Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 October	31 October >

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. Tone 11:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Gold bus route S2

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

Route not notable enough to warrant it's own article Commyguy (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is independent coverage of the route in The Oxford Mail and The Bicester Advertiser, as well as the Oxford Mail article already cited. Together these demonstrate the articles meets the general notability guidelines. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing out of the ordinary other than a run of the mill bus route with local coverage only. Ajf773 (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ajf773, Isn't run of the mill coverage context-specific? That is, there's a higher "bar" or threshold to pass for certain types of articles? I would think, for companies, the threshold is the highest and these articles wouldn't pass WP:SIGCOV. However, for a bus route, I'd give them a pass as significant coverage, no? Doug Mehus T·C 01:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on the same reasoning as in this AFD. FOARP (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mirror Cracked. Meets GNG. Bookscale (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unsure what the WP:GNG is for bus routes, but I've got a sentimental spot for bus routes. Nevertheless, Notability seems to be established in at least hyper-local reliable sources per The Mirror Cracked. Idea: Why not move these bus routes to subpages of Stagecoach in Oxfordshire, i.e., Stagecoach in Oxfordshire/Stagecoach Gold bus route S2? Doug Mehus T·C 01:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do subpages for articles. Ajf773 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ajf773, Oh right, yeah, I saw that afterward because I looked it up. Too bad. It'd be nice, I think. Doug Mehus T·C 20:24, 13 November 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 13:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Gold bus route S4

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

Route not notable enough to warrant it's own article Commyguy (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing out of the ordinary other than a run of the mill bus route. Ajf773 (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MILL is just an essay. Sources denote GNG. WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook example of indiscriminate information. Guy (help!) 13:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this bus route seems to generate no notable coverage besides timetable listings and is just indiscriminate information. Hog Farm (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable route. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 19:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not notable enough to sustain own page but surely a merge to Stagecoach in Oxfordshire is an appropriate alternative to deletion? The article is sourced and it seems a waste to just delete the whole page. Bookscale (talk) 09:33, 9 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Cook

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

No evidence of notability; mostly self-sourced, third-party sources have passing or no mention (the only substantial source, before I removed it, was deprecated source globalresearch.ca); WP:BEFORE shows only fringe sources. Has never been a well-sourced article. Not even notable as fringe. PROD removed, but with no effort to remedy the issues. Doesn't even seem notable per WP:NFRINGE, let alone WP:GNG. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 07:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing and claims are self-published. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 4 November 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. There have been no objections to the two rationales for deletion, and the AfD has been open for over seven days; however, as there has been little participation, WP:REFUND applies. SilkTork (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TuxWordSmith

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

Unremarkable software with no evidence of SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Zanhe (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zanhe (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely non notable spin off Scrabble fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:39, 6 November 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 20:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TuxMathScrabble

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

Unremarkable software with no evidence of SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Zanhe (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Zanhe (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zanhe (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely non notable spin off Scrabble fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The family of Mahatma Gandhi

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

Given that notability is not inherited, I can't see how this article meets WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well Gandhi's wife and children all have articles already, so their notability is already established. This article is just tying them all together. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is certainly room for a WP:List article, which might include both notable and non-notable individuals of the family. But the family, as a concept, deserving a page of its own, I can't see. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I suppose Wierd nom! The concept is certainly notable - though none were prominent they have easily received enough coverage, individually and as a group, to meet GNG in his numerous lengthy biographies, and no doubt endless Indian press coverage. But this article is useless, with barely any mention of the subject, and deletion is best. I suspect this nom arises from a discussion I started at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Gandhi_family the day before the nom. As Kautilya3 unhelpfully did not mention this nom there, and I've only just seen it, in accordance with the discussion I have now set up Gandhi family as a disam page between Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru-Gandhi family. The options I set out there were:
- a) Turning into a proper article by adapting chunks from various bios
- b) Redirecting to his bio
- c) a disam page - no doubt most readers are looking for Nehru-Gandhi family

