Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bri (talk | contribs) at 13:36, 10 August 2019 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shobhana Desai). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 9 August 11 August >

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 delete. Tone 14:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shobhana Desai

Shobhana Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a television producer and has produced one non-notable film in 2017. Doesn't appear to be sourceable to meet WP:NCREATIVE. PROD contested, so here we are. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Harshil want to talk? 04:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don’t know squat about Bollywood but what’s given here doesn’t show general notability. Trillfendi (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Out of the 5 references in the article only one is about the subject briefly mentions about her first venture. ( 3 movie Review and 1 interview with another person not the subject)
  1. Sunday Tribune Hum Pardesi Ho Gaye". - Is a review about the movie Hum Pardesi Ho Gaye not about the subject
  2. Interview with Vipul A Shah - interview witha directro not about the subject
  3. Aankhen (2002) movie review - Another moviw review
  4. "Shobhna Desai's first production venture titled Kho Kho". - This is about the subject's first venture mentions the subject.
  5. KHO KHO MOVIE REVIEW". - Another movie review Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pharaoh of the Wizards, I came to the same conclusion about the sources, and should have shared my analysis like you did. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McIlvane

Matt McIlvane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject overwhelmingly fails WP:NHOCKEY as a player, with only 15 AHL games, 14 DEL games and no preeminent honours. He has however spent five seasons as an assistant coach in the DEL and is currently head coach for an EBEL team, plus the article has eleven references. If these establish notability, I will withdraw the nomination. Tay87 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that be the case I certainly have no problem withdrawing the nomination or let somebody else do it on my behalf. Tay87 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as a hockey player and just got his first head coaching job. It's in the Austrian Hockey League which doesn't provide any notability for a player so I don't know why it would for a coach. Coverage seems to be routine sports reporting of his career with many of the sources not being independent, so I don't believe WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Boyd Roberts

