagement. Is it not noteworthy to at least reference that his music charted in a top 10 spot on Billboard, when he started his career as an athlete? And why does your opinion of his music count toward whether or not his entire page should be deleted? I'm sorry if this sounds combative, because I am not trying to be contentious, just protecting this page that I have worked hard to create and maintain over the years. I am from the Northern California Bay Area, where he is quite a celebrity. So maybe you haven't heard of him, but I haven't heard of a lot of people on Wikipedia, and I could probably care less about some of the people you might truly herald. I could probably go right now and find a dozen or more Wiki biographies of people who have accomplished less, have less verifiable citations, and frankly contribute nothing to the richness of people highlighted on this online encyclopedia. To me this appears to be a case of a handful of Wikipedia editors who simply just don't like the guy, or want to say he's not "noteworthy" enough because perhaps there's some element of jealousy toward someone who has accomplished a great deal more than the average joe. Like I said above, I am not just writing about some guy I think is great because of his small town accomplishments that very few people know about. I compiled well over 50 third party media sources from California to Canada, including national magazines such as Essence and Billboard. I am all for upholding the integrity of Wikipedia, and to that end I am more than willing to edit based on constructive criticism. But none of this feels very constructive. Taryndejesus (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment

Did a little more cleanup of the page to remove anything that could be deemed "puff" or "advertising" - look forward to your response. Taryndejesus (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see how Damon J. Smith fulfils any of the criteria of notability for Wikipedia, and I will try and colour this. Please understand that this is not a personal attack.

In this article you reference Damon's "achievements" in multiple categories, (football, motocross, business, music) I see you have already removed reference to his music career, so I will go through each of the others.

Motocross: We look here, to justify notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Motorsports Damon has only appeared in one professional Motocross competition called the "AMA Supercross Championship", but I see no evidence that he has competed in any race with significant prize money at stake.

Football: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#American_football/Arena_football/Canadian_football According to his wiki page, he never played in a professional football game.

Business, of which there is no specific notability page for, so we use the default notability test. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources None of the citations provided are secondary sources.

You have my apologies if this is process is causing you some kind of distress or frustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludston (talk • contribs) 12:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Ludston Thank you for your thorough response. I have been somewhat frustrated because this didn't seem very straightforward, and since this article has been in existence for many years (longer than you and other editors appear to have been contributing), and because there were accusations that I am somehow an alias of the guy, it felt like a personal attack. But I believe I have a better understanding of your concerns, and I can see how I could have done a better job of highlighting what Wikipedia considers noteworthy, rather than what I think is noteworthy. I will edit the page accordingly and provide a summary of my edits below when I have finished editing the page. Taryndejesus (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have done some cleanup to the page with the Wiki notability guidelines in mind. In response to Ludston, I would like to point out:

Motocross: Passes Motorsports notability guideline #3 (Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest), as Smith competed in Loretta Lynn's Amateur Championship, which, according to Wikipedia, is "known as the world's largest amateur motocross race." I also just found articles showing he returned to AMA Supercross this year, taking 7th overall in the vet class of the AMA Supercross Futures event. His performance was highlighted in Motocross Action Magazine as a "strong finish," but I have not yet added that because I'm unsure if the Supercross Futures events pass the notability guideline. I would appreciate feedback on whether or not that should be added.

Football: I don't know if Ludston didn't read this section thoroughly, or if perhaps the way I previously wrote it was confusing, but Smith certainly did play in pro games with the Calgary Stampeders, meeting notability requirement #1 for American football/Arena football/Canadian football. I cleaned up the copy to make sure it reads properly. He was injured while playing in the 9th game of the season, and I've sourced articles from the Calgary Herald that can attest to this fact. Additionally, I would point out that his ranking in the top 50 on the all-time NCAA football list further undergirds notability requirement #2.

Business and media: I cleaned up this section quite a bit, and expanded on the Essence Magazine source, which I believe certainly is a secondary source (quote from the Essence article: "DOING RIGHT: Last year this engineer traveled to Brazil, where he was so touched by the plight of 6- and 7-year-old children in the slums of Belo Horizonte that he created the documentary Don’t Let the Fire Die.") While the music section has been removed, I added back the reference to the Billboard Magazine chart because I firmly believe this is a notable source and also should be referenced because of the context it brings to the rest of the article. I would understand the argument to leave it out if music was his only pursuit. While his music may currently only be borderline notable to Wikipedia editors, in the greater context of him starting his career as an athlete, then becoming an engineer and author, charting on Billboard is certainly notable. Additional secondary sources are provided from No Depression (magazine), and All About Jazz, both of which reviewed his work.

I again would like to say that I am completely open to refining this article further based on constructive criticism. I am in fact thankful that this scrutiny has forced me to improve my wikipedia editing skills. I hope that this will yield a much better biography of Smith, because I sincerely believe that biographies of people like him bring value to this online encyclopedia. Thank you. Taryndejesus (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Taryndejesus: Only one vote is allowed in the discussion. Please read WP:DISCUSSAFD. scope_creep^Talk 08:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments, !votes not so many...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Routine sports reporting on football and motocross dominates the references. My search found a source (unsure of its reliability) that says he played part of 1 regular season game for Calgary in the CFL when he replaced an injured player before getting injured himself in the same game. Technically that's enough to meet WP:NGRIDIRON, but it's very weak. I'm not impressed with the great majority of references--even the list in Essence is just a short blurb in a list of names. No vote at this time. Papaursa (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being somewhat new to the AfD process, and seeing that the discussion does not seem to be leading to any sort of concensus, I would like to add a few more thoughts about this page and its apparent controversy with the hope it will contribute to a positive conclusion. First off, I'd like to paste the first paragraph in Wikipedia's guidelines on BLP and Notability: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."

The editors who seem to be leaning toward deletion are focusing solely on whether or not Damon J. Smith is famous or popular, which according to the guideline above, is supposed to only be a secondary factor in determining whether he is notable or not. Indeed, the person who proposed this article for deletion did so because he thought his music was amateur in comparison to Miles Davis. That's a pretty high benchmark! If every jazz artist listed in Wikipedia had to be as good as Miles Davis to be included, it would be a pretty small jazz section. I highly suspect that the editor probably looked up Smith's music and, being that one of his albums could be considered socially controversial, was perhaps offended by his music and set about to get his page deleted (and again I note this in light of a prior user who had attempted a "speedy deletion" of the page, which succeeded until another editor undid his action, and then the user disappeared completely before this new user appeared with his sole contribution to Wikipedia being proposing this page for deletion.) I would also point out that his proposal for deletion of this page was followed up with a confirmed sockpuppet vote to delete. I firmly believe that this point alone is worthy of discrediting the entire discussion. Yet I find it interesting that there remain other Wikipedia editors who share that same critical spirit in proclaiming Smith as not noteworthy enough simply because they don't think he's famous. They discredit the fact that he charted on Billboard because it was in a genre of music that they don't think is relevant, or they discredit his being highlighted on Essence Magazine because he was one out of 50 men highlighted in that annual issue (so if we use that logic, then maybe we should discount every person who has ever been highlighted as one of People Magazine's 50 Most Beautiful People in the World articles). Forgive me if I sound as though I'm "playing the race card" (for the record, I myself am not black), but this really looks to me like a panel of non-black Wikipedia editors discussing whether this incredibly unique and accomplished black man is worthy of their approval to be included in this online encyclopedia. I'm not calling anyone racist so please don't take this as a personal attack, but I do think everyone is operating out of a personal bias that they may not even know they have. I would encourage everyone to consider just how challenging it is for people of color to achieve "notability" when the gatekeepers who determine who is notable and who is not notable are most often white.

Which brings me to point #2, which is actually the first and apparently more important criteria according to Wikipedia's guideline on BLP, that the biographical article should be "worthy of notice" [1] - that is "remarkable" or "significant, interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." I will again reiterate that I wrote this article many years ago because I live in Northern California where he is well known as a remarkable person with a unique combination of interesting and noteworthy achievements. The Sacramento Bee wrote a feature article in their music section about his transition from being a football player to a social activist musician. This was followed up by another full page article by the Vallejo Times Herald (not a republish, but a separate interview and original article). Perhaps each of his singular achievements, from football to motocross, to business and music, when scrutinized in a vacuum do not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. However, I argue that all of these achievements, which are all backed up by a variety of reliable sources, combine to make him "significant, interesting and unusual enough to deserve attention."

I apologize for the length of this comment, but I hope this helps bring the AfD to a close. I rest my case. Unless someone wants to challenge me further on this topic. Thank you. Taryndejesus (talk) 20:44, 10 April 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. This has been listed for nearly a month. While some of the !votes are weak, the consensus is still heavily on the keep side. It also appears that the article has been significantly edited since being nominated and the nominators concerns have been addressed in those edits. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayisha Fuseini

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

Has won an award but not a notable one. A search brings out a few passing mentions from reliable sources but nothing WP:SIGCOV.

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON Lapablo (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, this article is just barley acceptable of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just enough coverage to establish notability: e.g. Gglobal Cosmetic News, El Pais, News Ghana , Graphic Online News, etc. Also, I wouldn't call the IIA awards "not notable." They are backed by big multinational African banks and organisations including the African Development Bank.Tamsier (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. A more complelte article would helpus see notability DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has 4 credible sources that significantly cover the subject. Some of these sources included major media houses and corporation across the African continent and beyond and in multiple languages --Flixtey (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I am not an expert, but "Al Jazeera" coverage seems to show WP:GNG. FIFAukr (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user has been blocked indefinitely, but the point is somewhat valid. The user added an Al Jazeera interview of the subject. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passed WP:GNG. At least three reliable independent sources with significant coverage: the Global Cosmetic News article found by Tamsier (admittedly I thought it was a blog at first), Invest in Africa article, and the Al Jazeera interview. The other three sources given by Tamsier seem to be minor mentions. There is also significant coverage from an article by CAMFED, however it is not independent. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good job @MarkH21: for finding those. Yes, Global Cosmetic News is not a blog. For some reason I'm now having technical problems with my computer. Hope it's a temporary issue. Could someone kindly add the sources to the article?Tamsier (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I've done it.Tamsier (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Not entirely clear, but I see enough that leads me to give the benefit of the doubt re: WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A Google search of the subject shows her being discussed (albeit briefly) in a number of reliable sources, including AlJazeera. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:06, 13 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Barton Elam Jr.

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Mayor of a town of 5,000 GPL93 (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the listing in Dictionary of Louisiana Biography. a selective biographical dictionary. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, to follow up on "Keep" above, the example of type of publication required for WP:ANYBIO no. 3 to be met is a national (Dictionary of National Biography) not state level one (Dictionary of Louisiana Biography), so more than this one publication is needed, it does, however, give a big tick towards the subject's notability, ~~being also covered in A History of Louisiana by Chambers readily brings Elam into the realms of notability so this is a Keep.~~ Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how a blurb listing a CV without complete sentences contributes to notability; seems to be an awful lot of of minor local officials there. The citation in the Chambers book refers to Elam Sr., not to Elam Jr. Coolabahapple, please review. Reywas92^Talk 06:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, i am an idiot, have struck out my "keep". Coolabahapple (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 4 April 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. No clear solution rises above the rest here: 1) deleting the article; 2) merging to List of bus routes in London; 3) keeping it as is; 4) moving the article to Night buses in London and changing its focus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of night buses in London

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

A list of bus routes is already covered in List of bus routes in London and night buses in general can be covered in Buses in London. This article goes beyond the content in the general bus route list article by providing detailed route designations for every route (WP:NOTTRAVEL) and a few random facts about changing bus operators for some. If the routes are notable they should have their own articles, else the list is perfectly fine in List of bus routes in London. Ajf773 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:OR Charles (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim the route lists. Several of the entries contain encyclopaedic histories that should be added to the other routes where sources for this exist. The solution to lists like this to improve them not delete them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/marge Redundant to List of bus routes in London, does not need a separate article with such detail. Reywas92^Talk 20:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of scope to expand with third party sources. 11Expo (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A "List of Night buses in Podunk, Iowa, USA" is not needed or useful, but London is different. The one in France or wherever, not this one. :) --Doncram (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is an argument for merger, not deletion, and simply repeats what was said in the previous unsuccessful nomination. The topic is notable because it's easy to find an multi-volume book about it – London's Night Buses – and so it passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The ideal course of action is to delete because this duplicates a lot of content already covered in other articles, or to redirect to an article most appropriate. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It normally requires more than a single highly specialised book on a subject to establish notability. Specific coverage in mainstream publications is needed.Charles (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A book which is specifically about the topic is the best evidence of notability – demonstrating that there is plenty to be said about the topic and that there are people willing to publish and read it. There's plenty of more general works which cover the topic too, e.g. The Guardian. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"else the list is perfectly fine in List of bus routes in London." - from nominator's opening remarks, so are we here for deletion or merge/redirect (covered by closing admin of previous afd)? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better as an article, Night buses in London. Peter James (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the article existed as "Night buses in London", but was moved in 2009 to "List of night buses in London". We don't need two articles for the topic and the list of examples, I assume. The exact title doesn't matter for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of sections from N1 to N551 should be deleted or moved; the title should redirect to Night buses in London where there would still be the list that's currently in the Operations section. Peter James (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Night buses in London is a redirect (and has been since 2009) to List of night buses in London. User:Peter James, your statement might come across to others as if you believe there is a different article to which List of night buses in London could be redirected. In fact, I think you mean that you support a move to "Night buses in London" and some severe editing. That's okay for you to want or to suggest, but IMHO that is a matter for editing and non for AFD. "Merge" or "Redirect" would not be appropriate (because there is no such target to merge or redirect to). So IMHO your discussion should be interpreted as a "Keep" vote (or "Keep but suggest rename") for purpose of AFD. --Doncram (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge,Can be merged in other articles such as Buses in London Alex-h (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list already exists in List of bus routes in London. Ajf773 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTTRAVEL. Anyone advocating for a merge, please explain which part of the article should be merged because an article of this length cannot have a full merge. All I see is a massive list. Doesn't the city of London have a website with this information anyway?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. Most if not all of the list is original research taken from the Transport for London website.Charles (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of bus routes in London doesn't need another whole article merged into it, Night bus route seems to be a perfectly valid resource in my opinion and there are even books written on the subject. Govvy (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need merging as the routes are already mentioned on that list article. If the routes are notable, they'll have individual articles. Currently no N-prefixed London Buses route has one. Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. London would simply not exist as it does now without its history of night buses. It would not have developed as it is now. Social culture would not be what it is, without the mixing and encounters that have gone on. Surely there must exist a ton of social science research and indirect research including literature reviews. Aren't there more than a few highly notable incidents in literature, at the Bridget Jones level or crime detective novel or whatever. What about the time the Queen rode a night bus to return from visiting Elton John or whatever.