Unless someone wants to do a) this should be redirected to Mahatma Gandhi. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose conversion to a list is another possibility. At present Mahatma Gandhi includes the family tree, but does not I think all mention all the descendents with articles, & a decent list would make sense. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we can always have lists for these things. But for it to be an article, there needs to be detailed coverage in some reliable source. (Sorry that I caught you unawares.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't link basic concepts at me please, that's just RUDE!!! Oh please! There are over a dozen full-length biographies listed at Mahatma Gandhi (I don't claim to have read any). You don't think they have "detailed coverage"? Nor all the individual bios we have? Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pleast don't get touchy. You are still missing the point. A reliable source on Gandhi does not equate to a reliable source on the Gandhi family. Where are the sources for this topic? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be patronizing, annoying, and wrong! Given the pretty minimal level of coverage required for notability, are you really claiming that there is insufficient coverage of his family in all the RS on one of the most written-about figures of the last century? Do his biographies begin when he is adult & never cover his life with his wife and children? Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Family of Mahatma Gandhi is obviously notable. Most of them have their own Wikipedia article and thinking of John also applies here. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does everybody listed in the article have a Wikipedia page? If not, you are unnecessarily dragging them into the public sphere. It could be a WP:BLP issue too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is another wierd and wrongheaded argument, given there are currently only a few words on any of his family, and nobody is in much of a hurry to add more, it seems! Future potential problems are not a valid Afd rationale. Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But all of his sons and many grandsons have article of their own. It’s written nowhere that all family members should have article to have article on family. Family is notable and many of family members too. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See presumption of privacy. I said, "I don't see how this article meets WP:GNG". To prove me wrong, all you guys have to do is to produce two reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the "Gandhi family" as defined in this article. Until you do so, you don't have a notable topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among the many things you don't seem to have noticed is that so far I am the nearest thing you have to a supporter in this discussion! Regarding as defined in this article, note that the entire content relating to the family currently in the article is: "The Gandhi family is the family of Mohandas Gandhi (2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948). ... [skip a load of guff about his nicknames]... Gandhi's family consists of him, his wife and his five sons(He had another son who died within the few days after birth)." You notably don't make any claim that there is no substantial coverage of the "Gandhi family", because of course there is, tons of it. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back, especially the family tree. This is not the same family as the politicians. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what "back" where? The tree is already at Mahatma Gandhi (as mentioned above). Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 21 members of the family in Category:Mahatma Gandhi family currently have WP articles. A common page for all them is very much inline with our rules of co-existence of categories and lists/articles. The article can be target of various other members too who dont have standalone article but deserve mention in an encyclopedia. For example; Gandhi's grandfather Uttamchand Gandhi was a dewan / diwan. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wide range of views; notability of topic not really in question; core issue is whether this should be repeated as a stand-alone article outside of being already chronicled in the main BLPs functioning like a DAB-page or more elaborate NavBox; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable and totally legitimate subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thinking about this, the page should be kept and any discussion about whether an article or a list is preferable (my preference would be a list), should be on the talk page. --Enos733 (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With some work this page can evolve into something very helpful on the lines of Nehru–Gandhi family, give many individuals listed in the page already have wikipedia pages. This would bring clarity and context to a reader who would others find it difficult to piece together with only the invividual articles. Arunram (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having read through the nomination and delete votes again I can’t see a string enough case for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 05:42, 14 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Realms of Trinity

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

This was, effectively, a heavily modded online server for Neverwinter Nights 2 online play. It received considerable coverage and acclaim within the NWN2 modding community, but that doesn't constitute independent coverage in reliable sources. There are a lot of references provided, but they're universally self-published, podcasts, or otherwise non-independent and non-reliable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have much significance outside the Neverwinter Nights community. The sources in the article don't look reliable, and the topic of the article is unlikely to ever gain much coverage in secondary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spinout non-notable article which is just WP:GAMECRUFT. Fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:44, 6 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Known Lands

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

This was, effectively, a heavily modded online server for Neverwinter Nights 2 online play. It received considerable coverage and acclaim within the NWN2 modding community, but that doesn't constitute independent coverage in reliable sources. The IGN links provided in the references here are to a hosted wiki, rather than actual IGN-authored reporting, and so do cannot contribute toward notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have any significance outside the Neverwinter Nights community. The term "known lands" is also vague and might refer to several other things. Not a very active user (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spinout non-notable article which is just WP:GAMECRUFT. Fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:45, 6 November 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 Marjorie Gubelmann. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vie Luxe International