Gary Boyd Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have searched the Googles (scholar, books, news), Proquest (Global Newsstream; The New York Times), and JSTOR. While Roberts has assembled and published various genealogies, and though these findings are occasionally picked up by the press, he himself does not meet notability. There is scant biographical information on him in this article, and so little of it is cited. In sum, he fails WP:GNG: ...a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a prolific book author (if one counts compiling a genealogy as a form of book authorship) only contributes towards notability if those books have published reviews, and I can't find any in this case. Nor is any other form of notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just deprodded so that this would get a closer look like what David Eppstein did. I thought there was a possibility that something might show up.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding published reviews: publishing a well-researched and well-sourced genealogy certainly does count as book authorship. Genealogical books are reviewed in genealogical journals such as the NEHGS Register, which Gary Boyd Roberts contributed to, or the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, or others. Most of these journals are not on JSTOR, but are well-respected within their field and often peer-reviewed. His close involvement with the NEHGS shows he is more than an amateur genealogist, but a respected researcher. He definitely appears to be notable within the field of genealogy. Notable enough for Wikipedia? I am not sure. There do not appear to be many genealogists who bother to edit Wikipedia. They are too busy doing genealogy. Tea and crumpets (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC) What I mean is, there does not appear to be much consensus on Wikipedia regarding what is notable within the field of genealogy. Tea and crumpets (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have actual references to in-depth and reliably published book reviews of his books? Preferably ones that not published by an organization for which he was director of publications. It would also be helpful if they could be viewed online but that's not a requirement. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one review for Ancestors of American Presidents in the NEHGS Register that was not written by him, but by the main editor, Henry B. Hoff, although Roberts was also a consulting editor at the time, and the book was published by the same organization. It is in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Volume 163, page 75. I have access at [1], and it looks like those with access to university libraries should be able to find it on EBSCO. Still looking for other reviews. Tea and crumpets (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like there is a review of The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States in a Canadian journal, Reference & Research Book News, volume 19, issue 2, starting on page 25. I can't figure out how to access. Another review in Arkansas Family Historian, Fall 2018, Vol. 56 Issue 3, p45-46 at EBSCO. Tea and crumpets (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found it [edit: the Reference & Research Book News review]. The entry reads: 'Roberts (New England Historic Genealogical Society) outlines the "best" royal descendants--from the most recent king--of 600-plus immigrants to the American colonies or the United States from the 17th century to the present, who were notable themselves or left descendants notable in American history. The immigrants fall into three categories: colonial notables; noted 19th- and 20th- century figures, or their wives, parents, or grandparents; and colonial immigrants who left sizable, often huge, progenies. The text includes a subject index and guide, alphabetized by title or surname, followed by the listings grouped into three sections: descendants of late medieval and early modern kings, high medieval kings, and early medieval kings.' Is this a review? If so, it's light/not critical.----DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is not a critical review. The NEHGR review (not written by Roberts, but by another editor, Henry B. Hoff) gives a touch of criticism: "The only disappointing aspect of the book is that the ancestry of more recent presidents is taken back only a certain number of generations, not necessarily to the immigrants." The review is three paragraphs long, and mainly describes the format of the book. It touches a little bit on the research, saying "This book, an updated version of the compiler's previous books and articles on the ancestry of American presidents, represents the current state of scholarship on the subject...There are many major additions and corrections from previous accounts." Still, not a very thorough review. Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would imagine any published biographical information would be limited to promotional "about the author" or "about the speaker" materials in books he published and conference materials. I don't have any in my hand at the moment. Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was some discussion of what constitutes a reliable source in the world of genealogical publications in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Dylan Goodwin, where it was suggested that a genealogical journal that is national in reach and has a firm editorial process might be considered reliable, but journals of non-national genealogical societies probably are not (Arkansas Family Historian would be an example, and probably also The New England Historical and Genealogical Register). Reference & Research Book News is perhaps more likely to be reliable, having wider scope. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I would consider The New England Historical and Genealogical Register to be national in scope because most genealogists in the United States trace their lineages to New England. But it's debatable. National Genealogical Society Quarterly is a better example of a national in scope, peer-reviewed genealogical journal with critical book reviews, but their free searchable index is down right now so I am unable to locate any articles that discuss Roberts. Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean by "such society"? Genealogical? New England? Historical? Do you have a source for NEGHS being the "premier such society"? The NEGHS article was in violation of copyright, promotional, and, for my lack of a better term, bloated until recently; that's the sort of phrasing the article used, which I haven't found elsewhere but might be able to add back if there is an independent source. Most of the news articles I found (on the genealogies of presidents and royalty, some of which wouldn't have been Boyd's own work) stemmed from several press releases. If you have something more than that, I would be interested to see it. Thanks! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A few thoughts:
1. The article was started by what appears to be a primarily single-purpose account (Gary Boyd Roberts and genealogy edits). It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Gary Boyd Roberts, or someone associated with the New England Historic Genealogical Society, is the author, but it may just be a fan of his work. Regardless, the article is better now than it was before.
2. Some of Roberts' works are highly regarded within the genealogy community, but most of the press on his books and articles come from within the organization that publishes them/and/or that he works for. So far, I believe we have one source that reviews one of his works (that I pasted above). NEGHS is a large organization. Perhaps the genealogy community does not write scholarly reviews of other works as much as other disciplines do.
3. The biographical information has not been verified despite work done by several researchers here. No one has unearthed an interview or feature piece on him by any media. Should the biographical information be removed if it cannot be verified by those looking into improving the article now?
4. Wikipedia:NACADEMIC #6 could work, but I don't know whether "Senior Research Scholar" is indeed the highest position at NEGHS.
Thanks, all. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have only just started searching for sources on this person, but a quick Google News search shows that he is cited by news reports in many languages (eg Spanish, German, Indonesian, Czech, Hungarian, Italian, Arabic, etc) about the genealogical research he has done showing links between various well-known people (Clinton and Madonna, Elvis Presley and Jimmy Carter, Obama and Bush, that one of President Bush's ancestors was a slave trader, and of course that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are related). These articles go back to 2008, in the current google news (ie not archived). So I am thinking that he would meet WP:AUTHOR #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."
I have also just done a quick search on Newspapers.com, and there are 744 results! I will need to spend time to cull the event listings, the occasions when he was a pall-bearer, etc - but I do see reviews of his books and reports about presentations he gave at conferences, in papers such as The Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. I think it's likely that he will also meet WP:AUTHOR #3. I will try to add sources and any information in them to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tea and crumpets: Thanks for all your comments. I see one of the databases is MasterFile Complete; I have MasterFile Premier, which is not so aptly named as it does not contain the article you cited. It sounds like Gary Boyd Roberts may meet notability based on his media coverage after all. And I too question whether NEGHS is not national... New England colonies were settled so early that it now has a wide national reach. And if not going back to immigrant generation is the main criticism in that one review, I'm actually satisfied that Boyd Roberts did not rely extensively upon commonly known research in that book (as Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's combined ancestry is). Not that that matters for our purpose here.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RebeccaGreen: When I searched for him on the open internet, I mostly got upcycled press releases picked up by the popular media due to celebrity connections, and nothing much to show his peers/successors took his work further, unless we count the book for which he wrote an introduction or foreword. Hmm, I had not checked Newspapers.com. On looking at it now, I see he does have much more coverage there than in ProQuest newspapers! Thank you for offering to improve the article with what you've found. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that Who's Who is considered kind of fishy for notability I'm not sure if receiving their Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award (as Roberts did earlier this year) would qualify for WP:PROF#C2. However, the Who's Who website does describe it as very prestigious. [2] IntoThinAir (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have started adding references to the article - so far reviews of two publications, and sources that verify his early life, education and career. I'll try to do more tomorrow. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per WP:AUTHOR "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Good work by Bearian and RebeccaGreen Lightburst (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A dearth of reviews by independent reliable sources, certainly not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. No specific in-depth biographical coverage of him either, so does not pass WP:BIO. The "Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award" is a well-known vanity gimmick award by a vanity press. The presence of this award here is a major red flag. Nsk92 (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsk92: I don't see any mention of an "Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award" in the article about Gary Boyd Roberts under consideration here. Did you perhaps intend that as a vote on another AfD? RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Comment three paragraphs above mine, by IntoThinAir, with timestamp 22:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC). The Nelson "award", with a link, is mentioned there. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to H. Irving Hancock. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Li Shoon