Honestly I think the topic of "night buses in London" is very clearly a Wikipedia-valid topic, being the topic of at least one book and of at least one documentary. It seems obvious to me that the world of night is different than the world of day, and that there is culture/life/history/more on the buses. There are literally zillions of TV shows and movies with scenes of London night buses. There could be a separate article about the movie/tv settings, or that could be a section in the article under discussion.

I distrust Ajf773's repeated calls for a merger to one big bus list-article, because I sort of believe that what Ajf773 wants is no coverage at all of the topic (I may be wrong, and I ping them to seek their clarification.) I think they are dismissing the topic of "night buses in London". The big list-article has a subsection on just some of the night bus routes (the ones that currently exist and are "Night only routes (N-prefixed)"). All the other current night buses get no mention (there is no mention of night-running or not for all the other routes). It is simply not an article that is ever going to properly cover the topic of night buses in London, which is a huge subject that is the subject of photographic work, of movies, TV shows, books, documentaries and more.

There is no room in the basic London bus routes list-article for discussion of night bus history and movie scenes and whatever. The AFD-targeted article does cover history and social context, and IMHO this aspect should be beefed up. Maybe the simple listing of the actual current routes should be reduced, and the emphasis should be shifted back to being about the phenomenon. Here is a copy of the current history section of the AFD-targeted article is:

The first night bus was introduced in 1913. A few more services were introduced over the following decades, before all ceased during World War II. Services resumed after the war, increasing as trams and trolleybuses were replaced in the late 1950s and 1960s. In April 1984, the number of routes was increased from 21 to 32. At this point the peak service required 80 buses, by August 2013 this had grown to 890.^[1]

Originally the night bus network had its own fare structure, but with the introduction of the Oyster card in 2003, was incorporated into the Transport for London fare structure. Up until the mid-2000s, all routes had N prefixes. However, as some routes merely mirrored their day time equivalents, the N prefixes were dropped and these routes became 24-hour services; for example, route N14 was no longer differentiated from route 14.^[1]

Services are operated by private operators under contract to London Buses. The Night Bus contracts are often bundled with that of the equivalent daytime route and awarded for a five-year period, with an optional two-year extension based on performance standards being met. Some however are tendered individually.^[1]^[2]^[3]

With some London Underground lines operating a 24-hour service from August 2016 on weekends, a further eight routes commenced 24 hour operation on Friday and Saturday nights.^[4] Further changes are expected as the Night Tube network is expanded.

In May 2015, the Night Bus network was the subject of The Night Bus, a Channel 4 documentary.^[5]^[6]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Wallis, Philip (2013). London's Night Buses 1984-2013 (2 ed.). London: Capital Transport Publishing. ISBN 978-1854143723.
^ Tender Results Archived 29 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine Stagecoach London 16 July 2014
^ London's Bus Contracting and Tendering Process Archived 23 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine Transport for London
^ TfL introduces new Friday and Saturdaynight bus services to support Night Tube Archived 18 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine Transport for London 17 August 2016
^ "The Night Bus" community on Arriva London buses Archived 29 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine Arriva London 11 May 2015
^ The Night Bus; nocturnal naughtiness on the N29 Archived 10 May 2017 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 11 May 2015

This is good stuff as far as it goes, and it should be expanded. It is natural IMO to also include (retain) a list of all the N-prefixed and non-N-prefixed night bus routes that currently run, and some listing of old and important but now defunct routes. But I would prefer for there to be more about the culture. Discussion about such editing should continue at the Talk page; it is not for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned by other users, the list of buses already appears in another article. We don't need a separate article for each of non-N and N prefixed buses, just one is enough. We do not need a list of bus stops alon each route as generally this is getting into travel guide territory, and routine coverage of tenders and contracts isn't enough to satisfy notability. The night bus history content could easily be just appended to Buses in London or created using Night buses in London. Or if any routes are notable in their own right, in an article for that route. Ajf773 (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again Night buses in London is merely a redirect to List of night buses in London; the topic is broad and can naturally include a list. So the deletion nominator is suggesting "Keep". Or perhaps instead they want to propose a split?!?! Or a rename??? That is not for AFD.

It has repeatedly been established by two previous AFDs and by multiple participants here that "night buses in London" or "list of night buses in London" is a notable topic. Simply keep. Arguments about "travel guide" etc are nonsense, IMHO, with respect to this AFD. If stuff gets too much like a travel guide, then that is a matter for editing. This AFD is ready to be closed Keep already, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion nominator is suggesting delete. Nothing in this article needs to be merged anywhere. Only stuff in your endless list of sources you want included. Ajf773 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That last was not a sentence. I dunno, i suppose you meant to be sarcastic about "sources"? --Doncram (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What i think is going on is: the deletion nominator assumes (or "knows" from their life experience) that "night buses in London" is not a thing, so they don't look for sources; I personally assume (or "know" from my life experience) that it is a thing, so i didn't look for sources either.

Okay, let's try a simple search, google for "night bus London photo". That instantly yields:

Multiple hits coverage 2016 book "On the Night Bus" by photographer Nick Turpin: Wired, Londonist, Hoxton mini-press, Anothermag, CreativeReview, HuckMag, MetroCoUk, (and there are lots more)
"Night owls: portraits of life on the night bus – in pictures", ongoing project by Sarah Lee for the Guardian, Guardian
"London Night buses through the years in pictures", Economist, 2016
And my favorite: "Tales from the night bus: Photographer Tim Kavanagh's eerie photo series", in Independent. Sophie Heawood's 2014 article is personal and funny!
And like I pretty much asserted above, there exists an endless list of sources, if you want to look back over more years or otherwise spend more than 2 minutes like I just did. So, sources exist, so the decision should obviously be "Keep". --Doncram (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTTRAVEL, a policy, is directly on point. We do not merely reproduce primary sources. If the topic is notable, the article should be Night buses in London, and cover history, economic importance, rolling stock, etc. Sandstein 21:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, given your opinion about NOTTRAVEL, User:Sandstein, still, why !vote "delete"? The article existed at "Night buses in London" until it was moved in 2009 to "List of night buses in London". Setting aside disagreement about whether a list of bus routes can be included or not, there is still some content besides the actual list of current night buses. It simply seems wrong to me to destroy the connection to past edits and content and Talk page discussion and the multiple AFDs (linked from the Talk page, include various sources not reflected in the article, and more), by an outright deletion. I wrote the essay wp:TNTTNT which has somewhat been accepted (after being challenged by an MFD deletion), against outright wp:TNT deletions, and many of the reasons there apply to Keeping here. Could you please explain why you support deletion rather than move back to "Night buses in London" plus editing? --Doncram (talk) 02:28, 21 April 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 for deletion. Debate has gone on more than long enough. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bugatti La Voiture Noire

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

The information about this car is already included in the Bugatti Chiron page which is enough. It does not need a separate article because it is based on the Chiron and uses the same drivetrain. Further, information about one-offs should be included in the article of the automobile they are based on. Such as information about the Lamborghini Aventador J and Ferrari 458 MM Speciale are included in the Lamborghini Aventador and Ferrari 458 articles.U¹ _quattro TALK 07:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Such as information about the Lamborghini Aventador J and Ferrari 458 MM Speciale are included in the Lamborghini Aventador and Ferrari 458 articles is the prime example for the keep. What the OP has described is the variations of the said models, the Voiture Noire is a different model of car to the Chiron, it may share its drivetrain and floor pan abut that would probably be it. Think of it as merging Peugeot Partner with Peugeot 308, as an example. Same mechanicals, different body. Two different vehicles, not worth merging at all. Nightfury 08:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you do realize that what you want to do does not require you to go through the AFD process? You can just redirect the page. I do not support that, but you can do it. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The 458 MM speciale has a different body than that of the 458 and yet it has a mention in the Ferrari 458 page because writing a whole article on a one off won't be suitable at all. The MM Speciale is not a variation of the 458, it's a one-off with a different body just like the La Voiture Noire. Same goes for the SP38 Deborah whose mention is included in the Ferrari 488 page along with the Pininfarina bodied Jaguar XJ220 which also has a mention in the aforementioned page. There are many more examples on WP about such one-off models which don't need a separate article. We should include quality material here, not stub-class articles about cars whose mention in the page of the automobile on which they are based on is fair enough. Even the information about special Pagani models are included in the main page of Pagani Zonda, such as the Zonda Revolucion. It has a different body than a regular Zonda and is expensive but it does not have a separate article. @Toasted Meter: why should a redirect be created when the article is not even necessary?U¹ _quattro TALK 10:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you have not explained why you are using AFD to advance this position. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, It is written above. The car doesn't need a separate stub-class article when it's detailed mention in the Bugatti Chiron page is enough.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yes but if you redirect it editors could use [[Bugatti La Voiture Noire]] to link to the correct section of the Chiron page, instead of using a piped link. There is no disadvantage to making a redirect. I do not support this, however this should not be an AFD discuson, it should be a merge discussion. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why should it be a merge discussion when there is no reason for the existence of such a stub-class article? A redirect should be made but it should be done after this page is deleted.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you want an administrator to delete the page so you can recreate it as a redirect? Do you not see how much of a waste of time that is for all involved? Toasted Meter (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creating a redirect was your idea to avoid pipe links, not mine, which is useless considering pipe links don't take much time to create either. I gave my reasons for deleting the page.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bugatti Chiron. --Sable232 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bugatti Chiron as not notable enough for a standalone article, also Bugatti Chiron article has enough information on this one-off so no need to "merge" (need to allow for WP:BALANCE ie. an article about a model of 500 cars versus a one-off). Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is more than enough information about this car to warrant its own article. Syntaxlord (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @Syntaxlord: no it doesn't. Its a poorly executed stub class article which only has information copied from the main article of the Bugatti Chiron. Further, this car is a one-off, not a series production car so it's mention in the Chiron's page is more than enough as it is based on it. Such stub class articles only erode the quality of material available on Wikipedia.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @U1Quattro there are 4004 stub-class articles according to the WP:Automobiles page. Out of these, only 5 are marked as being of high importance. Why is it necessary that this article in particular be deleted? Unlike most stub-class articles, this is highly informative. Syntaxlord (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @Syntaxlord: like I said, these articles ruin the relevance of wikipedia. This is no exception. When the Bugatti Chiron contains what reader needs to know about the one-off which is based on it, why create a separate article on that which contains basically nothing but the same information pasted on from there? This is not being informative.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments, but actually very few firm !votes...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: There are plenty of information about the car in google and easily satisfy WP:V, WP:RS (link--[15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc). The article definitely satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NVEHICLES.--PATH SLOPU 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI think enough information to warrant an article. WP:GNG, WP:NVEHICLES. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Path slopu you're talking about Google, not Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, it is a stub class article. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:U1Quattro I am unsure who you are insulting in the above comment after my vote. I think it is best if you allow the afd voting and discussion to proceed without arguing or insulting the voters. In my opinion you are WP:TENDENTIOUS Lubbad85 (☎) 17:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not insulting anyone Lubbad85 but if one doesn't have the basic knowledge about the differentiation between information on Google and a Wikipedia article, they shouldn't bother to vote.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:23, 18 April 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Paul Lafler

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated, resulting in delete, but it was later re-created by the subject himself, who is the primary author. It is largely autobiographical (WP:AB), with minimal contributions from third parties and sparse sourcing, and reads like a resume. It does not seem to meet notability guidelines and has been tagged as such since August 2017. Marcan (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy delete per G4, and salt to taste. I don't have access to the original version, but based on the article's first Afd discussion, nothing seems to have been added to address its issues. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. Wasn't notable previously when this article was deleted and isn't notable now. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 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. As noted by editors here and according to the actual policy on speedy deletions, speedy deletions are not in fact mandatory, they are can-delete not must-delete (arguably with the exception of G10 and G12). There are also some questions about notability but it seems like the GNG-based arguments to keep have not been refuted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yuhua Hamasaki