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Appears to be WP:PAID/WP:COI creation. Loksmythe (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Loksmythe (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal is a respectable source.Rathfelder (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, in general. But it's not being used a such, it's a being used for mention of company products as part of a lifestyle feature, not as a source of reliable information about the company. --Calton | Talk 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indistinguishable from an advertisement, with no real sources attesting to notability. --Calton | Talk 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Marjorie Gubelmann, the company's founder, in lieu of deletion. The coverage I found about the company (such as this article in Haute Living titled "Scent of a CEO: Marjorie Gubelmann’s Vie Luxe") are primarily focused on Gubelmann.
Cunard (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect per the above.Catorce2016 (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Marjorie Gubelmann.4meter4 (talk) 10:10, 15 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dasaria

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

This was, effectively, a heavily modded online server for Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2 online play. It received considerable coverage and acclaim within the NWN/NWN2 modding community, but that doesn't constitute independent coverage in reliable sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have any significance outside the Neverwinter Nights community. Not a very active user (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spinout non-notable article which is just WP:GAMECRUFT. Fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Calidum 20:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hawkins

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

Stub article with a single reference fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. (Please note the other Aaron Hawkins AFD is about a different person with the same name.) Calidum 20:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep He's an IEEE fellow, so meets WP:NPROF C3. Judging from his Google Scholar, he also probably meets WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firm pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Pass of WP:PROF#C1 for heavily-cited publications, double pass of #C3 for the IEEE Fellowship and Fellow of the Optical Society of America, and pass of #C8 for being editor-in-chief of IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics. Maybe speedy because the nomination didn't even consider our academic notability guidelines, but in any case I doubt anyone taking those guidelines seriously is likely to choose deletion. And the poor state of our article is not a valid reason for deletion: AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, per all of the above comments. The subject passes several criteria of WP:PROF, including C3 as the fellow of IEEE and of the Optical Society, and C6 as an editor-in-chief of a major journal. The citation data is also impressive with GScholar h-index of 44, and there is at least one significant award; so also passes WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep for unambiguously passing WP:PROF on multiple counts. XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 31 October 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 University of Tulsa. Fail of GNG; reasonable consensus to Redirect to the source university (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick O'Shenanigan Memorial Scholarship Endowment Fund

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is a small scholarship fund for one university. Rogermx (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick delete Obviously no notability, no independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: After conducting a search and noting the merge tag, I intended to vote for a merge. However, on UT's talk page there was no support for a merge, only advocacy to delete this article. Lacking any reliable, indedependent, secondary sources (Facebook? really?) this article fails GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Struck prvious !vote. Persuaded to change to:[reply]
Redirect per DannyS712 below. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Tulsa per discussion above - there may be no support for a merge, but redirecting to the related topic would be okay --DannyS712 (talk) 05:05, 1 November 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 Aviation Survival Technician. Also moved as suggested. Content can be merged from history as desired. Sandstein 08:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Rescue Swimmer Badge

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

No evidence of notability. Citation shows an image of a "Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer insignia" (not the title given here) with zero context about it whatsoever. Only search results are mirrors and people selling the pin without substance about it. Reywas92^Talk 18:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aviation Survival Technician, which is the specialty whose training program grants this. I am more than a little dubious about whether this name is an official designation for the AST wings. But it is used on some commercial sites, and redirects are cheap. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Army Vet did what I should have done and found the official designation of this insignia in the regs, but I'm still not convinced that the insignia itself has any notability independent from the program that awards it? The target article, which already depicts this insignia, should of course be amended with the correct name for it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Aviation Rescue Swimmer Insignia per COMDTINST M1020.6J (page 4-23)--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lean not to Keep as a standalone article, be need more consensus on where to merge/redirect to
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we're not going to keep it as an article, we'll have to consider other articles, such as Uniform Service Diver Insignia (United States). The title I've proposed is right out of the Coast Guard regulation.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Aviation Rescue Swimmer Insignia and then Redirect to Aviation Survival Technician. The old title can also be redirected there as it is a viable search term.4meter4 (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as noted above. This is meant to be part of a list, not a stand-alone article. Montanabw^(talk) 19:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Montanabw, I am assuming you meant to say "move" and not "merge"? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:47, 17 November 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 Badges of the United States Coast Guard. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security Identification Badge