Li Shoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional character with little notability. Covered by only a few sources after a google search. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per WP:A7 and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) --KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 15:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewindia

Reviewindia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A CSD that contested by the creator Sanjit2012. The company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Matthew hk (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as Promo. Not much to salvage as likely not passing notability either. As a side note, article creators cannot remove CSD tags to contest, they need to make a case on the talk page for admin review. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the author as since deleted the spam csd tag (again), but also removed most of the promo elements. May be in reach of A7 as lacking a credible claim of significance. GNG and NCORP still prevail anyway.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mikiko Watanabe

Mikiko Watanabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It’s a stub and there isn’t a lot of information on this particular person. Of course, I don’t mean to be disrespectful. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HurricaneGeek2002 :P (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because she was a art director does not mean she’s notable. By that logic, every art director you see in movie/tv show credits would have their own page. We can’t redirect the page because it would fall under WP:MEMORIAL. Also, please sign your statements, thank you. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft or Delete - As it stands right now, there are not enough different sources to have this as an article on its own, but perhaps drafting it to see if more sources can be found to not let this article be too stubby would give it chances. ShindoNana talk? 12:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mikiko Watanabe was a noteworthy member of Kyoto Animation and served as one of the studio's main staff on the art direction side (overseeing all non-character art in her productions). In animation, the art director is a senior/supervisory role equivalent to animation director or character designer (which receive their own pages without questions of notability). On an animation production, she would have been one of the top four artists on the project (director, character designer, chief animation director, art director). Additionally, as Watanabe was the art director for 7 productions, she was a prolific creator and one of the major staff on all these projects. She also had a long career with the company as a background artist (first step to becoming an art director) of more than 10 years. This article needs more sourcing and explanation of her role to be suitable, but the question of notability is answered by her extensively production history and importance to the company. Simply because other equivalently-important creatives who hold her job title in other companies/productions haven't been properly represented in Wikipedia doesn't mean she should be removed. LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources exist demonstrating notability in her role as an anime film art director. Polyamorph (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no pictures of her and besides the stuff she worked on, little to no info on her. We can’t include somebody in a article just because they worked on something or two. I also don’t see any notability at all. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You think a photo is a requirement for inclusion? Being a stub is also not reason for deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it is a reason for it to be deleted. There no point of the subject having its own page when there’s not much info on the subject. How can she be notable if there’s not much info on her? HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs are articles in need of expansion, not deletion. There are many sources that state this individual's substantial contributions (as art director) of some significant animated films. Per the notability of people guidelines, a person is notable if they have ...created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. This work has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length movie, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.. Sources are sparse but they do exist, more reviews can be found by searching in Japanese. The recent coverage (despite WP:NOTNEWS) does provide reliably sourced biographical information. I believe they are sufficiently notable. Polyamorph (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Sharma