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

Qualified for deletion under G5, as being created by the blocked user user:Ratherbe2000. Was, in my opinion, incorrectly removed by another editor ignoring WP policy regarding sock article creation. This should be procedurely deleted so as to not encourage sock creation of articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unnecessary deletion nomination. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'm finding more sources needing to be added to the article. See here, here, for example. I've also posted more sources at Talk:Yuhua Hamasaki. Easy keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. TheEditster (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination is rather pointed and misses the point of G5. Nihlus 15:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. G5 states, in part, "This applies to pages by banned or blocked users in violation of their block or ban, and that have no substantial edits by others." There have been quite a number of edits by others since its creation improving this article. --Kbabej (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it actually hits the point of G5 straight on - creation of articles by blocked editors. And the key word in Kbabej's example, is "substantial" - of which there were none as of the point of this nomination, merely formatting and re-positioning additions. And I would put forward that not a single one of the keep !votes addresses the point of the nomination. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969, it's a question of whether or not deleting this page helps or hurts the encyclopedia. It clearly hurts it more to delete information simply because some of it was started by a blocked user. Nihlus 16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nihlus - That's where we'll have to agree to disagree, I think it hurts the encyclopedia much more to encourage editing by sockpuppets. That type of editing should be deleted simply to discourage such vandalism. And that's what these types of edits are: vandalism, which is not a guideline, but a policy. As is WP:SOCK. Policies are stronger than guidelines. And that's regardless of whether the vandalism occurs in such borderline notable (or some might argue non-notable) articles like this, or on a featured article like Boston. It would be interesting to understand how editors defend vandalism. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969, it's not black and white. There's a difference between good faith editing while socking and straight vandalism. Each situation should be looked at on its own merits instead of trying to apply a general rule to it that actually hurts the encyclopedia. Nihlus 16:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nihlus - I agree. And when I come across a sock I'll go back through their edits and see what is and isn't disruptive. In the case of this sock, there were quite a few edits which were innocuous, or even helpful, and so I left them. However, there were others where they added content either without citations, or with non-reliable citations. In those cases I reverted the edits. In two instances, they created articles out of redirects, articles about folks of dubious notability, which has caused numerous editors to now waste their time discussing this. That, in and of itself is harming the encyclopedia, when these efforts could be put forth to better, productive, pursuits. In the essay, WP:SOCKHELP, it clearly agrees with you that each case needs to be evaluated individually, which I have done. However, it also goes on to state in WP:SOCKHELP#Deleting articles or article edits that the article should be G5'd. Which I did. It then goes on to say, "Again, the goal isn't to punish the sock puppet, it is to take away the reward for violating policy." Letting the article remain is clearly rewarding the vandalism.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails on the criteria in WP:NACTOR, which stresses significant roles in multiple major works. The strongest claim is the appearance on the reality TV show, but that's not strong enough. The subject was only one of 14 contestants in one season of one reality TV show, and even then appears to have been eliminated early. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don’t want to keep it, it should at least be a redirect for RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10), as is done for other contestants who don’t have their own article yet. Umimmak (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. I sometimes wonder why editors vote to delete a page and its history entirely when 1) the redirect serves a purpose and 2) the subject may become notable at a later date, so saving the history is potentially helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appearing in one reality show does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No one here is saying that's why the article should be kept. Care to comment at all on secondary coverage? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly passes general notability guidelines. This should be procedurely deleted so as to not encourage sock creation of articles... is not a valid deletion criteria, and this doesn't even meet the premise of G5. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 07:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I generally think we have too many articles on minor contestants of a single tv show, but the article shows broad coverage. Ignoring all the youtube/twitter/etc. links, there are fine enough sources noting coverage. It's not stellar but it's there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is easily verifiable and definitely satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ACTOR, WP:NMUSIC, WP:SINGER--PATH SLOPU 16:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This contestant has a decade long career and a reach that extends beyond the television programme. Including appearances on "Big Ang" CW's "The Carrie Diaries" CBS" and "Blue Bloods". As well as a popular webseries, and features in major magazines (Vogue, New York Times, Time Out). As well as being central figure to this year's Life Ball. https://lifeplus.org/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applepearbutter12 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersocket Web Award

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

An unremarkable, fan-based award; significant RS coverage not found. Does not work as a list either, as most recipients are nn. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appear to be sources. Benjamin (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you see non-trivial RS coverage, please identify it. The "A Look at Cybersocket" XBIZ article counts as one. Everything else appears to consist of trivial coverage if they mention the awards at all. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event has been a recent key reference for restricted websites accepting cryptocurrency, as well as the normal LGBT+ culture related 'celebrity chat', used by journalists for the Daily Dot, NewNowNext and had a feature in The Advocate by Christopher Harrity last year. Significant enough for Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: no sources have been presented showing that the subject meets WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. Asserting that the topic is "significant enough for Wikipedia" is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of non-trivial RS coverage to pass WP:GNG, never mind the more rigorous WP:NORG guideline. That is even when assuming the XBIZ coverage I mentioned above is reliable. A check of Daily Dot finds only a trivial mention. The Christopher Harrity Advocate coverage consists of photo montages, not significant coverage. NewNowNext shows no credentials as a reliable source. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in article. TheEditster (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of the sources: 1. Cybersocket award ceremony itself. 2. a listing in a gay marketing guide 3. Cybersocket itself 4. XBIZ (some non-trivial coverage with heavy input from the ceremony's principals) 5. Cybersocket's founders win AVN award (Cybersocket award not mentioned) 6. Cybersocket's founders win AVN award (Cybersocket award not mentioned). That is why I consider secondary RS coverage insufficient. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why miss out the Advocate article? The Advocate is a primary LGBT+ cultural magazine, with no affiliation with Cybersocket, nor is it a porn industry related publication nor a "gay marketing guide", whatever those are.

Examining NewNowNext, I find them cited as a source in several UK national newspapers including the Independent, The Guardian, the Mail and the Daily Star. The rapid dismissal of all LGBT+ related sources for a LGBT+ related award, even when they are used as credible sources by the national press, is bending the idea of what a "walled garden" is, in a way that threatens to eliminate almost any LGBT+ related press off Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" !votes are not very strong. Please provide links to substantial reliable sources establishing notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability has been discovered. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:26, 12 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tammarrian Rogers

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

Personal coverage ain't there. One Forbes profile blurb doesn't make notability. (Also written like a fan page, but that could be fixed) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Notable I agree there are issues with sourcing and the tone of the article. I am willing to work on that, as well as look for better sources. I have noticed that it can be challenging to find reliable sources for women in technology, so this may take some effort. This may take a week or more, because I won't have much time for working on this in the next week, due to real-life commitments. Rogers is a person of color and LGBTQI, and is working on issues of inclusion. I will look for notability on those grounds more than on her tech accomplishments, which seem significant, but may not be notable on their own. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I would like to note that the author of this article also seems to be new to Wikipedia. While the points make in the deletion nomination are valid, the tone is not what I would hope for when discussing an article about a person who is working on inclusion. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should stay open for at least a week, so if you want to try and improve the sourcing, there's time. Consider just showing the sourcing here if you want to keep it simple; it's about existence of sources, not whether they are actually incorporated into the article yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep ymmv, of course, but e.g. [21] and [22], the Forbes listings, and a general feeling from google that she's well known in US tech circles, suggests to me she meets GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seem to be sufficient lengthy sources to justify notability.--Ipigott (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Send to Draft, user space or AFC: As much as I want to think her notable, the Forbes mention is the only one that would really go towards WP:GNG. Virgin Entrepreneur would be a reliable source, but not one that works for me towards establishing notability. 425business.com could. That brings two references. Generally for WP:GNG, you need one or two extensive articles or at least 10 to 12 more incidental references. Seattle Times shows nothing. Nothing appears searching The Stranger . I cannot find anything on SeattlePi.com. I do not see anything in Seattle Weekly. A google news search bring sup only 6 results. The KQED reference is incidental (which would bring my count up to 3). infoq reference would bring it up to 4. listelist brings the count up to 5, and an extra point for being outside the United States. Going through pages and pages of Google results, Yahoo results ("Tammarrian+Rogers" no references on Yahoo!News) and Twitter link search, it is hard to find more references that could be used to establish notability that is not going to be marginal. It is possible that there are print references from local tech publications that are not online that reference here. If this was an article about a sports figure, the article would be deleted based on the paucity of sources. Because the article is on the margins, rather than deleting it, I would move off the mainspace until notability can be more easily established. Admin discretion either way because of its place straddling the line. --LauraHale (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify She 's head of engineering at a major company, and people at that level are often considered notable, but the references are not presently strong enough. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 15 April 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. Very close, but the sources added in the end would seem to tip the balance from NC to keep. ansh 666 07:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julieanna Preston

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF. No awards, no independent coverage, and her citation record (no GS profile) seems to be in low double digits at best from what I can see, suggesting no impact. Article is mostly based on self-references/primary sources (subject's works). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For me this is an interesting test case. Is a Full Professorship a sign of "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" or a "highly prestigious academic honor" either would make it pass WP:PROF. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
- I will note that neither the article nor any source calls her a 'full professor', just a 'professor'. I am not that familiar with Australia standards, but in most of the world, professor can refer to various lower ranks of professor career too including 'Associate Professor', a title which is used in Australia too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - In New Zealand ( the country in question) a 'professor' is a 'full professor'. We only say 'full professor' to help explain the system to people with a different terminology. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Keep weighting for gender-WP:CSB is relevant here and holds a full professorship, which entails extensive academic record.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ change to no !vote. Full Professorship means something different in Australia, and NZ. It is equivalent to Distinguished Prof rank in US. See Academic ranks (Australia and New Zealand) which explains that "Equivalent to distinguished/endowed professor in most Asian and North American universities Theredproject (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote, per the research below that shows Massey has Distinguished Profs.--Theredproject (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the full professorship is irrelevant as you really do not know the (highly subjective) standard of the university and the tenure and advancement committee that passed her. Lots of full professors have average careers; lots of them are very notable. That said, the refs establish she has made enough of a mark in published sources to meet GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @ThatMontrealIP: Could you elaborate on the 'mark in published sources'? When I was reviewing them nothing struck me as out of ordinary, but I am happy to reconsider if you point out to me what made you think otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ change to no 'vote'. I agree there is great variety between Full Professors (University’s and subjects etc.). I know it is not a perfect analogy, however, as editors we do not second guess the selection process for national sports teams, if they are in, they are in, regardless of their batting average. I come from a subject where citations are a good proxy for impact, this may not be so in design. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
- @Dushan Jugum: Right, but so what makes you vote keep, if you agree that FP is not sufficient, and that her citations are also non-decisive (if I understand your comment correctly?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am saying that a board of experts think she is exceptional and then if we come in and say she is not, we might be right, but it is a kind of armchair quarterbacking we do not do elsewhere. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
    - See, at the university I work at, through not in Australia, reaching the top tier of professorship takes just time and average effort, by which I mean getting at least 'x' promotion points each year. If you cannot get even an 'x', you may be fired, but the 'x' is not that difficult. Some people will do much more than x, some will stay close the the minimum effort required, but both will become 'full professors' at the end. I looked into Massey University promotion criteria, but in the end the rules [23] don't say everything. Yes, there's a review by a 'board of experts' involved, but is it just a rubber stamp (like I believe it is at my uni) or not? The truth is we can't know, and as such, I don't believe we should put much faith in the 'long and distinguished service'. What matters is verifiable, outside standards: getting major awards and recognition from bodies that are not just promoting their members (which is why any award from university one is employed in is mostly irrelevant, as often they are again handed to everyone...), getting in-depth coverage in independent media, etc.
    - Now, on another hand, I do think we are way too inclusive for sportspeople and minor celebrities, and not enough for academics. So truth be told, I am all in favor of saying that anyone who reaches the top level of professorship in each and ever country is notable. But that should be a discussion held at WP:NPROF's talk page, and we should adjust the guideline accordingly, so articles such as that can be kept 'per the rules as written' and not 'per exceptional cases'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The cynic in me agrees with your assessment of Professorship, though not true everywhere. I cannot verify the Massey system of promotion. A quick trawl of the Archives on the notability talk pages implies that this question is undecided. Undecided in the kind of way which implies it will never be a guideline. I have removed the Keep vote. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
        Academic peer-review for promotion is never a rubber stamp in Australia and New Zealand - especially because of the enormous pressure from university administrators to cut costs and keep salaries low. Concur with point raised above - design is not physics, academic citations in publications are not necessarily a measure of worth, full professorship in this context is.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Goldsztajn: Beware of circular logic. If citations are not a measure of worth, what is? How does the 'board of experts' decide who to promote in the field of design if the subject has few citations and no awards? In my field (sociology) citations are required for promotion. Awards help too. In some other fields grants and such help as well, but it is not like her bio right now mentions any grants. So, what makes her special, outside of having not been fired for not meeting the minimum criteria required? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        If we assume google scholar is a good representation of citations and we know that she is a Professor, then it is self-evident that in this field citations are not required for promotion to the highest level. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
        @Piotrus: I guess it would seem like circular reasoning if you're unfamiliar professional practice academics....--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I am still waiting for someone to tell me what makes her notable except not getting fired and getting promoted to the final tier of academic rank. Such promotions are routine in academia, in Poland, US and Korea - three countries I am familiar with - and I see no reason to conclude NZ&A are significantly different. We don't make exceptions for tenured faculty in other countries, I don't see why we should do it here. She doesn't pass WP:PROF nor WP:CREATIVE so why is she notable again? Can't we wait a bit until her peers conclude she is notable and give her an entry in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography like many other NZ academics have? That's a proper 'expert board' we can trust to make reliable, standardized decisions, not a random university promotion board. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You admit you lack knowledge in the area and the region. You disparage the members of an academic institution for no discernable reason ("a random university promotion board"). There's enough information to indicate that full professorships are of a higher standard in UK/AU/NZ settings qua US/Canadian, there's no reason to assume that there is something deficient in the decision-making procedures of Massey University (rather your position makes it incumbent upon you to *verifiably* prove the opposite)... and I would reiterate that weighting here for gender is important to counter systemic bias and under-representation.--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Please keep this about content, not editors. I admit I am not an expert in Oceanic academia, but as I am a familiar (through being a professor myself) in how academia works on few other continents, it seems my credentials for this discussion are much higher than yours, since you did not disclose any. Not that either matter on Wikipedia, but if you are going to play the kettle and pot game, well. As for systemic bias, do not confuse commendable initiatives to create articles about notable women with ill-thought initiatives to create articles about women in general. Biographies have to adhere to the same standards, regardless of gender, race, or any other criteria. Wikipedia has to, sadly, reflect inequalities and such of the wider world, because our content has to be referenced properly. If you want to change the unfair world, Wikipeida is not the right social movement. Our goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to combat inequalities (except inequality in access to knowledge). See also WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creative professionals notability: The person has created a significant collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. For example [24][25] Maybe in the arts they are judged by the art they make. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

You are mistaking the two definitions of significant: significant volume vs. significant quality and repute. All I see in those links is a book and a page with her videos on it. The video work is just republished self-publications, and not "significant" in quality and repute. If it was, we would have a lot of writing about it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, my interpretation would set an unreasonably low bar. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)).