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

Prod denied without reason. No evidence of notability, no sources or coverage, substantive or not, independent or not. Google search only brings up WP mirrors. Reywas92^Talk 18:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unverifiable and run of the mill lapel pin. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Authorized per COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION M1020.6J (page 4-32)--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a primary source with merely a paragraph and a picture. Existence is not notability. Reywas92^Talk 22:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearian ~~Not even worth merging to~~ or merge and redirect to Badges of the United States Coast Guard. It doesn't merit a standalone article. (Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Authorized badge of Coast guard. Gaarmyvet found it, and I confirmed it. WP:PRESERVE WP:NOTPAPER Wm335td (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to mindlessly name links, I'll quote them and give another: "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies." WP:NOTABILITY. Acknowledgement of its existence is PRESERVED at Badges of the United States Coast Guard. Reywas92^Talk 22:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes this medal exists, but without independant sourcess, how can a standalone article be warranted? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion, a redirect might be the good route. Admins: this is not a second !vote but an alternate. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yep, no probs with a redirect. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really can see the handwriting on the wall. Charles D. Michel links to the page but the refs there are dead; I've flagged them.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Badges of the United States Coast Guard.4meter4 (talk) 10:06, 15 November 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. doesnt seem to be much point relisting since no one else commented since the last relisting. There is no clear consensus that GNG is or is not met at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Valdez

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

Article about footballer who made a few appearances in the Romanian and Paraguayan top divisions (both of which are considered fully-professional at WP:FPL). The online English-, Romanian-, and Spanish-language coverage of this footballer is entirely routine (poor guy suffered with swine flu while in Romania: [1]) and the presumption of notability in WP:FOOTBALL doesn't hold when there is such a comprehensive failure of WP:GNG. The article hasn't been improved in the past 10 years, and with the complete lack of significant coverage, there is no reason to believe it ever will. Jogurney (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG which is more important than squeezing by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I was not able to find anything on the internet for the majority of his WP:NFOOTY pass, his Paraguayan career, but I did add a couple of sources I found quickly to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG with sources added since the nomination. Meets NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand how anyone would conclude that article meets the GNG. The prosport.ro transfer announcement article is the closest thing to significant coverage, but it reads as routine coverage to me (just a quick rundown of his prior career). Jogurney (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The combination of that one, and the Gazeta Sporturilor, both a decade old, from a quick search for a player that meets WP:N does it, barely, for me. I'd think a detailed search would find more. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I respectfully disagree; the gsp.ro article is nothing more than a note about him contracting swine flu. I did a detailed search and found nothing that gives an impression of significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't see these as GNG, because they say almost nothing about this player. What are we going to write in our article? "Abel Valdez was signed in 2009 to Astra Ploieşti, played two games, and got the swine flu." (That is pretty close to what the article actually says.) We just don't need stand-alone pages for articles that won't grow beyond a few sentences, because nobody is writing secondary sources for us to summarize. – Levivich 03:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus divided over whether to keep or delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 18:13, 6 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artyom Alimchev

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

Article about footballer who made four appearances in the Russian regionalized third-tier league. The online English- and Russian-language sources covering this person are limited to a handful of match reports and database entries. It's unclear whether the Russian third-tier is a fully-professional league (I'm skeptical that it is), but in any case this is a comprehensive failure of WP:GNG and any presumption of notability from WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't hold. Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG which is more important than squeezing by on NFOOTBALL. I agree that Russian third division is likely not fully pro. Giant Snowman 09:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no article – Levivich 03:43, 5 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield Girls' Primary School

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

Non-notable primary school. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing makes this primary school stand out, lack of notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sub-secondry schools need actual claims to notability, which is totally lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill school and sources. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 4 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Habito

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

Not notable--refs are PR or notices of initial funding; the articles shows clear cos, and probably paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The only substantial independent articles that I could find are about investors; such as this: [2].4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a profile on the founder, at the BBC, which includes some info and criticism of the company. I'll keep looking for WP:SIGCOV - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. Its services might have garnered some coverage, but the corporation itself is privately held and has zero coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP, HighKing⁺⁺ 17:26, 5 November 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 Jaci Velasquez discography. Clear consensus not to keep the article, but given the suggestion that the information could be merged to her discography, I've redirected instead of deleting outright. Previous content remains in the history for merging if desired. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez (album)