AfDs for this article:
Shiva Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film producers are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they exist. I'm unable to verify if the subject really produced these films and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMDB link shows that he was only an associate producer for 5 Weddings and Amma ki Boli came in 2013. Can not find anymore solid source that tells anything new.

IamKhandelwal (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Thompson Bartholomew

Lois Thompson Bartholomew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The fact that this article has survived since 2005 only sourced to the author's own website is a sad commentary on our lack of monitoring articles. It may also indicate it is too involved of a process to nominate articles for deletion. I looked for additional sources. I got one or two reviews of her novel, but in places that review basically every young adult novel that gets published, so not something that would show the novel is notable and clearly not enough to show Bartholomew is a notable writer. Beyond that I found works by Bartholomew, such as the poem in the Friend and an article in Meridian Magazine co-authored with her huband. Here (http://www.ldsliving.com/search/author_search?q=Lois+Thompson+Bartholomew) is a listing of her four articles in Meridian Magazine. This is not the stuff notability is made of. This passing one-line mention in an amazingly exhaustive history of Walnut Grove, Minnesota (https://books.google.com/books?id=KBNVAwAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA1993&lpg=RA1-PA1993&dq=Lois+Thompson+Bartholomew&source=bl&ots=nBXAcETim8&sig=ACfU3U1StEL0gTWMEdnxFuPJOVmMPX3ZPQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt1NuM0ffjAhWWUs0KHZ-jBi44ChDoATAGegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=Lois%20Thompson%20Bartholomew&f=false) notes that she lived there for a few years. It's telling that to even get to a third review of her novel I have to dig all the way until I find this blog post [5] from the artly named Forgotten stories blog that gives her work as an example of pseudo-fantasy. Bartholomew is just not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lack of eyes on this article is appalling, especially given the utter lack of notability assertations and sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have found 5 reviews of her novel (in Booklist, School Library Journal, Book Report, Kirkus and Publishers Weekly), but as it's only one novel not several, it would be more likely to make the book notable, rather than her. I'm not suggesting that the novel is notable, though - even apart from any considerations of how much reviews in those journals contribute to notability, they say things like "the novel ultimately falls flat. Both the main and supporting characters as well as their relationships to one another remain cursorily developed. The unmasking of several characters' true identities at the end of the novel consequently delivers little suspense or resonance for readers"; "The conclusion is somewhat disappointing because it is so open ended"; and "there is little to hook readers into making an emotional investment. Without a history of the kingdom, the plot is pretty thin. Tasha's father sounds more like a really nice rich guy than a king, and his abdication sounds more like a lark than the grave act that it was. Another jarring note is the death of young Gil. The situation doesn't fit the rest of the story and seems gratuitous. The author's note asserts that this is not a fantasy but places the kingdom of Comnor alongside Narnia and Prydain. It is a fantasy, but certainly not on the same map as either of those realms." As for WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, there is just not enough: in Newspapers.com I only found birth notices, a book reading, and an article she had written about botulism. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ORPHAN, likely fan/vanity created by SPA from the early days of WP. Agree with premise of nom and would point out further that the current fervor for creating articles that counter bias and such is basically serving to generate articles like this far faster than they can be policed/deleted. Agricola44 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did we have that problem back in 2005 when this article was created? Probably. That was when we thought every candidate for US house was notable among some other unwise inclusion criteria. I have found several articles in Category:1924 births that are sourced only to IMDb. Some may have more sources findable though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts (film)