CV here ... this conversation can go on (and has), but looks to me there is no consensus for deletion. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three Keeps and two people who would like to keep but the rules are in the way? Will be either Keep or Keep through indecision. If my wordiness leads to a relisting I am sorry in advance(Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Probably, through WP:NOTAVOTE. The closing volunteers can decide to ignore consensus if it would go against the rules, since WP:IAR is not a respected rule. But, through I still do not believe it has been demonstrated the subject is notable, I do concur the most likely outcome of this is going to be at least a 'no consensus' if not just 'keep', because most AfD closing won't risk getting criticized for going against the consensus, not worth their trouble :/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Holds a position at a very minor institution. Citation record on GS inadequate. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2019 puts Massey Uni at 501-600 of more than 1,250. It's a middle ranking university, above the median. Nurg (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All my keep arguments have been either logically deconstructed or tried and failed at the Academic Notability talk page. I find the argument that she has done notable research unverifiable (though possibly true). We should make more pages about notable people from groups other than our own, we should pay more attention when these pages go up for deletion. This has been done here. P.S. Massey is a very minor University not a very minor University as some editors would have you believe, although I can not verify that. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Question 1: @Piotrus, Goldsztajn, ThatMontrealIP, Dushan Jugum, and Xxanthippe: Are we in agreement thatWP:PROF lays out 9 conditions and that profs are notable if they meet "any one of the following conditions" [emphasis in original] and condition (5) specifies that the subject meets standards if "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon" and given that in NZ or AUS 'named chairs are uncommon' and Full Prof is "Equivalent to distinguished/endowed professor in most Asian and North American universities"? --Theredproject (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Massey has distinguished professors, she is not one of them [26] (Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

As below, not a minor university in NZ or Pacific contexts. For context of full professorships (ie a UK professor), in the UK just less than 10% of academics are professors.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that it has been proven that she holds a position/title that is equivalent to meeting #5 of NPROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2: Assuming that we are in agreement about the guidelines above (which is maybe a false assumption, but I think the guidelines are pretty clear). It appears that we are in disagreement about whether Massey University is a 'major institution of higher education and research.' Wikipedia says that "Massey University has approximately 30,883 students, 13,796 of whom are extramural or distance-learning students, making it New Zealand's second largest university when not counting international students." It is unclear to me how this is not a major institution of higher education and research. For better or for worse, it is not our job to second-guess the tenure and promotion practices at each specific institution. But it seems hard to defend the claim that a nation's ~2nd largest university is 'very minor.' --Theredproject (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. But after a lifetime of making fun of Massey, it is hard to stop overnight. As AUT and maybe one day NZ polytechnics get professors, my belief in their international exceptionalism may be shaken (Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
In all honestly, I have not thought much about whether a university is major or not. To me, I divide them into scam-fake degree providers and 'all others', and I certainly agree Massey is not a scam degree mill. So on that, at least, I have no problems. It may not be a worldwide-famous institution, but working at such a university is certainly respectable - if not sufficient to be in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After last Friday, not making fun of anything antipodean, I ❤ everything Aotearoa.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, here's the 2017 conditions for promotion to professorship at Massey University, see in particular pages 11-13 ... pretty clearly lines up with WP:PROF... Is there any verifiable reason why the decision of the academic promotion panel at Massey should be discounted?--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments above, it is hard to WP:AGF real-world guidelines like that. Too often they are just pro-forma standards that are not respected by institutions themselves. Seriously, there is a conflict of interest here: we should never trust an organization, in which direct interest it is to promote itself and its employees, to provide the sole proof that their employees (or itself) is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
so the rebuttal I got (above) when I tried "trust the selection panel" was to go and see the Notability Academic talk page, I did. This idea has been tried their repeatedly and has failed. The absence of the rule "every full professor is notable" is not a bug but a feature.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For an academic in a creative field whose work is based more on artistic creation rather than scholarly writing, the key test for notability should not be citations but independently-published reviews. So where are they? I tried both news and scholar searches but didn't find any. The weakness of the case is shown by the fact that we have spent so much of the discussion in trying to carefully parse what it means to be a professor at Massey. If that's all we have, I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to vote, however this article appears Incomplete - when was this subject born? Lubbad85 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have that information Lubbad85, you may need to take a leap of faith. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

She received her BA (Architecture) in 1983, that should give our readers some idea. We don't have a policy that says we must know a subject's date of birth. We do have WP:BLPPRIVACY that cautions against revealing information that people may consider private. Vexations (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I previously closed this as "no consensus", but on consideration I think more discussion is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF. "Weighing for gender" is unacceptable. Women are certainly underrepresented on en-Wiki, which is a good reason to create more articles about notable women, not to set the threshold for notability lower when the subject is female. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Through not a factor in the notability of the subject, we should note the COI of the article's creator, whose userpage declares "Jo Bailey is a designer at Massey University.", making the article creator likely a co-worker or student of the subject.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find the points made by David Eppstein and Joefromrandb very convincing. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep under Criteria 4. Worldcat has Intimus interior design theory reader with 17 editions being held by 216 research libraries https://www.worldcat.org/title/intimus-interior-design-theory-reader/oclc/901447193 That's widely held for a book like this, almost certainly for use in teaching. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stuartyeates. That is better than I thought, however, we have no direct evidence of it being used in teaching and even less that it made "a significant impact" (Criteria 4 WP:PROF). The high number of reprints/editions seems to be a database error (13 editions in one year? and some "editions" do not have her name on them and have different title spellings etc). (Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Note about editions: that just means that there are slight differences in the library's metadata for the books, it's not usually a separate edition as far a a publisher or retailer is concerned, this is normal, since (for example) public libraries often won't have the in-depth metadata that research libraries do. My location is New Zealand and I can see that every tertiary institution in the country that teaches design has the book, plus the local authors' local public library. Criteria 7 WP:PROF, note 2, is also relevant here, maybe. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Stuartyeates. So not 17 editions then. Also "Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." WP:PROF. We have no evidence for this for even one book, we need several. 7 Note 2: "widely popular general audience books" we would need more than it is in every uni in the country. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Being held in libraries is not a major achievement, some libraries subscribe to book series, etc. Is this book being used in actual teaching? Can we find syllabi discussing it or better, academic articles that cite it as a useful source, effectively saying that 'best practices in field x are to use this book'? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 'theory reader' which is a pedagogical genre, basically a text book built by quoting other authors. It's text book. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She may indeed be a professor (and no, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, becoming a professor in Australia and NZ does not take "just time and average effort" - there are a limited number of professorships, and a far greater number of academics at the levels of lecturer and senior lecturer; it is certainly not a routine promotion or a rubber stamp, and very few lecturers are promoted to the position of professor), but that is not the only WP:SNG she could meet. She is also an author and a performance artist. I have started finding and adding reviews of her works (eg through Ebsco Academic Search), and will try to add more, including quotes from reviews. I think there are enough for her to meet WP:CREATIVE, so this will probably be a Keep. I see that Dushan Jugum found one review, though it hasn't been added to the article yet. David Eppstein says that he didn't find any - I am not sure if he doesn't have access to those databases or discounted them. It's disappointing that the creator of the article has mainly included primary sources, rather than using the academic resources I assume they have access to through Massey Uni to locate secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- [27] are certainly quality references, through AFAIK reviews of one work are more helpful for estabilishing notability of the work and not of the author (per WP:NOTINHERITED). Through of course indirectly they help to estabilish author's impact in the field, but much less so han citations. A book that got several reviews and is not cited is much less impactful then a book that got no reviews but is often cited. But that's for PROF, and as for CREATIVE here reviews are much more relevant. Alas, are the reviews you are finding reviews of her art / design pieces or of her publications? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some more reviews of her publications, and removed references that were simply to the publications themselves. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion against the sources found by Stuartyeates and RebeccaGreen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just want to tell everyone that there is discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) (last two sections). I see this as the only practical way of solving the wider Full Professor question. I am not saying that this is the only question here, but if she was not a full Prof. this page would be deleted by now (rightly or wrongly). (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
- Right. Sadly, nobody has commented in the discussion on what are the non-US equivalents of US criteria. And that is relevant here, as the claims that her position is or is not equivalent to US positions we consider notable are NOT based in any guideline or policy. We do NOT have, as far as I can tell, any written rule about notability of positions in Australia, New Zealand or in fact for most other countries. Just saying 'it's similar to US' is not really a well reasoned argument (similar how?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same reason as above and support sources found by Stuartyeates and RebeccaGreen. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you tell us which sources in particular you find convincing and why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I looked into whether Preston was cited in any syllabi [28] and found an article citing her work from a PhD student at Kansas State University ([29]) and a syllabus citing her work from Parsons School of Design ([30]) among others. That said, these are citations to her involvement as an editor which means I would need to consider some amalgamate of WP:PROF criteria 4 and 8. I also don't know how involved she was as an editor, but I'm assuming her contribution was equal to that of the other editor in terms of involvement. Userqio (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on reasons give above and this article having her in the title (from fn 15) suggests to me that she is notable. It was hard for me to verify that the sources that she did not author exist -and- discuss her. If those who want a keep can provide a list of those articles she in which she is mentioned in the text of an article or book, and even better something we can verify online, I think that would make the case. If those who want a delete can show me that the references provided to her article are not legit, do not mention her or were written under her direction or some other direct involvement, then I might change my vote to a delete.

Regardless, the references (like [3]) should not be to things she authored--the article needs cleanup. I might support Draftify instead. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:55, 14 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ras Al Khaimah Media Free Zone

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for organisations (the subject is a free trade zone, so a sort of organisation, though not a company) or the general notability guideline. I haven't been able to find any sources that are any more substantial or any more recent than those in the article, so I think deletion is preferable to merging this into Ras Al Khaimah. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Merge. Merge with Ras Al Khaima as per short text in WP:MERGEREASON.--PATH SLOPU 16:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's almost no text, just a list of individuals associated with the subject. The sources are all 2006/2007, and they are all reporting announcements that the zone will be set up - there's nothing saying that it ever actually was. I did find this, which might be related or something else entirely - but none of the people listed on our article are mentioned on the 'leadership' page. So we can't tell whether the zone ever actually came into existence, and we are listing people by name who seem not to be involved with it any more if it was set up. Delete and start again with a new article under the proper name (probably Ras Al Khaima Economic Zone, with a small section about the Media Zone). GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge The article is terrible. The subject is notable on the basis of its citations. I'm not aware of a recency criteria when it comes to a notability judgement. It could be defunct, but still notable. It was covered with significance in Gulf News and Khaleej Times, both of which are reliable and secondary, and probably as independent as you'll find when it comes to local politics in a small country. romnempire (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Change of heart, I think this is unlikely to be expanded, so per WP:ATD-M it should get merged somewhere. romnempire (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question - Romnempire did you notice that all of the sources (which I agree are reliable) are talking about an announcement of something that was going to happen? They none of them say that this zone was ever actually set up. As far as I've been able to work out, it never was, or it was set up as a sub-zone of the RAKEZ. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Girth So according to the gulf news article, the Media Free Zone was supposed to be established under the corporate management of the investment authority (RAKIA). As far as I can tell, RAKIA was given its mandate by Emiri Decree No. 2 of 2005 and RAKIA was merged into RAKEZ by Law No. 2 of 2017, probably in response to the khater massad case. As far as I can tell, the Media Free Zone was never intended to be an independent corporate entity. I think we're laboring under the misapprehension the Media Free Zone is an "organization". It is probably just a room in an office somewhere with the delegated authority to establish FZ LLCs for Media purposes and grant leases to land in a delegated office park to those LLCs. But that's a moot point, notability doesn't depend on an entity's status as an organization. And, on the subject of moot points, an entity doesn't even need to have actually existed to be notable. I think these people on this page were involved in building a "film city" as an entity licensed by the Media Free Zone, and that venture collapsed. But the page wasn't about them, and the sources weren't about them, they were about the issuing authority that brokered their relationship with the government of Ras al Khaimah. I think the appropriate course of action is to remove the people from the page on the basis that they aren't actually relevant to the subject of the article, and then merge the article itself and its sources into Ras_Al_Khaimah_Investment_Authority, and then update the RAKIA page to be a page on RAKEZ. A delete might be easier, but I don't think it's technically the right thing to do. romnempire (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Romnempire, you obviously did a your homework there! If there would be any content left after the removal of the people's names, I'd agree with you about a merge - however, the article only makes two other assertions. It says that the finance company is Ramshir & Asr Farasazan Pars (despite the fact that this company isn't mentioned in any of the refs), and it says that the Free City was launched in 2006 - that's it, nothing else. I don't see the point of merging that. I would be in favour of improving and expanding Ras_Al_Khaimah_Investment_Authority in the ways you suggest though. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:CORP. No inherent notability. Ok... so it exists.. and existence isn't notability. Graywalls (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No agreement on whether this is truly spam or simply non-notable, but there's clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

365Chess.com

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

Not notable at all; fails WP:N, is sourced by unrelated websites, and the only results that show up on Google is the site itself. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 15:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage in news, page also written like a promotion. (note, to get search results that are not from the site itself, use ""365Chess.com" -wikipedia -site:365Chess.com" in Google) Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 15:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are four external sources which are not blogs, and one is from Google books. I surely didn't write the article for promotion, in fact I regard Chessgames.com as better and I refer to it in over 90% of my searches of games and/or tournaments. However, I think that 365Chess.com is a good chess site, better than many others. I have written over 900 pages on chess on the Italian wikipedia (where I have the same username as here) and sometimes I found an interesting game on 365Chess that was not available on Chessgames (the opposite also happens). The site deserves to be known, I will accept suggestions for changing the text in a way that it doesn't appear as a promotion, which was not at all my intention. --Gab.pr (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:WEBCRIT. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I wish to make an example: I'm currently writing the it.wikipedia page on the Venice 1950 tournament (won by Kotov ahead of Smyslov). Though I agree that the number of games is not the most important feature of a chess database, 365Chess.com contains all games (120) listed round by round (Venice 1950), while Chessgames.com has 70 games. Since I usually put the complete crosstable on the pages of tournaments, this would not be possible without having the results of all games. --Gab.pr (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A website can be a useful source without being itself notable. VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but why isn'it this site notable? --Gab.pr (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the site has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. VQuakr (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam and promo piece. Lapablo (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spam is defined by en.wikipedia as "unsolicited or undesired electronic messages", 365Chess.com does nothing of that sort. The article only gives a description of the site, is that to be condidered "promotion"? --Gab.pr (talk) 18:57, 9 April 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) 06:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freemu Varghese

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

Fails notability either as a film person or as a medical person, WP:ANYBIO. Existing sources are to non-RS IMDB, film promotion websites, subject's own published paper, primary source org for which he was an officer, or weak nn-blogs. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No independent reliable sources found to establish notability. Kleuske (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of coverage with only one film produced and google scholar shows only two well cited works with each having less than a hundred cites and his credit being third of four authors in each one. Also a product of undeclared paid editing Atlantic306 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 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. I relisted this a week ago because the discussion seemed still ongoing. Apparently that was not the case as there has been no more comments. G4 is not really applicable after an AfD a decade ago. The "delete" !votes have somewhat stronger arguments than the "keep" !votes. The thing that clinches the deal is the promotional nature of the article (see also WP:TNT). I will also salt the article. However, several editors argue that this person may meet NMUSIC. Hence, there is no prejudice to creating a bio in draft space and if it passes muster, any admin can move it to article space. Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lolene