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

Recreation of On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez. If the AfD concludes as keep, the article should be moved there. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. It has one review and the AllMusic rating. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of coverage in third-party, reliable sources. I do not think a redirect would be helpful in this case because a redirect for On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez already exists (as pointed out by the nominator). Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have the sources that I can see on the Web to satisfy WP:GNG, nor does it appear to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NALBUM. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. Here, here, Here, and Here you can see that the album charted over several months on Billboard.4meter4 (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Low placement on minor charts does not help to reach notability criteria. Remember, NALBUM states albums "must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and that they "may be notable" if it meets at a criterion, not that it is automatically notable. In this case, basic criteria has not been met and the low charting hasn't helped it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are adding your own extra criteria that goes beyond what the actual guideline says in criteria 2. It doesn't matter where she placed on the chart, only that she placed. And a Billboard chart is always notable since it's the most recognizable chart in the recording industry. There is a critical review and multiple months of placements on a notable chart. All together, it's a notable album.4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Walter Görlitz. WP:NALBUM includes chart placement in the following category (Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:). That is taken directly from the page so it not really a matter of personal interpretation. The page clearly says that chart placement may point to a recording's notability, not that it does on its own. The page puts more importance on coverage as shown in this part (All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.). Again, that is a part taken directly from WP:NALBUM. One critical review is not enough to support significant coverage. The chart placements and review do suggest a limited notability, but since a shorter and more exact redirect (On My Knees: The Best of Jaci Velasquez) already exists, I do not see a reason for redirecting this too. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adoba47:The guideline does says, "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." If we are going to interpret subject specific guidelines as not really applying unless they meet the criteria at WP:GNG then there is no point to having WP:NALBUM or any other subject specific guideline at all. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Are you reading the two sentences of the preamble? That's what we're quoting from. The criteria states that a subject meeting the points may be notable, not that it is automatically notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no suitable sources; other than e-commerce sites and AllMusic/Discogs, all I can find with a Google Search is this, which appears to be slighly BLPSPS. Also, even if we take Dodger67's comment at face value, such a reduction in notability is temporary; this came out in 2006, and having not achieved notability in the intervening 13 years means that it probably wouldn't do so anytime soon. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I get a vote, that is. This is the author of the article in question. I just don't get it. Why is there even a discussion about this article? I look around at other articles on Wikipedia and see literally dozens with one reference and more than a few with none. Personally, I'm glad they are there because I wanted to see them. I was looking for them. An encyclopedia is about access to information that people want to read. All of it, not just what's popular. If any information is absent then we don't get the full experience and what we come away with is less than it could or should be. I think some of you take the guidelines way too far and I will go as far as to say maybe they should be revisited as there seems to be some confusion as to what they are. I understand that you don't want every Sally Sunshine posting articles about her cat having kittens or Junior getting a participation trophy, and I thank you for that. The world does not need another Facebook. Didn't need the first one, but that's another discussion. There will be a lot of deserving material left out if we absolutely need a review from someone who's opinion may or may not coincide with everyone else's. I rarely agree with critics. Collecting music is a longtime hobby of mine and I'm often frustrated because I can't find an album on Wikipedia when I search for it. I've also found that the articles on Wikipedia tend to be more accurate than AllMusic or Discogs. That's one of the reasons I began posting articles. Because what I was looking for was not there. It should be there, otherwise what's the point? Just for the record, I am not paid to post, nor do I know any of the artists whose articles I've submitted, some of which have already disappeared from Wikipedia to my utter frustration. Thank you.HowlinMadMan (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because other articles exist with one reference or are lacking notability does not mean that this article should continue to exist. If you want to nominate those articles for deletion, feel free to. The instructions are at Wikipedia:Deletion process. "Deserving material" is not the criteria, notability is. Your pattern of editing does not make it seem as though you're a paid editor. I understand your frustration. When you wrap your head around notability criteria though, you'll be much less frustrated. And one thing further, it's not a bad thing to create an article about a subject that's not notable, it's actually part of the learning process. We're constantly having deletion discussions like this about old and new articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what I was saying at all. Did you just skim my post? I know I tend to ramble and get a little long winded, but… really? I would not nominate a perfectly good article for deletion just because it didn't have enough sources. All I care about is that it's accurate. Even if I don't want to read it, someone else might be looking specifically for that unremarkable article. Personally, I believe if a well known artist, or even most that aren't so well known for that matter, releases an album, even if it tanks, it's notable and interesting, even if just to show that the golden boy or girl or band doesn't always hit the ball out of the park. It may not necessarily be remarkable, but it can still be notable. This album we're discussing charted at number 22 on one of the Billboard charts. Several songs on the album peaked at number one on that chart. Is that not notable? Even it it hadn't charted at all, I wish it had been there when I was searching for it. If