Hearts (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not qualifies WP:NFO or WP:GNG, no signs of notability, no reliable sources found to establish this is a notable movie. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Must-Watch: HEARTS" ? No Site is not reliable for sure No It's not a review by someone else, just a long qoute by Nakshatra ✘ No
Bhatia, Saumya (5 September 2014). The Asian Age Yes Yes No whole news is just two paragraphs. ✘ No
Pawar, Yogesh (9 March 2014) DNA No Written by another activist/friends Yes Yes Only reliable source ✘ No
Godbole, Tanika (17 February 2014) Gaylaxy No Mag aims at promotion of queer issues No Editorial processes are unknown/ possibly self published no editorial processes. Yes As it is affiliated source and unreliable ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 17:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SL93, * SO we have only two articles out of one has reliable and significant coverage and another has two paragraphs only.
* Gaylaxy is not a reliable source as their editorial processes are unknown and it's a possibly self-published one. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 08:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gaylaxy even has an article here. How about you stop responding to me because I’m not changing my vote? The closing admin will take everything into account. SL93 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional views of the suitability of sources can help clarify consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remain on my stand, as I don't think movie which has only 2/3 reliable sources should have an article on wikipedia. lack of sources and that too reliable sources is a sign of being notable itself. As the movie is recent one, it was notable, it should have more coverage of reliable sources. thanks QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 08:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete I can't find any sources that show that it was actually released. All the sources in the article talk about it as currently being made, and due for release. While they have some information about what's in the film, I don't think they add up to SIGCOV of the film (some have more about the actors than about this film). I have no problem with the reliability or independence of the sources, I just don't think there's enough coverage to meet the notability guideline for unfinished or unreleased films, WP:NFF, which says "films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." If anyone can find evidence that the film was released, and reviews of the completed film which provide SIGCOV, I'm happy to reconsider. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I couldn't find any evidence that the film was actually released - does not meet "widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" as per WP:NFO - definitely non-notable - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to University of Richmond#School of Professional and Continuing Studies. No secondary sources cited, but still can merge some primary source paraphrase. czar 00:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Richmond School of Professional & Continuing Studies

University of Richmond School of Professional & Continuing Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is being one of the five schools of the University of Richmond not considered notable in and of itself? Must a school or division of a university be considered independently notable to have its own page? University of Richmond is tied at #25 in national liberal arts colleges according to U.S. News & World Report College Rankings. [1] Degree programs listed on the rankings page[2] include degree options offered exclusively by the School of Professional & Continuing Studies, including Post-bachelor's certificates and Post-Master's certificates. The majority of the University of Richmond's graduate degrees are offered through the School of Professional & Continuing Studies as well. --Ifrabjousday (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/university-of-richmond-3744
  2. ^ https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/university-of-richmond-3744/academics
    • Notability is not inherited. We need independent sources that specifically focus on this organization, not its parent organization. I don't think that self-published materials or rankings of programs offered by this school are sufficient to establish notability for the school itself but we'll see if other editors agree or disagree. ElKevbo (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the issue and recognize this is discussion that goes well beyond this school and this university. In the meantime, I've started adding references to faculty publications that help make the case for notability. However, school faculty generally align themselves to the university before the school in their publication bios. This may in fact make the case for, rather than against, deletion. --Ifrabjousday (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I agree that it's likely that many constituent units of U.S. colleges and universities - colleges, departments, schools, etc. - are not notable by Wikipedia's definition because there aren't many sources that explicitly focus on them but instead focus on the entire institution or much smaller parts particularly the individual faculty members. There are certainly some exceptions and we must accommodate them but in my experience most of these units exist not as genuinely cohesive units with distinct identities and purposes but they're administrative collections that help with organizational issues e.g., budgets, supervision. Hence they are rarely the explicit focus of independent sources. ElKevbo (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd like to make the argument that the School of Professional & Continuing Studies is notable as a constituent unit because it's unique among small liberal arts colleges (SLAC). Most SLACs in the top 25 do not include a community-facing, open-enrollment continuing and higher education unit (CHE) that offers part-time degrees separate from the main institution. While the main institution offers BA and BS degrees in a number of majors, our school offers its own degrees and majors, taught by its own faculty, and scheduled and priced completely separately from the main institution. Our undergraduate and graduate degrees are professional focused and generally unavailable to students in the main institution. Our unit is not simply an organizational or budgetary unit. We have our own full-time and part-time faculty, our own application processes, our own academic procedures. Our focus as a CHE on a SLAC is making accessible and affordable the often-exclusive resources of the institution to our local community. While this would not be notable at a state institution or land-grant university, this aspect is notable among our competition. --Ifrabjousday (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Syrian Democratic Forces#Alleged internal conflict between SDF factions. Although the merge option has received a fair amount of support, there is an unresolved issue regarding the reliability of the sourcing and original research. Issues of that nature cannot be resolved by merging. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inner-SDF conflict during the Syrian Civil War