AfDs for this article:

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

Shameless serial self-promotion for over a decade! full of weasley hyperbole fails GNG. previously deleted with 5Ds, 4 speedys, nom and no keep/support. non notable musician. has not charted in a country's chart as per WP:Music (did have one song in a niche genre-chart) Rayman60 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: as WP:G4. Multiple recreations so WP:SALT applies. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: although most of the article is unsourced promotion and should be removed, we must be honest and recognise that she has had two songs chart on Billboard's Dance Club Play chart [31]. I know it's not the Hot 100, but charting on one of the specialist charts often been considered enough to pass notability. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1) charting is subjective and not automatic notability. 2) take the promotional prose away and the article has nothing. Trillfendi (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artist is notable enough for Wikipedia verifiability and notability guidelines since she charted onto the Billboard List back in '09. Although it can be seen as subjective, it is in fact enough as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians. MalibuKing113 (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs to be completely rewritten in a neutral tone but the subject is notable in terms of WP:NMUSIC with charting hits in the US and releases on a major label, namely Capital Records so the article should be kept and salvaged from its present state of promo dirge Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meet WP:NMUSIC. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also, a clear case for salting. The text is a lengthy enumeration of trivialities about an artist who, as it happens, did not make it (a comeback may be in the works, though, by the looks of it) yet has concocted her own page in Wikipedia. The only claim to fame is an appearance on a Dance Hits list. Beyond that there is nothing. Brief fame, then possibly, Wikinotability not by a mile. Subject utterly fails WP:NMUSICIAN and I'd challenge anyone who believes otherwise to come forward and present evidence to the contrary, citing the specific criteria met. Generalities don't make it. -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She has had two songs chart on Billboard's Dance Club Play chart [32]. I know it's not the Hot 100, but charting on one of the specialist charts often been considered enough to pass notability. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, MyanmarBBQ. This is supposed to be a biography article. The argument about having a record or two charted is not enough for the inclusion of a biography in Wikipedia. When no other information can be presented (under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on verifiability) there is simply not enough for a biography. Tellingly, the contested article is made up of a self-made photo, lots of self-penned personal info, an inappropriate amount of unsourced detail, and a link to a Bristol newspaper with the big news of a local signing a contract with an American record company, part of the thousands of signings made by record companies. (The overwhelming majority of them come to nothing.) Oh and an advertorial in the "populist" RapUp, along with a link to WeArePopSlags, which is an unacceptable source. More chance stands the song than the person. -The Gnome (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 03:54, 20 April 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed to no consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 12. Sandstein 06:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foo Conner

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST or WP:ANYBIO. Even as a YouTuber with over 60million views there's still not enough a reliable source, just being a youtube personality with 60M view doesn't assert notability. Fails WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. I also found self published sources from Jekko. Lapablo (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for your input. I am new to Wikipedia. My contributions are WP:IMPERFECT. As such I am open to guidance. My current aim is to improve Pittsburgh Museums and Media in Pittsburgh. My latest article is on the Pittsburgh Current.

Two major newspapers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania wrote feature columns on Conner. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Northside Chronicle (Pittsburgh). These were the primary sources I used in the creation of this article. Conner has mentions across the Pittsburgh media landscape including: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Pittsburgh Quarterly, Pittsburgh City Paper. This shows that he fulfills WP:JOURNALIST and WP:RS #1.

Your proposal for deletion seems to hang on his YouTube career. I agree his YouTube presence doesn't stand alone, but at ~600k subscribers it does deserve a mention. And that's what it gets - a mention.

I have removed the Jekko sources. The two articles in question were Conner's coverage of Presidents Obama and Trump. They merely served as the fact he had covered them. Coming from traditional media, I had found it credible he covers presidential visits without the backing of an established news agency.

The difficulty in covering Conner is definitely the disjointed nature of his career. In the future we can reorganize this article and add to it. Popscreenshot (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Popscreenshot is the creator of the article and that the picture he uploaded to the page was said to be "own work" and is also being considered for deletion. There's a possible COI here. Lapablo (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image was flagged because of this nomination. The issues are tied. To respond to the possible COI allegation, as a former Pittsburgh journalist I frequently ran across Conner. I would not classify us as friends. I was not paid or asked to create this article. I believe I edited this article in good faith. That said, I welcome an requests to edit. Popscreenshot (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reluctantly agree that this person passes WP:GNG and article is sourced well Gristleking (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only additional input beyond the nominator and the creator was CU blocked, so let's try for some more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He passes WP:GNG. Could be reread by an independent wikipedian for COI control. FIFAukr (talk) 14:22, 12 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACTOR. Promotional WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY in which none of the various strands add up to much: (1) Video game developer – as part of a university team, won a category in a non-notable national competition. I can't find any evidence that the competition was held again after the 2012 date that Mr. Diaz won his prize. (2) Voice actor – uncredited role in a seven-minute animated short film produced by two students at his university as part of their final year project. It seems likely that Mr. Diaz got the role because he knew his fellow students. It's true that the short film has gone on to achieve some recognition both nationally and internationally [33], [34]... however, Mr. Diaz is not mentioned anywhere in any of the articles about the film. (3) Television – a 48-second interview on his local cable TV station, complaining about his treatment by the army when he fell ill while carrying out his military service. (4) Author – three books, all self-published under one of those self-publishing platforms. No reviews or critical appraisal of the books anywhere. Everything else is referenced to his social media. Richard3120 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 13 April 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, speedy deleted per WP:CSD G4 . -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games using Vulkan

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

This page was previously under List of games with Vulkan support and deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with Vulkan support. TarkusAB^talk 13:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list was previously part of the Vulkan (API) article and no one has ever objected to it/its existence. Once I moved it into a separate article (since the original article has become quite large) it's now grounds for deletion? Not gonna argue with it. Suit yourself. Besides you've already deleted a similar list of DirectX 12 games. You may also consider deleting the List of artificial intelligence films. It's not like this information can be found anywhere on the Internet. Go try finding the list of released DirectX 12 games. None exists? But you have standards/rules, so stick to them even if valuable pieces of information which can't be found anywhere else are forever lost. God, I'm extremely disappointed. Meanwhile English WP has literally tens of thousands of poorly maintained/completely worthless articles or articles which are biased beyond any reason. It looks like someone has enough time arguing about questionable but extremely useful articles instead of paying attention to the poorly maintained ones. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it, let's consider this article for a short while: Direct3D. Doesn't it contain a list of all Direct3D releases? This article might as well be renamed to the list of Direct3D versions. I'm very much willing to rename it and also nominate it for deletion. In fact there are thousands of similar articles which don't contain the magical word "List" yet they list certain things which is against your policies. Good luck with purging everything. I will be so happy to become the devil's advocate and enforce your rules to the very limits and wreak quite an ugly havoc here. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem S. Tashkinov: There is a list of Vulkan games being maintained on PC Gaming Wiki [35]. There are also DirectX lists maintained there too [36][37][38][39][40]. I'm sure that community would appreciate your contributions. The list is not suitable for Wikipedia because it's indiscriminate and also fails WP:CROSSCAT. You can however, add category tags to game articles to list them on Category:Video games that support Vulkan. TarkusAB^talk 00:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per previous discussion, the listed cases should be added to Category:Video games that support Vulkan. @Artem S. Tashkinov: I believe this list is really useless, because no one don't choose the games from this list to buy/play, even me as a Linux user which use WINE.-- Editor-1 (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literally no one maintains this tag or how you call it. It has existed for years and we have less than a dozen games under it. In fact absolute most categories are not properly maintained in WP. Nice! While we are at it, how one can find Linux Vulkan games in WP? A Category for it doesn't exist. The respective pages often don't contain the necessary pieces of information. Questions, questions, questions. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per prior, recent AFD, which was the same thing under a different name. The prior AFD was grounded in WP:INDISCRIMINATE and a general consensus against these sorts of articles existing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again no thought given to the article's importance or information therein. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the f-word it. And everything I've written above is also of zero concern. Nice! WP shows its best. No discussion whatsoever. I am inclined to start the f-word'ing up quite a lot of articles under this INDISCRIMINATE pretext. It's so nice. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:POINT too then. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You arbitrarily chose an article to delete yet you point me at the rules. Even in the real world rules are broken when they collide with common sense or greater good. Still either be completely honest and delete all the articles which pertain to WP:INDISCRIMINATE or adjust the rules, so that certain worthy articles are exempt from it. Also, all the links provided in the discussion are invalid: Find sources: "List of video games using Vulkan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR There's no such list maintained anywhere on the Internet. This is the first time I'm participating in such a lopsided discussion: no valid reasons are given as to why the discussed article is "bad" for WP aside from some very general rules it supposedly infringes on. I didn't even create the list in the first place but lots of people have put work into it and it turns out this work is worthless. Looks like the consensus among the people who couldn't care less is "Delete". And since I'm not a moderator here my voice means nothing. Anyway, I've web archived the article, so do you want with it. Not what's right or good but what you want. It's quite telling that you've notified a single person about this nomination yet quite a lot of users have contributed and they might be interested in retaining it. What's more they might attempt to restore the list and start an edit war. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2019

Please, calm down, these rambling rants aren’t going to help you, they’re just showing you have no idea what going on. First off, I didn’t nominate this article for deletion, so don’t accuse me of that. Secondly, there’s no requirement of the nominator to nominate every single similar offending article for deletion too. Thirdly, please take the time to learn the rules and policy. There’s a reason why you’re the only one debating a certain way. You’re doing it wrong. You’re supposed to be citing policy, guidelines, and precedents. You’re...really just over there throwing a rambling tantrum. Your argument doesn’t amount to anything beyond complaining that you don’t like that your article is being deleted. That wont convince anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 5 April 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) 06:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Nesurini

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

Excessive reliance on primary sources, and I cannot find any reliable secondary sources to back it up. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 13:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. SmartSE (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources did not show notability for his organization--that article has already been deleted-- nor do they for him. I presume the purpose was PR. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 9 April 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. Seems like the delete camp has a made a compelling argument that WP:JUDGE is not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. Welborn Ayres

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

Fails WP:JUDGE. Not notable local judge. A The Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal judge is not a statewide judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:JUDGE says that they are notable if they held statewide office. I would say a 2nd circuit court of appeals qualifies although it may need a RfC for clarification. Kb03 (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:JUDGE and WP:ANYBIO.--PATH SLOPU 13:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Path slopu:, @Kb03: The Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal are not statewide courts but one of 'five circuits, each covering a different group of parishes. JUDGE reads- "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) So you have to be statewide....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. William is correct that serving on a district court circuit below the statewide level is not an automatic free pass of WP:JUDGE, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: four of the eight sources are purely routine election coverage of the type that isn't enough in and of itself, because such sources always exist for everybody who holds any elected role regardless of whether that role clears our notability standards or not, and the other four are purely genealogical sources that have no bearing on notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a statewide appointment so it does not give default notability, and the sourcing is thus inadequate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete State appellate judges are not automatically notable, these routine local news sources don't establish it. Reywas92^Talk 05:44, 11 April 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. This is obviously a passionate topic for both editors who have participated here, and obviously your input is much appreciated. I'm essentially closing this as a contested PROD and there's no obvious consensus on either side if this article should be kept. I don't see a point in relisting this a third time as there's not been any activity in the discussion in over two weeks. There's no no issues with a speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kushaba Moses Mworeko

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

Unfortunately I see little choice but to nominate this article for deletion. It appears to fail WP:NOTE and is based on poor sources. The article's only two sources are Box Turtle Bulletin, a source that as a blog fails WP:RS, and something called, "LEZ GET IDEAS", which does not look like an acceptable source and which redirects to an unrelated page with nothing to do with the article's subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With just a quick, non-detailed search, I've found reliable sources with in-depth coverage in Black Star News , OpEdNews , wPolityce.pl and Politico.Tamsier (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having gone through the article and done some checks, I came upon numerous sources confirming his notability. He is more notable than I initially thought as I'm not familiar with this individual and his activism at all until I started digging. I have edited the entire article and added sources from this to this. Further Box Turtle Bulletin is not your typical blog but a peer-reviewed one whose publisher Jim Burroway is a notable writer and researcher on LGBT issues, and whose work and site is reviewed by many RS media outlets including Washington Blade, CNN, LA Blade, Towleroad, Economist, CNA, Huffpost, and numerous books on LGBT related issues. Jim was also "the first in the West to break the story of Scott Lively's fateful conference in Kampala, Uganda in 2009, and his website has faithfully chronicled events in Uganda since then. In 2011 Jim broke the story of Kirk Andrew Murphy, a man who had been "treated" by ex-gay activist George Rekers at UCLA in 1970, when Murphy was 4 years old."[41] As per Wiki policy. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" [42] which is the case here. In any case, any quote from Jim has been attributed to him and other RS secondary sources have been used backing up content in the article as evident therein. This in my opinion is a clear keep. Unless the nominator has objections, I would advise that they withdraw this nomination so the admin can CSK this. Failing that, perhaps a snowball closure is in order.Tamsier (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on the article. It is certainly relevant if more suitable sources discussing the article subject exist and they may well support a case for keeping the article. However, Box Turtle Bulletin is unambiguously a blog, published by a private individual and reflecting his views and opinions, and as such unacceptable per WP:RS. See WP:USERG: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs". Box Turtle Bulletin is not "peer-reviewed". It is simply a website run by a person who has final say on what appears there; if you believe that is peer review, then you misunderstand the concept. Box Turtle Bulletin does not become an acceptable source because it gets mentioned in a newspaper and it is simply untrue that gay activist Jim Burroway is an "established expert" on the politics of Uganda. If you disagree, then by all means explain what qualifications he has that make him an "expert" on Ugandan politics. I looked up all your references above. They are simply examples of Burroway's name and his views being mentioned; they are not examples of his "work in the relevant field" being published by "reliable third-party publications". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for copyediting the article. Jim is a well respected figure within the field of LGBT issues especially pertaining to Uganda hence why his views and his website are regularly referenced by third party reliable sources as evident in the sources. If he was not regarded as an expert within the field he would not be referenced and quoted by these reliable third party sources. He must have been regarded as credible for them to reference him, as no RS in their right mind would reference someone they do not deem reliable or credible. As no one goes to university (as far as I am aware off) to study a doctorate in LGBT activism, WP:COMMONSENSE apply here. Jim has spent many years reporting on these issues and the first to break some LGBT related issues in the West as stated above, hence why he is viewed as credible by third part reliable sources. In any case, where it is relevant, I have attributed to Jim his own views and also used other third party reliable sources to support the article.Tamsier (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:25, 12 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Reed

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

Does not meet notability guideline WP:NMUSICIAN --wooden superman 15:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With a bio at AllMusic: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/angie-reed-mn0000041344/discography and two reviewed albums [43] [44]. Enough to convince me that more exists. At the very least, it's plausible search term and the content should be merged to Stereo Total and a redirect should be left. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is multiple reliable sources coverage including the allmusic bio and album reviews and exberliner magazine piece Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I cannot vote on this article at this time. Thinly sourced - and undeveloped. I cannot see how this person passes WP:GNG Article is badly in need of an ambitious edit and development. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NMUSICIAN. She has never been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, and has never had a single or album on any country's national music chart or a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. She has not had received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, hasn't had two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels, hasn't been one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style and she has never won or been nominated for a major music award. Altough I happen to be an acolyte of independent avant-garde music, Wikipedia is not the place where I'd look for every individual working in the field. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LION (Band)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Internet search results turn up almost nothing. Few references. See WP:NOTYET. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: maybe it's WP:TOOSOON, but there are definitely mentions in reliable sources, in Music Week [45] and The Independent [46], as well as a local newspaper The News [47]. Possibly not enough for an article, though. Richard3120 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In addition to the above, there's also [48], [49], [50], and a lot of 'LION has a new single/EP out' type articles: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. --Michig (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep .

~~https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/03db14f0-7f90-48bd-96e3-e81303c91686~~

~~https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/new-pink-gwen-stefani-christina-aguilera-songs-to-appear-on-compilation-201365/~~

~~https://variety.com/2017/music/news/pink-pat-benatar-gwen-stefani-compilation-album-linda-perry-label-1202551991/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.225.65.9 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Only one i-vote per editor. Same references are in the longer list by the same SPA editor is listed below

Delete. WP:TOO SOON. The references with the article are junk, but other editors have turned up examples of the standard new release press in RS that are indicative of a promotional push to establish this artist. Other sources in the same promotional vein are minor or non-reliable. Judging by the obvious effort to break this artist, I expect even more to turn up, but unless they differ from the “hot new artist” hyperbole promoting releases and appearances they don’t add up to much beyond press for the sake of press . I know it’s not criteria, but her social media following—-6,804 on FB, Twitter, instagram combined—is meager and just another indication that her actual notability is something less than the hype. The Rolling Stone and Variety links show her to be, under her real name, one of several contributors (comprising notables and non-notables) to a fund-raising soundtrack album, but certainly it is the presence of Pat Benatar, Gwen Stefani, et. al, rather than this subject, that accounts for this coverage. Still, having a release (although only one) on a small but decent label, plus being featured on BBC1 “introducing” is indicative of an emerging artists headed in the right direction, so consider this a "weak delete" if you like. But I don’t think she’s accomplished encyclopedic importance yet, hence the TOOSOON.ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant independent reliable sources coverage as identified by Michig such as Variety, Rolling Stone and the BBC. Certainly an emerging artist but one with this coverage is notable and should be included in the Encyclopedia, social media is not a reliable indicator and the fact that likes and views have not been bought artificially shows that this is not so much of a publicity drive as is being suggested Atlantic306 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They obviously don’t have notability at this time. Definitely Too Soon. Trillfendi (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per shelby and trill. Nothing much to say after what they have said. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage, just routine mentions and directory-style listings. For example, the BBC source found by Michig isn't WP:SIGCOV, it's just a couple of routine sentences describing an artist in a playlist. Other sources noted above by various discussants are similarly not useful for establishing WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

R1 Jack Saunders (1h, 5min, 10sec) : https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0004156

6Music `Steve Lamacq Recommends’ (37min,10 sec) : https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0003zm8

https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/770ca820-1971-4b15-9b50-096d73f725a7#more Last Played on BBC

+

https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/03db14f0-7f90-48bd-96e3-e81303c91686

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/new-pink-gwen-stefani-christina-aguilera-songs-to-appear-on-compilation-201365/

https://variety.com/2017/music/news/pink-pat-benatar-gwen-stefani-compilation-album-linda-perry-label-1202551991/

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/lion-singer-beth-lowen-music-box-sessions-tour-dates-album-a8584466.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.225.65.9 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON, move the article to a draft to be expanded and posted again at a later time, if the creator is interested. Of the sources named above, only the Independent and Lock Magazine articles are hefty enough to help prove WP:GNG. The others look negligible, in some cases only show announcements. MidwestSalamander (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at the sources and other comments here, I'm persuaded by the "too soon" arguments. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 12:25, 17 April 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. Seems like the WP:NAUTHOR arguments carry the day here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Haviser

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

Not confident this guy meets any of the points in WP:NPROF. As I've admitted elsewhere, I'm not the best judge of NPROF, so I ran it by DGG. He advised it was a borderline case so I figured I'd run it by AfD. I'm by no means strenuously arguing for deletion, so I'm happy to withdraw if people are pretty sure he meets the criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Agree with nom: borderline. GS h-index of 11 a bit low. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

H index is irrelevant outside science and the experiemental social sciences. This is particularly true in archeology, where publication is very specialized and the citation density is low. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of his books is held in over 1600 libraries, potentially meeting WP:PROF#C1 (I don't know much about how this relates to library holdings, though). IntoThinAir (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I need to see at-least 3 major publications, which have been extensively reviewed. The positions that he held does not confer notability either. ∯WBG^converse 19:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Commenting to point out that he is the author of two independently notable books: African Sites: Archaeology in the Caribbean and African Re-Genesis: Confronting Social Issues in the Diaspora. (They were not linked in the article at the time of nomination.) MarkZusab (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, because you did only write the articles two days ago. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos and MarkZusab: - in a sense, that's an interesting variation of WP:HEY - demonstrate notability by improving/creating articles other than the one undergoing AfD WP:HEYOTHER? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the multiple reviews of his books linked above (WP:PROF#C1/WP:AUTHOR), although I'd merge them into Haviser's article. – Joe (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on reviews of his books. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe (either criterion). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bolke

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails WP:GNG and is entirely promotional Lubbad85 (☎) 19:37, 16 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Scholar Education Group

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

Based on my WP:BEFORE search, I don't think this meets WP:NCORP. In fairness I don't speak any dialect of Chinese, so I can only search in English, but what I found and what's presently on the article doesn't inspire confidence. Generally my search turned up business/stock listings, blogs, and articles based on press releases, none of which are reliable under WP:CORPDEPTH.

The article has some interesting history; it was first created in 2017 by JonathanHynes, a sockpuppet of BrightScholarJonathan (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrightScholarJonathan). It was deleted as G11 by Jimfbleak (courtesy ping). In May 2017, it was recreated by PariahFrog, another BSJ sock, and G5'd by me.

A couple days ago Leedade showed up on my talk page and asked to see the deleted content. Their only other edits aside from that request are at Draft:Meten English, a similar English-teaching company. They claim they are not paid or employed by either company, but I have my doubts, given the history and their choice of subject matter. After I declined to restore the content, they recreated the article and removed the thread from my talk page.

I don't believe the references in the article are sufficient under CORPDEPTH, as follows:

Teach Away is a teacher-placement startup whose purpose is to make money by placing teachers into jobs. It is therefore not an independent or reliable source for information on the companies it partners with.
The company's own website is not independent for the purpose of notability.
Same as above.
Seeking Alpha is a crowd-sourced blog site, so it is not reliable for a notability claim.
CNBC is not unreliable, but a stock listing is not an in-depth source for the purpose of supporting notability.
The Wellesley News is... sketchy looking, to say the least. If it's the best independent source available, that says a lot about the company.
See point 1 for Teach Away.

Long story short, I'm not convinced, and I'd like to see some opinions from the community. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmm, this is a tricky one. On the one hand, I think you're right about the independence of the current sources, and the sockpuppet history is concerning. On the other hand, any organization or district that ran this many schools in the US would almost certainly end up passing the notability threshold, so I'm concerned about regional bias and source language bias. If the organziation really is the largest network of international schools in China, as the article claims, that's further evidence of notability. Further, the company is valued over $1bn, and is publicly traded on the NYSE. From NCORP / WP:LISTED:

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability. Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.

I'll try to follow up on this over the next few days. MarginalCost (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I've done some substantial digging into this, trying to find sources that focus on the financial side. The results are unimpressive to say the least, but I think they just barely pass the threshhold established by NCORP and detailed at WP:LISTED. There is a lot of coverage out there that totally fails ORGIND and WP:ROUTINE, so it's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Here's what I'm hanging my hat on: MarketWatch lists 8 analyst reports from 4 companies (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and Deutche Bank), and CapitalWatch references an analysis from China Renaissance. (There are also references to a Frost & Sullivan report in other places, but this seems to have been commissioned by BEDU, so I omit it.) NCorp specifically lists "analyst reports" as an acceptable source of establishing notability. All of these, of course, are paywalled. But notability depends on the existence of sources, not their accessibility.

The only non-paywalled sources that I'd consider are South China Morning Post and China Daily (pulling off the Bloomberg Newswire) writing about the company under its old name. I think they pass WP:ROUTINE, but just barely.

So we're left with publicly accessible sources that are mediocre, and paywalled reports no one has seen that are more reliable. For a previous AfD that touched on these points, see Cominar, though in that case the publicly accessible sources were a bit stronger. I am voting weak keep, but will shed no tears if things go the other way, especially if the sockpuppet/undisclosed paid editing claim can be proven. MarginalCost (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of notability it's a obvious promo by a likely sock Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can promise you that i am not a sockpuppet, i started editing only a few months ago, and i have only ever used this wikipedia account. Its true i've only edited these two articles but i plan to edit and contribute much more when i have sufficient time. The other guy that was accused of sockpuppetry did so in 2017, a full 2 years before i ever tried to edit any wiki article.

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. WP:NOT is policy: Wikipedia is not a place to promote things. Bakazaka (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is such a stupid stance, if you actually read the article you would see it is clearly not just promotion, its simple information about a company. By your logic we should delete all pages about companies or businesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedade (talk • contribs) 09:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are the three best examples of significant coverage of the company (not the founder) in independent, reliable sources (not from press releases, routine financial coverage, or business partners)? Bakazaka (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NASDAQ, CNBC, China Daily, South China Morning Post, all fully reputable and reliable sources, obviously western news sites wont have coverage of this fully chinese company but these are just fine. In fact its much better coverage than many other articles ive read lately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedade (talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If those are the best sources, then the company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. NASDAQ and CNBC provide routine financial information and profiles based on information provided by the company. The China Daily and SCMP articles are brief coverage of a possible financial transaction, and they are clearly (and admittedly) assembled from company-provided information. That's what makes this Wikipedia article WP:PROMO: it is entirely assembled from information provided by, or from sources directly related to, the company itself, and is therefore an extension of the company's PR/marketing efforts. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Bakazaka (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as the article now has enough quality sources to be considered reliable and the article is clearly about a very notable subject, plus im not a sockpuppet and nobody has any evidence that i am, the article should be left up. Also anyone saying its promotion has clearly not read the article or needs to reread the definition of an advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedade (talk • contribs) 10:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did anyone check Chinese language sources yet. Here's a few for starters: [57][58][59][60][61][62][63].----Pontificalibus 14:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first one has less than 2 paragraphs about the company, and repeats financial information and quotes. The 2nd one is "coverage" of the company's own promotional event, including extensive responses from company officers. The first news.sina.com.cn article contains only a passing mention. The China Daily story is a repeat of the others listed in previous comments, and similarly draws information from the company itself. The second news.sina.com.cn is a slightly reworded press release. The Sohu.com "story" is literally just stats from the company's financial reports, next to stats from another company's financial report (e.g. "x has 5% in this area, while y has 7%"). The NBD article is the closest thing to counting under WP:CORPDEPTH, but it's still mostly the financial report + quotes from company officers. I still think policy outweighs guidelines in any event, but I'll walk away at this point so other editors can weigh in. Bakazaka (talk) 18:57, 12 April 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 21:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Kuhnhausen

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

WP:BLP1E. A loose necktie (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this garbage. Wikipedia is not a news site. Trillfendi (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not know if I am allowed to vote, since I made the article - I just wanted to have the opportunity to provide a reason why I think this is not a news article and that it should be allowed as a short (maybe shortened beyond what it is currently) encyclopedia entry. If I am speaking in the wrong place on this, please let me know and I can remove the "vote". This person should have an encyclopedia entry of at least minimal length because the event has inspired not just news articles, but discussion beyond that. If you search "Susan Kuhnhausen" on google, you get at least 16,400 results (as of today). Anyone who browses through the results will see not just news articles, but commentary, reflections, fictitious stories based on the events, discussions of popular murders, and blog posts related to the subject. By the amount of coverage the subject has received, I feel that it is WP:Notable and should have at least a minimal entry. Maybe the current entry is too long and could be shortened, but I think a record is merited. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I would like to address the four criteria outlined under Wikipedia is not a newspaper:

(1): Original reporting. There is no original reporting in the article; it cites to other sources that have reported information.

(2): News reports. Newsworthy events DO NOT qualify for a Wiki article. This is NOT a merely newsworthy event, as it has received enduring popularity in social media as an interesting crime and has inspired a great deal of discussion beyond the original event.

(3): Who's who: Not sure how to respond - maybe it should be transformed from an article about the individual to an article about the event? Would appreciate commentary on this.

(4): A diary: Doesn't seem relevant as only the relevant event is mentioned.