I'm interested in, say, Nina Simone. There's a lot of the old stuff that you just can't find, easily, on the internet. The older artists aren't flashy enough to get the kid's attention, and I'm not going down to the library and rolling out the microfiche just to look for a source. I want to be able to read about every album she ever released, and not just the titles. I want the details. That's why you open an encyclopedia. That's the only reason you open an encyclopedia, to be honest. To learn everything you can on a particular subject. The good and the bad. That's just an example. For all I know Wikipedia may have all the details on Ms. Simone that I'd ever want to read. But back to the subject. You missed my point entirely in your nice effort to help me understand where I went wrong. I'm sure you're a smart person, but you're a tad condescending. I'll bet you didn't even realize you were doing that, actually, and if you did realize it… well, I've said enough about that already. I'm always happy to learn something new, but only if it's knowledge I truly lack in the first place and the teacher isn't talking to me like my IQ is 85. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I understand notability. And that brings me to my point once again. Notability means nothing to me if I can't find what I'm searching for. You guys are too hung up on that term, IMO. Notability. I know… you have standards to keep and that's great. Accuracy is a much better word. It an article is accurate then it should be published. The problem, as I see it, is you only want the caviar, but sometimes people want some pâté or maybe even some balogna. I want to be able to find the stuff I can't find anywhere else. I can read about Taylor Swift and Beyonce all day long and never open a Wikipedia page. That's what should be of concern to whoever is running the show. Stand out. Be unique. Be accurate. Be plentiful. People, or users like myself, want to find the stuff that's not readily available elsewhere. The stuff you can't find on AllMusic or Discogs. Or, to be more precise, a better, more accurate, representation of it. We want the caviar too, just not only the caviar. Not only the notable stuff which can easily be confused with popular (when you're relying on two or more reviews to set the standard). What are reviews but one persons opinion? Again, it sort of speaks to popularity. Information is key and you guys are deleting it because it didn't make the front page. You're deciding what people can and can't read. That's actually kink of scary, when you think about it. It even crossed my mind that the reason this article was marked for deletion might be because of it's religious nature. It was just a fleeting thought and I didn't seriously consider it. Now, I know there's probably a bunch of you guys gathered around a honking big round table, sharpening you swords and lances, smiling and winking at all the pretty wenches, and making all these decisions about which article lives and which one dies. Sorry, I suppose that's a little condescending, but it still paints a good picture. No offense. IMO, and yes, I know that means squat here, you should choose life in most cases. I mean, what does it really hurt, except to take up a small amount of space on a server? True, enough small spaces and you have a larger space but if you kill it, nobody benefits. The bottom line is, if Wikipedia doesn't have what I need, then what good is it to me? Once again, no offense. Business management 101. Oh, before I forget, my frustration is mostly because I can't find what I'm looking for on Wikipedia in the first place (that's why I decided to create my own articles, so others might find what they're looking for) and not because what I'm looking for isn't notable enough. It's just not there. I can only assume someone deleted it. And yes, that's frustrating as well. Again, no offence, or maybe just a little. Good day.HowlinMadMan (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I did just skim your post and I'm not reading much beyond that question here. However, when you write that you "create my own articles" because you apparently can't find them elsewhere, then maybe you should try blogging. Wikipedia is only a place for articles on notable subjects. Notability is linked above. Also see WP:NOTBLOG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The information about this album can be contained within the article on the main artist (Jaci Velasquez) and a simpler redirect (On My Knees: The Best Of Jaci Velasquez) already exists so that anyone who is interested in learning more about this album or Velasquez in general can learn more about both. There would not really be a loss of information in this scenario. I can understand your frustration, because no one likes having an article that they created go to an AfD. But, I would recommend that you re-examine your argument. Again, this information could be housed in the Velasquez article and could still be accessed by anyone who is interested so I do not think your argument on information loss entirely holds up here. The article was not nominated as some sort of anti-religious statement and describing editors as "a bunch of you guys gathered around a honking big round table, sharpening you swords and lances, smiling and winking at all the pretty wenches" is not helpful. You accuse others of being condescending, but that kind of language is unnecessary for this kind of discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably meets NALBUM but that is not a sufficient condition to confirm notability/GNG; are there any other RS that could do this? Try on last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think this meets the GNG notability guidelines (it's post-internet, and I've searched several places in-depth, and why would anyone write about a generic "greatest hits" compilation of previously-released material anyway? so I actually doubt there's anything available), but on the other hand there is a lot of verified, non-controversial information available to a reader seeking information about this notable artist. On the other hand, someone seeking more information about this is likely to own the album, and there's little here that can't be found on the album itself. Merging to her discography seems like a good idea, although it would look awkward in that all the other entries have their own articles. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. I just wanted to clarify that there are several albums in this artist's discography that do not have independent articles, including another compilation album Mi Historia Musical. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. I don't think that information was ever built, for those albums. The reason I'm mulling is that I don't really think the topic is notable as a stand-alone article, and accordingly per WP:PRESERVE, WP:SUBNOT and WP:NALBUM the information should be merged into the artist biography or discography. Discography seems the obvious choice to me. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:05, 18 November 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 List of encyclopedias by language#Polish. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Encyklopedia Polski