Inner-SDF conflict during the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not at all notable or significant, can simply be covered in the SDF and specially the Liwa Thuwar al-Raqqa and Raqqa Hawks Brigade (literally the only groups involved); it already is. There is no need for an entire article dedicated to this "conflict", consisting of sporadic incidents—the last of which was over a year ago, just like there's no need for inner-TFSA, inner-Ahrar al-Sham, or inner-Tahrir al-Sham conflict articles; all of these conflicts are innumerably more frequent and intense than the few cases of inner-SDF fighting. 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼 (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, this article simply should not be deleted, and it seems what is "notable" and what isn't "notable" is a rather subjective topic. This is an essential article as a conflict in the Syrian civil war, there are no articles on the "inner-TFSA" conflict but there are 2 articles on the conflict between rebel factions including the conflict between HTS and Ahrar al-Sham along with additional groups involved, as well as the conflict between the rebels and ISIS. It is a similar conflict as to those between ISIL and the other rebels, and until recently it was a single article but since has been separated into two separate pages for one covering conflict relating to HTS against the other rebel groups, and ISIL against the rebel groups. Your comparison is not comparable at all, and when rebel groups do fight each other articles are created on the subject, for example when Ahrar al-Sharqiya came into conflict with other rebels groups in the Syrian National Army, it was noted on the page covering the inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian civil war. It is not fair, or arguably even objective to not have an article covering internal tensions in SDF, and what is covered on SDF's article is not as detailed nor is it anything more than a summary that even casts doubt on the existence of the internal conflict by calling it an 'alleged conflict, despite how it is actually discouraged to use terms like alleged on wikipedia. The article covers 3 three years worth of infighting that happened on multiple instances and is written in an in depth nature that took hours of research and writing to compile. This article has every reason to exist and has no reasons not to exist, it is an important part of the Syrian Civil War that receives very little attention or gets overlooked, and wikipedia being the world's largest free encyclopedia very well should have the article, for future historical and academic research allowing for the best quality information that can be provided on the subject.