Can I ask that people comment on this analysis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjbagl (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Attempted murder of Susan Kuhnhausen" or something similar. I agree with Ikjbagl that Kuhnhausen's story is one of enduring popularity and is well-known to people interested in true crime. Looking at articles for other notable murder or attempted murder victims (Murder of Laci Peterson, Death of JonBenét Ramsey, Aruna Shanbaug case), the standard seems to be an article about the case or crime itself, with redirects from the name of the victim. --Nonmodernist (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion- I will move the page and add a redirect. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Creator's argument on why this is beyond BLP1E is not without merit - however, do we treat this potential additional material (which would require secondary sources) as equivalent to AfD source-hunting (where sources just need to exist somewhere, not actually be in the article) or does this article actually need to be expanded beyond the base crime with this extra content before this argument would be legitimate? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I came across this article in the AfD list, I see the creator tried to set it up as a biography however that doesn't seem to work here, this is more about a crime taking place and there is a lot of that. As a singular incident I don't see enough of a impact for an article here, I wouldn't pass per WP:BLPCRIME. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 14 April 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) 06:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haman Daouda

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

He fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG - sourcing in article doesn't establish it, and I don't see much in my BEFORE that would. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is plenty of coverage of a murdered Cameroonian minister with the same name, but nothing beyond the most routine coverage (e.g., database listings) of the footballer with this name. An article about a semi-pro footballer doesn't satisfy NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL, lack of sufficient sources, all in all a delete. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 06:05, 8 April 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) 06:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Brookwell

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

Brockwell fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played for a club in a fully professional league or senior international football. Playing for Wales C doesn't count and Anglesey isn't a nation. WP:GNG is also failed. Dougal18 (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes NFOOTY having played 16 games (873 minutes) and 4 goals in the Welsh Premier League (for Caernarfon Town F.C.) - see transfermarkt (as well as various match reports). WP:GNG is difficult to assess with all the match reports - there being approx. 61 press items (per google-news) with his name mentioned (mainly match reports, of course), however considering he's on a NFOOTY side and receiving some playing time - this is likely to grow. Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Caernarfon don't play in an FPL and transfermarkt is unreliable. Dougal18 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck as I misread FPL. The Welsh Premier League is not fully-pro. Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As creator of this article I shall not comment on any debate here Cls14 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY and my BEFORE search is only turning up routine game coverage so doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG either. Leviv ich 21:10, 5 April 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandisa Greene

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

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has 36 members of its council, and I see no reason why its Junior Vice-President is inherently notable. The only substantive source is the RCVS itself, which is not independent of the topic. The others include a mirror of that article, an internal publication, and some passing mentions of being a new member. Reywas92^Talk 07:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not remotely close to passing GNG nor PROF.Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. As previously noted on the talk page, the claim to notability seems to be based on the fact that she is the first of a particular group to achieve a particular position, but the position itself is not notable. Melcous (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with Melcous. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a practicing vet, active in her professional association, no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, possibly the "Officials" section; people looking up that organization may plausibly want to know when it passed a demographic milestone. (I mean, that's the kind of thing I've tried to find out about professional organizations in my own field, and it can be vexing.) E.g., The first person from an ethnic minority to join the RCVS Officer Team was Mandisa Greene, a graduate of the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies raised in Trinidad and Tobago, who was elected in 2019. Short, to the point, makes WP:PRESERVE happy, satisfies WP:DUE and leaves open the possibility for future expansion should events warrant. XOR'easter (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the claim: "She was the first person from an ethnic minority to be elected to the RCVS Officer Team." cannot possibly be true as written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is what the source says [64]. I think that a source from the organization itself, though not independent, is adequate for this purpose. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't strike me as an unlikely claim? Small team, long tenures, white male-dominated profession, body with "venerable traditions"... that can take 175 years. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "first person from an ethnic minority" to serve as an officer in a U.K. Royal College founded 1844 would most likely have been Irish, or an immigrant from some other part of Europe who was ethnically not English (putting an Irishman on a Board used to be a big deal.) The source says "black." That is plausible, but it is not significant unless someone can support it with an INDEPENDENT source. English royal colleges and so forth have had officers of West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, etc. ancestry for so long that this is trivial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why a further source would be necessary for that point; it does not strike me as "likely to be challenged". Had I read that sentence in the article on the Royal College without this biography ever having been created, I would have seen it as entirely unremarkable, and the source from the organization itself would have seemed adequate to support the mere sentence devoted to the point. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARY material is inadequate as an argument for notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is about what articles should exist, not what should be included within the articles that do. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here, E.M.Gregory. The organization's records are just about the only reliable source that such a statement should be based on; nothing wrong with the source. The question is whether the statement from whatever source establishes notability - which I believe it does not. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, it wasn't my tree. The argument someone made was that this "first" confers notability. My point is that a "first" can only contribute to notability if there is SECONDARY, SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G4. This is substantially the same as the version deleted in the past AfD and upheld at DRV. Salting as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarice Phelps

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}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted on 11 Feb 2019, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (+delrev). Speedy on WP:G4 removed by non-admin (contrast 9 Feb ver on evwiki to 3 April - text quite similar, a few additional refs). Nothing much has changed from the AfD less than two months ago - subject is a GNG failure, and doesn't meet any SNG. Quite simply we are lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We also have BLP issues due to poor sourcing and WP:NOTADVOCACY given the article is based mainly on PR. While the article has been WP:REFBOMBed many of the sources don't mention the subject, mention the subject in passing, aren't reliable, aren't independent, or a combination thereof. Source analysis (numbering based on this version):

ref18, ref1, ref9, ref10, ref11, ref22 (duplicate of ref11), ref24 - ORNL website, not independent, PR. In some pieces Phelps doesn't even appear (ref18, ref10).
ref2 - trade magazine, copy of ref1 on ORNL, named author is ORNL's Communications Coordinator. Not independent - PR.
ref25 - listed on board of yostem.org. Not independent of the subject. yostem itself seems linked to ORNL's outreach (4 of 6 board members are ORNL staff).
ref17 ORNL status summary (technical report) - subject is mentioned in a long list of names in the acknowledgments.
ref13, ref14, ref19, ref20 - Youtube videos by ORNL. ref13 doesn't even mention the subject. In others she is one of very many speakers in fairly short clips. Not independent, not in depth.
ref23 - Youtube video by ORAU at a local middle school. Bunch of volunteering ORNL staff interviewed - Phelps has around 20 seconds in minute 4.
ref15, ref16 - doesn't mention the subject. Not even in the group photo in ref16 AFAICT.
ref12 - passing mention - single sentence - "In 2009 Clarice Phelps aided in the purification of berkelium, which led to the discovery of element 117 and conformation of element 115". Not in-depth.
ref6 - local newspaper, single paragraph (one for each recipient) on local YWCA award. Not in-depth, possibly not independent, not significant.
ref21 - Vimeo video with short interviews of YWCA award recipients. Not a RS, not independent.
ref3, ref4, ref5 - primary source, subject is mentioned in a list of alumni/students.
ref7, ref8 - US navy, doesn't mention the subject.

In short - sourcing here isn't even close to establishing notability.Icewhiz (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of prior AfD: @Levivich: @Sitush: @Fæ: @ජපස: @Davey2010: @E.M.Gregory: @StraussInTheHouse: @Winged Blades of Godric: @Kusma: @SashiRolls: @Oshwah: @R8R: @Andrew Davidson: @Xxanthippe: @TonyBallioni: @DePiep: @Reywas92: @XOR'easter: @Wee Curry Monster: @Tagishsimon: @Chris troutman: @Hydronium Hydroxide: @Jesswade88: @Cryptic: @Papaursa: @Ca2james: @Dlohcierekim: @DGG: @Peaky76: @Risker: @Victuallers: @Double sharp: @Oncamera: @Carrite: @EnPassant: @Kippelboy:.Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (summoned by ping above), for the same reason I gave the last time: "I'm sorry, but if she's notable, then so must thousands of others who worked on large multinational scientific projects, as Icewhiz wrote. The tennessine article rightly does not mention her, as otherwise it would get bogged down listing hundreds and thousands of names." Also per R8R's comment in the previous AfD. Double sharp (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this was extensively discussed a few weeks ago and little seems to have changed since. Blythwood (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per G4, and whack the recreator with a wet trout.

Reywas92^Talk 07:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is uncivil and childish. Battleofalma (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jesswade88 (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedily, notability of the subject has not changed since last AfD, as demonstrated by the lack of improvement in reliable independent sourcing. (Full disclosure: I heard the ping.) —Kusma (t·c) 08:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of souces to establish that she is either a notable research scientist and for lack of coverage that could pass WP:GNG. Despite a disingenuous statement by editor who quickly re-created this page: (recreated page that was deleted. I really want this to stay up, so please advise where I need to improve instead of just nominating for deletion.) the requirements for WP:SIGCOV and notability were explained in detail when we ran this drill a few weeks ago. New sources and accomplishments have not appeared.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Nothing has changed since last AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. No substantial difference. SITH (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources do demonstrate she is a notable research scientist. I acknowledge there are not enough external sources; and am trying to improve it. I'm concerned by this "Despite a disingenuous statement by editor who quickly re-created this page" - how am I disingenuous? I have worked on the science and citations on this page, and am *literally* only doing it to better improve Wikipedia Jesswade88 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There would seem to be quite a lot of sources here, and while some may not be very high level sources, the amount of coverage for a female research scientist as well as her awards would indicate that she is notable to me. Jwslubbock (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwslubbock: - Source here are PR flap, and many don't even mention the subject. However I am somewhat confused by your statement on awards (plural) - could you please enumerate the awards the subject has received, and elaborate on why they are significant? Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: What do you mean by PR flap? Have you even looked at the links on ORNL or dismissed them all as 'flap' and clicked to nominate for deletion? Whilst they may be from her employer, they aren't overly celebratory and just describe what she does. Jesswade88 (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed examined every single reference in the article (including watching the promotional YouTube videos). While her name on a list here or her fairly generic staff profile are fairly drab and routine - all the rest is promotional content written by ORNL's PR team (or person - not sure it is a team) to publicize their STEM outreach efforts in local schools. As it is quite evident that most of the coverage here, such as it is, is from her employer - it is rather clear our subject isn't of encyclopedic or public interest. Frankly - you could find school teachers with more coverage than this. Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who? Can you name some? Jesswade88 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic and wouldn't want to give anyone ideas - but it would be trivial to find local school teachers with a number of pieces/profiles on them in their school's website (as well as in-depth coverage in multiple yearbooks and in the student newspaper), a minor award from a local organization, and a few items in the local press (even full length ones - which you're lacking here). Look at [65] - our ~~Louisiana~~Shreveport deletion sorting list and you'll see local figures with more coverage than this subject getting deleted in a rather routine Wikipedia manner.Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But have these teachers contributed to the discovery of an element? Jesswade88 (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. According to our subject on the ORNL website: "Phelps said her own love of science was sparked early by a microscope set and encyclopedia-based science kit given to her by her mother and kindled by her middle and high school science teachers.".[66] It would probably be trivial to find high-school science teachers in the Knoxville/Oak Ridge area who educated/mentored several ORNL employees who contributed, in a manner similar to our subject, to the background work around element discovery. A pupil's success is much impacted from his teacher. Furthermore, we could shoot higher - high school teachers of Nobel laureates, congressional medal of honor recipients, and possibly multiple notable students. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My great-grand uncle Jack contributed to the discovery of the atomic bomb. He was shop teacher in the Engineering School at New York's City College when the Manhattan Project was located in the physics building at Columbia. He was recruited to work on the project. He ground and supplied the lenses the physicists needed. He did this for years and it was important work and the fact that he was part of it has even been even written up a little over the years. Have I ever started a page for Uncle Jack? No. He was a wonderful old gentleman but being one of the guys who ground the lenses on a big project like Manhattan Project does not make an individual notable. Even though there are. WP:RS sources that document that Uncle Jack was on the project, and that he earned civic awards for a number of things unrelated to the Project (including an identity-related thing,) was active in his community - as recorded in local papers, and so forth. Lots of good people are not notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, but you aren't supposed to make your family members' wikipedia pages, right? Jesswade88 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if my great-grand uncle had been a notable scientist, or a notable City College shop teacher, I don't think there would be a problem with my writing well-sourced page about him. The point is that Uncle Jack, like Clarice Phelps, is not notable. They both fail WP:GNG and they both fail WP:SCHOLAR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Let Jess Wade work on getting this article improved to a level where notability concerns can be met without having to waste time on pointless Wikiprocesses. jps (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info The nominator has been engaging in what appears to be a form of back-door negative canvassing or intimidating behaviour, refer to diff1, diff2, diff3. This behaviour is likely to put people off wanting to express any opinion here or contribute to improving the article. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that's okay. There are different rules for Icewhiz than there are for other editors. Jesswade88 (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is legitimate to notice when editors suddenly show up on obscure discussions about topics not in the news, especially in a case where the 1st AfD was canvassed on social media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used twitter to ask people to improve the page. I don't think it's much different to your collective call to arms to come and vote 'Delete' Jesswade88 (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walk that back, it is a lie to claim that I made a collective "call to arms to come and vote 'Delete'"E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not you E.M.Gregory, sorry. I meant other members of this discussion. Jesswade88 (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors who participated in the recent AfD is legitimate, it would only be problematic if an editor pinged only those with whom he agrees. It is off-wiki canvassing on social media that is verboten.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Just to confirm, he’s ‘pinging’ all editors who challenge his opinion, because apparently that’s how Wikipedia editor democracy works.Jesswade88 (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jesswade88, I suggest you take a deep breath and check your facts before flinging serious accusations at fellow editors. I spot-checked your assertion, and readily saw that Icewhiz pinged editors who voted both "keep" and those who voted "delete". Your assertion is a flat out untruth, a slanderous and serious lie. I urge you to ~~strike~~ it and apologize to Icewhiz. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Not notable for stand alone article; was only scientific research team; fails WP:PROF, and WP:GNG. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging page because article creator states above that she has advertised this discussion on twitter. Salt needed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I've requested a history merge with the deleted page so that we can see exactly how it's changed since the last version that was deleted. Salting seems like overkill when you're talking about one recreation by one editor. If there's a problem with the recreation, better to address it with the single editor responsible rather than salt the article, as even if it is deleted again here, the subject may yet become notable in the future (she is young and not yet at the peak of her career). I'm especially dismayed to see accusations of sexism, racism, and–of all things–transphobia on the article's talk page, which seem to be spilling over here, as well as–again–canvassing concerns. FWIW, I'm not at all surprised that editors would watchlist Jesswade88's talk page (I do, and that's how I found this AfD back in round 1). It doesn't necessarily indicate canvassing. (And if someone asked me how I came to find a certain AfD, even if it was polite and non-confrontational, I'd probably be annoyed by the question.) However, if, like me, you lean towards wanting this article kept, the ad hominem shitshow only hurts that cause. I personally think it killed the article's chances in the last AfD. This conversation must stay focused on the content and we should not be commenting on editors' motivations or intentions. It's childish to accuse someone of racism or sexism because they nominate an article about a black woman for deletion, and such unfounded personal attacks seriously detract from our ability to identify and remedy the actual systemic biases that exist here. Because I do want this article to be kept if at all possible, and because I want a fair shake at convincing my fellow editors that it should be kept, if I see personal attacks surrounding this AfD again, for my part, I may report editors to ANI or Arbcom. I am waiting until I can see the history before !voting. Leviv ich 15:18, 4 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sangi clan

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

The article has one source (A Glossary of the tribes & castes of Punjab) but I cannot find any other sources in English (this Sangi clan is actually about an unrelated Bantu tribe) and an Urdu search of the name "سانگی‎" does not turn up anything related to this tribe either. This is an unfortunate victim of worldview bias as a result of lack of reliable sources, but alas the article fails WP:GNG with only one reliable source and it does not look like passing any other notability guideline. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. A. Rose is certainly not a reliable source. His works were produced for the British Raj for the purposes of its divide and rule policy, and were based on the discredited doctrine of scientific racism. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Then even less evidence for notability! — MarkH21 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Quite so. I suppose I'd better say delete in bold just in case the discussion closer doesn't realise my intent. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 5 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanghi

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

The article is unsourced and seems to entirely be WP:OR. I cannot find any sources in English anywhere and an Urdu search of the name "سانگھی" does not turn up anything related to this tribe either. This is an unfortunate victim of worldview bias as a result of lack of reliable sources, but alas the article fails WP:GNG and does not look like passing any other notability guideline. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:25, 4 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Beasley

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

Sourced to a single press release, this is a WP:BLP without any inline citations. When looking to add citations I only came across articles such as job changes and routine event write-ups, so fails WP:GNG as well. As an aside, I'm suspicious it may be a copyvio to her now completely removed from the internet biography page on the West Virginia University website based on the way it's written, but I have no evidence of this. SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every "head" coach of every university team is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 4 April 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) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Entertainment

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

I'm not really sure if this is a real company. If it is it definitely doesn't seem to be notable. It's website right now seems to be a blog with no relevant content, and the only movie in its 'feature film credits' that has a wikipedia article is Harsh Times, however this company isnt even listed in its company credits. Looking up the company name does result in some news articles and a proper website, but they all seem to actually be about a different Treasure Entertainment company based in Ireland, not the Treasure Entertainment this article is about. Meszzy² (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's arguments. This subject doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. References from IMDb don't count, and I can't find any other sources that are notable enough. Skirts⁸⁹ 13:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 11 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Felsot

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

Seems to me like a non-notable promotional article. Cannot find any real secondary sources so seems to fail WP:BASIC. Looking up his name doesn't yield much in general. Meszzy² (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional tone, and WP:RS QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 14:27, 4 April 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 delete arguments are much more substantial than the keep case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Kelly (New Jersey)

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

Non-notable local WP:POLITICIAN. Sourcing is official biography and a new york times article that contains a single quote. Rusf10 (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satisfies WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG.--PATH SLOPU 13:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does Kelly possibly satisfy ANYBIO or GNG? I see one secondary source here, with only a quote, that doesn't even come close to significant coverage. As for ANYBIO specifically, notable awards??? NO widely recognized contribution???? NO entry in the dictionary of national biography???? NO--Rusf10 (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serving on a county council is not an automatic inclusion freebie for a politician, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually get him over WP:NPOL #2 (or GNG or ANYBIO). GNG is not just "everybody who can be shown to have gotten their name into a newspaper once, regardless of context" — it requires him to be the subject of substantive coverage, which giving soundbite in an article about something else is not, in a notable context, which giving soundbite in an article about something else is also not. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy any notability requirements. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't satisfy any notability guidelines.Jacona (talk) 13:16, 5 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brookes

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

Hello. Sources in the article are trade magazines and The Lincolnite and I can find nothing better. Brookes is the chairman of the Fire & Security Association, an entity which I do not think passes our notability guidelines either. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is routine. Tacyarg (talk) 21:34, 9 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trini (toponym)

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

Bringing this to AfD after a long and messy history, to clarify whether or not the community believes there should be an article on this demonym (yes, the article is misnamed). There is then a separate discussion to be had as to whether the demonym is the primary topic for the word, but this AfD discussion is about whether or not there should be an article about the demonym (that other discussion would be whether (a) the dab page should be at "Trini" or (b) "Trini" should be either an article on the demonym or a redirect, depending on the result of this current AfD).

The history is complicated but basically an article about the demonym was created in Nov 2005. An AfD closed on 2 March 2016 as "Redirect to Trinidadians". An IP created a new article by overwriting an existing redirect at Trini (toponym) on 28 April 2016, and that's substantially what we have here.

If this article is not deleted, it needs to be renamed to Trini (demonym), currently a redirect (whose history shows it to have been created in a page move on 22 December 2015 when "Trini (demonym)" was moved to "Trini" as "disambiguation is not required". The dab page at Trini (disambiguation) was created 25 May 2014 and did not at that point include any mention of the demonym, though Trinidad was included as an entry. I hope that's all clear to everyone?

I have no particular interest in Trinidad or demonyms, but am bringing this here to try to tidy up what seems to have been a complicated history over the years. I seem to have got this onto my watchlist while stub-sorting in November 2015 and moving the misnamed page I then found! PamD 09:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It it were at Trini (demonym) I'd say redirect it to Trinidadians and Tobagonians, since there's plenty of room in that article to explain the usage of Trinidadian versus Tobagonian versus Trinbagonian versus Trini. But this is a highly improbable search term. As an aside, I believe that the primary usage of Trini is for T&T people (I didn't see the original note at Talk:Trini until today, so thanks for raising that PamD). Guettarda (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've integrated the useful material here (apart from the list of songs) into https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Trini. Not that I object to this being a Wikipedia entry too. But I'd have thought making it a redirect to Trinidadians and Tobagonians (which already mentions the term Trini) would be fine? Alarichall (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a toponym so I see no reason to retain a redirect. The Ts and Ts article can cover usage of the term but I don't see much to merge. Reywas92^Talk 08:10, 4 April 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) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jake W. Cameron

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable local politician. Fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG and definitely doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 20:29, 11 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community and alternative media in Venezuela

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

Article's title makes it into an ambiguous grab-bag. Furthermore, it is sourced largely to Venezuelanalysis, which is generally not an RS. There is also a reference to a website [67] that doesn't look particularly RS either. When you take out the Venezuelanalysis bits, there isn't much left. It does not appear to have attracted much if any interest since its creation in 2013. I'm not entirely clear on how categorization works, or on what category this one fits into. If someone could take care of that, I'd appreciate it. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 10:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 10:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 10:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 10:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is a potential risk of original research naming all of these outlets as "community" and "alternative" media. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:18, 6 April 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 CSD-G4. Yet another recreation of (self-)promotional article of a non-notable person. Original AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Daniel Levy and same editor has repeatedly created it at that and this page-name.. DMacks (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Levy

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet the standards for inclusion imo. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. He seems to have a too soon issue. He has some minor roles, but nothing major yet it appears. Wgolf (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:57, 4 April 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 Dean of Armagh. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odo Mecdanim

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

No evidence of notability. Members of the clergy are not inherently notable, and there no substantive sources about this person. Reywas92^Talk 01:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Merge with Dean of Armagh as per the short text in WP:MERGEREASON.--PATH SLOPU 13:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above as does not seem to be independently notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There is a problem with that outcome , because the list article says Maurice Dovey was appointed Dean in 1372. Is this article WP:OR? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- One user has created thousands of article for anyone in history who has been a dean (or other positions) in the clergy, virtually none of which are remotely notable. Honestly I don't think the position itself is even notable and could be redirected to St Patrick's Cathedral, Armagh (Church of Ireland). I now see the sources on the two articles are inconsistent with each other – perhaps Maurice Dovey (or O'Dove) is the modern spelling for Odo Mecdanim? Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--this sort of historical information will make Wikipedia more credible, not less; remove it and the stuff on non-notable bands that actually does make Wikipedia look bad will still be there no matter how much you delete it. Moreover this article integrates well with the template. You start to remove them and the template gets devalued.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS much?? Just because a navbox, created by the same user that created all of the articles linked on it, contains this doesn't mean it must automatically exist. Unclear why credibility is enhanced by an article sourced solely to a church directory rather than substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 23:36, 11 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FilmOne

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

Non noable company. Originally PROD'd but the page was updated. It's still only a few sentences and other than some promotional text, it's claim to notability is being involved in the distribution... of several blockbuster films.... Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - negligible claims to notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to delete consideration This article has been edited to address all concerns about authenticity. Filmone is a renowned film distribution company in Nigeria, and can be verified by any standard. Citations from reliable and notable sources, (independent of the article) has been done. Editing of this article will continue in adherence to Wikipedia's policies. I hereby request that this discussion page be closed. — Preceding Jude martins comment added by Jude Martins (talk • contribs) 11:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC) — Jude Martins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Even with the recent edits, the subject still does not pass WP:GNG. I can find no notable sources referencing FilmOne, and I'm not sure the ones currently included pass muster. Skirts⁸⁹ 13:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the view that the subject does not pass WP:GNG. The sources cited - BBC and CEAN can be classified as secondary sources, independent, notable and reliable, and have directly identified FilmOne through their publications. Deleting this subject strips Wikipedia of the ability to be an adequate source of information regarding principal players in the Nigerian film industry - an industry that is globally recognized as emerging and evolving.ContentBI —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC) — ContentBI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Again I disagree with QuiteUnusual. The following paragraphs quoted in the article posted by BBC directly refers to Filmone as distributors of the award winning film;

*"In a joint statement, the film's producers and distributor - Shareman Media and FilmOne Distribution - thanked Nigerians for their "patience and support".

"Half of a Yellow Sun is now set to strike a special chord with every Nigerian," they said.

In June, FilmOne Distribution said it had met members of the National Film and Video Censors Board (NFVCB) to explain the financial consequences of making edits.

"Nevertheless, FilmOne presented to the Board edited scenes in accordance with the Board's requirement. The Board watched these edited scenes and expressed their satisfaction with the edits," their statement said.",

' Also, a citation on PULSE TV's post verifies that FilmOne have been West African partners to 20th Century Fox., a feat that identifies them as major players in the region's film industry, and thus should be identified as a subject.ContentBI —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC) — ContentBI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. The use of secondary sources, noted above, is irrelevant because these are just passing references to the company - the article is not about the company and does nothing to establish its notability anymore than this article makes Will Snider notable. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:58, 5 April 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Carroll

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

Non-notable local politician that has only been covered by local press. Falls short of meeting the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL. I did my best to find other articles which cover this person's life and could not find any, apart from a couple mentions routine hyper-local articles on politics discussing the board instead of the person. If he's still alive, this contains BLP issues as well. He does have a common name, though, so if he doesn't fail WP:GNG as conclusively as it appears, please ping me so I can have a look. SportingFlyer T·C 01:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and there isn't anything coverage wise that puts him in WP:GNG territory. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serving on a county council is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the existence of two or three pieces of local coverage in the local media is not enough to actually get a local politician over the bar that he actually has to clear. GNG is not just "anybody who can be shown to have gotten their name into any newspaper twice or more for any reason" — it also tests for the depth of coverage, the geographic range of coverage, and the context of what the person is getting coverage for. Every local politician everywhere can always show a couple of hits in their local media, so that's not enough to make a local politician notable in and of itself — "significant press coverage", for the purposes of NPOL #2, means you have to show much more than just the bare minimum of what every local politician can always show: deeper coverage (e.g. he was so locally important that somebody actually wrote and published a full book-length biography of him), more coverage (e.g. dozens of media hits and not just three, enabling the article to cover his political career in a really substantive and detailed way), and/or wider coverage (e.g. coverage that expands well beyond just the local media) than most other county councillors have. A county councillor is not notable enough for Wikipedia just because you can show two or three hits of routine local election reporting to verify an article that just reads like a thinly-veiled rewrite of his own "staff" profile on the council's own self-published website — to make a county councillor notable enough for inclusion here, you have to be able to write a lot more substance and cite a lot more sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete serving at a legislative level below a state legislature is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, doesn't meet any notability guidelines.Jacona (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPOL. Just a local politician, nothing in article or online to show notability. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 02:47, 7 April 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.

[1] Michael Hilger, Native Americans in the Movies: Portrayals from Silent Films to the Present (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015).

[2] Anthony Numkena, in boyactors.org.uk

[3] "Billboard Dance Charts". October 28, 2000. Retrieved Mar 21, 2019.

[4] "Big Brother".

[5] "Power on Billboard Dance Charts #43". October 28, 2000. Retrieved Mar 21, 2019.

[6] "Power Latin Mixes".

[7] "Urban Culture 2 - Rafael Torres Abaco Music - A division of Imagen Music Group".

[8] "5 Alarm Music - Various Albums, Rafael Torres".

[9] "Vanacore Music-Rafael Torres, Multiple Albums".

[10] "South of the Beach - Rafael Torres - Killer Latino/Universal Music".

[NightBuses-11] Wallis, Philip (2013). London's Night Buses 1984-2013 (2 ed.). London: Capital Transport Publishing. ISBN 978-1854143723.

[12] Tender Results Archived 29 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine Stagecoach London 16 July 2014

[13] London's Bus Contracting and Tendering Process Archived 23 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine Transport for London

[14] TfL introduces new Friday and Saturdaynight bus services to support Night Tube Archived 18 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine Transport for London 17 August 2016

[15] "The Night Bus" community on Arriva London buses Archived 29 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine Arriva London 11 May 2015

[16] The Night Bus; nocturnal naughtiness on the N29 Archived 10 May 2017 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 11 May 2015

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]