Takinginterest01 (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-rebel conflict is notable since it is widely covered by international press. Many instances were also battle-like clashes with hundreds of casualties each. In contrast tensions between SDF factions is covered, but they rarely escalated into actual conflict. The "three years worth of infighting" refers to what? Three minor incidents every year? It's not about fairness. It's a fact supported by sources; rebel infighting is simply much more frequent than infighting between government or SDF forces, which is why there is no need for articles on the latter. You mentioned that fighting between Ahrar al-Sharqiya and other groups were noted in their respective articles, but there is no article on inner-TFSA fighting despite its frequency.
The article is also highly biased and misinterprets poorly-cited sources. For example, Jaysh al-Salam and the Raqqa Hawks Brigade as a whole are listed as active belligerents in an active military conflict (last related incident took place more than a year ago so it can't be considered ongoing) despite the fact that only certain subgroups of fighters from both groups were involved in sporadic incidents. Pinging @Sakiv, Goodposts, Applodion, EkoGraf, and Bobfrombrockley: for more opinions. 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼 (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find that it covers a subject, which is quite interesting and noteworthy in it's own right. Prior to the creation of the SDF, Northern Syria was split between opposition groups, Kurdish groups and government forces. Ever since the SDF was created, it was positioned as a "neutral" party, which did not actively oppose the Syrian government, but didn't support it, either. However, it's definitely worth noting that far from being a singular, unified force, It is more of a union between the various groups that existed pre-merger. Some of these groups have very different ideas relating to Syria's future and are very split on the issue of negotiations with the Syrian government. Having the clashes between the various factions listed is definitely very helpful to better understanding the internal dynamics of the SDF, as well as it's relations to the other factions in the Syrian Civil War. However, the first half of the article is badly sourced, and I'm not sure if having a military conflict infobox is the best way to display the information at hand. Furthermore, Lightspecs pointed out, the clashes were sporadic at best, relatively minor in scope and limited in frequency. At the same time, I can't deny that it is noteworthy. I believe it has the right to exist, although I'm not sure in what form. As other editors have mentioned, the TFSA is also experiencing similar issues, but has no article of their own. I'd add to that, that Syrian Government and pro-Iranian, as well as some NDF militias have also had sporadic and limited clashes, mostly around petty issues. However, I don't belive that's as much an argument for the deletion of this article, as it is an argument that we need to better cover those subjects as well. One solution, in this case, would be to modify the article - add some better sources, more clarifications, and perhaps change up the way the information is presented to the reader. Another, should the community decide that it's better to delete it, would be to instead merge it with either the SDF article, or the Inner-Rebel Conflict in the Syrian Civil War. I think the information should be preserved in some way, although it also needs some work. I'm generally not a fan of outright deletion, unless the information is either irrelevant, false or otherwise disruptive. In thise case I belive it to be neither. I'm interested in hearing what other editors in the Syrian Civil War community have to say. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As said above, the article in its current is mostly cobbled together from info of other articles, poorly sourced, and does misrepresent the clashes that have occurred among SDF groups. What little fighting took place was more akin to police actions than warfare, not to mention that the infobox does not reflect the complexity of the issues at hand: Some groups mentioned fought among themselves during said conflict, split apart, with different factions backing different sides. In some cases, it is not even clear who was exactly with who during the "clashes" - With some of the most notorious examples being that the Raqqa Hawks have seemingly disappeared since 2017, although most of the militia stayed loyal to the SDF, and the chaos involving Liwa Thuwar al-Raqqa, whose commander has claimed to have not been arrested, and then claimed to have been arrested by the SDF. Furthermore, as far as I remember from reading about inter-SDF "clashes" during the last three years, no source ever mentioned that anyone actually died during SDF vs. SDF events. People were arrested, but they did not die. Considering this, it casts doubt on whether these events should even be called "clashes". Applodion (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Applodion has a long list of criticisms of the article, which seem broadly fair, but they all imply the article needs work, and maybe re-naming, but not that it should be deleted. There is material here that can produce an encyclopaedia article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 14:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Has there been some sort of internal conflict or at least dispute between factions within the SDF? Yes. Is there reliable sourcing on these events? Yes. Then the article should be kept. If there's too much WP:SYNTHesis in the article, then that needs cleaning up, but AfD is not clean-up. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The SDF/NES recently announced readiness to join the 2019 Northwestern Syria Offensive on the side of the Syrian government. However, just a couple of months prior, the 'Army of Revolutionaries' and 'Northern Democratic Brigade', both of which also members of the SDF, had expressed readiness to join the offensive, but on the side of the Syrian opposition. It is clear that there is some kind of a division within the SDF, pertaining especially to the relations of the group vis-a-vis the Syrian govt. I think the article should be modified, maybe have the more badly cited parts rewritten entirely, perhaps even merged with the main SDF article, but as I'm seeing more and more of these issues, I'm tending more toward a keep stance. Goodposts (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Comments vary mostly between "promotional" and "passes GNG"; the case for passing the GNG seems to be made. The rest is editing. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The School of Artisan Food

The School of Artisan Food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a promotional paid piece by a now blocked editor which lacks in significant in depth coverage. There are many mentions but ultimately nothing that satisfies WP:NCORP as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't really apply here as it's not an actual school in the way that Wikipedia defines it. It's nothing more than an organization that offers cooking classes and is not accredited by any qualifying academic boards as a "school", only FDQ Praxidicae (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Former JLS star has a passion for farming". Newark Advertiser. 19 February 2018. Retrieved 18 July 2019.
Last I checked notability is not inherited. John Waters, Buck Showalter, Joan Jett and hundreds of other notable people have visited my favorite restaurant and I can assure you it too is not notable despite it's many local mentions and awards. And I'd hardly call that link significant in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is your favourite restaurant a campus of a national university? This one is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and this is relevant how? What part of notability is not inherited is unclear to you? Praxidicae (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, you can merge / redirect to Nottingham Trent University per WP:ATD-R. For specific sources, I see The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Yorkshire Post and NTU's website. I have copyedited the article a bit and dropped a few more sources in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Teaches Foundation degree courses, lot of coverage in major press, seems to be notable. Have added a couple of external links. PamD
Delete (with nothing to prevent future re-creation by independent editors) if it's proven that it was undisclosed paid editing - and what about the same editor's creation of an article on the school's founder Alison Swan Parente? Presumably COI, perhaps paid? PamD 19:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going through the article - I have already replaced some of the self-hosted sources with independent third-party ones and trimmed some of the fluff. Hopefully this will sufficiently count for the purposes of "future re-creation". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:18, 25 July 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) 17:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What am I advertising by cleaning up the article and replacing sources? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The school has been influential in spreading artisan food techniques. One example is the trendy cheese Young Buck by the cheese-maker Mike Thompson who enrolled on a one-year cheese-making course:
The definition What is artisan food at [6] was cited in multiple research papers, example: Dunne, Michelle; Wright, Angela (2017). "Irish local and artisan foods: Multiples make space!". Cogent Business & Management. 4 (1). doi:10.1080/23311975.2017.1324242.
--AFBorchert (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many "delete" !votes refer to the issue of paid editing; however, the article has since been cleaned up; and it's this version that needs to be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Western Power Corporation

Western Power Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not meet WP:GNG. No third party source. Current article relies entirely on a single article.

Support deletion or merging into another article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:ADHOM with reference to accusing editors of not having carried out a WP:BEFORE search. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Memory

Flight Memory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CORPDEPTH not met. Plenty of links to competitors but no coverage of the software itself. Nothing found on search apart from flight discussion board posts. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t think this piece of software is notable, but I wonder if there might be any value in renaming the article to Flight tracking software or something, since it already makes reference to the main ones and could be expanded on that basis. I’m not sure though whether there would be sufficient RIS for that either as they mostly seem to be discussed on forum sites. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Martinez-Diaz

Jose Martinez-Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet notability standards with coverage in secondary sources. The only third-party source here appears to be a local human interest story about his house! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FYI for passing admins; ineligible for SOFTDELETE, as previously dePRODed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

African-American lobby in foreign policy

African-American lobby in foreign policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this is a hoax as such, but it definitely seems to fail WP:GNG and heavily violates WP:SYNTH.

3 of the refs are to the website of TransAfrica, founded in 1977, who already have an article, and one is to resolutions by ANLCA, which existed for 5 years in the 1960s. The other two refs are to a single 1996 paper by David A. Dickson.

The external links are both dead. What we have so far are 3 disparate organizations, some of which did not even exist at the same time. The claim that they constitute an "African-American lobby in foreign policy" would seem to be synthesis, unless other authors tie them together, and is not a notable distinct concept unless sources treat it as such. Dickson does seem to do this. Do we have any others?

Looking for new sources for 'African American foreign policy lobby' (no quotes), among our new sources we find this paper from 1980, but given the timeframe it describes and specific subject matter of southern Africa that it focuses on, it seems that it may just be about TransAfrica. Of the other sources, at first a few look promising, but this paper does not refer to the lobby as distinct from TransAfrica, so it is no good, same as this book. This book isn't about a lobby.

All the other sources, while perhaps being on related subjects, don't seem to discuss any distinct lobby of this kind. As GNG says, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."

Of interest may be that the article was created by a user who is blocked for sockpuppetry and before that for edit warring, so who knows if this article was in the service of some POV.

Since we seem to only have 1 paper on this direct subject as distinct from TransAfrica, it seems that GNG is not met and the article should be deleted. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_August_10&oldid=910213901"