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

(So we don't have a deletion sort listing for books...?). Anyway, this seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (books) and WP:GNG in general. No awards, no reviews. It exists - that's it. No article on pl Wikipedia as an extra red flag. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is no coverage then we have to delete - but were there really no reviews of such a major undertaking? Are Polish newspapers from 1996 available somewhere in a digitized form to look for reviews in? Haukur (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but there's still nothing to suggest this is notable. It exists and is not a hoax. That's not enough to merit us having an entry on this. Most books are not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Already added some more comprehensive details and not just a two volume encyclopedia Telex80 (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but find some more RS sources.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bellerophon5685: What's your rationale for keeping? AfD WP:NOTAVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In such, that notability of the article weren't applied on true impact, So I will said to Keep that article. Telex80 (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What impact? The point is this work has none. It exists, might have been even used as a supplementary materials in some school courses... that doesn't mean it passes WP:GNG/Wikipedia:Notability (books). Feel free to counter me by listing criteria from those policies that this work meets. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be a notable topic. EvilxFish (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I found two peer reviewed journal articles that include the work as a citation and a few doctoral theses as well. Not sure if being utilized in academic research lends to notability though. Thoughts?4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Keeps are not yet providing any RS - perhaps 4meter4 has something?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I have nothing to add then what I already stated. It's a source used as a reference in published academic papers, but not any independent coverage. This needs a polish fluent editor with access to polish language references. That's where any RS, if it exists, will be found. I can confidently state there is nothing in the English language. I just left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland for help from Polish speaking wikipedians. Maybe relist one more time to see if anything crops up. If not, deletion is probably the best option. 4meter4 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Wikipedia has a number of Polish encyclopedias (see the category "Polish encyclopedias"), but there is no "List of Polish encyclopedias where this could be mentioned? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @4meter4 and Coolabahapple: I am Polish :) And I found nothing. That said, Polish sources, such as book reviews etc. are not indexed very well in Google Scholar or such, so there might be some offline or poorly indexed sources I just didn't see. But we can't keep something on the hope that there may be something. So far no indication has been found that it meets notability guidelines mentioned in the lead: no reviews, no awards. At best one could soft delete, redirect and merge it to List_of_encyclopedias_by_language#Polish or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_encyclopedias_by_language#Polish per Piotrus' very reasonable solution.4meter4 (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_encyclopedias_by_language#Polish, agree with above. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_encyclopedias_by_language#Polish. Came from posting at [3] WikiProject. I can't find all that much written on the encyclopedia as a topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MozeTak (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

InstaLoad

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. Back in 2010, Microsoft sent out a press release about some vaporware,[4] and (surprise!) Gizmag and Wired parroted the PR copy.[5][6] What happened next was... absolutely nothing.

WP:TOOSOON explains why we don't run out and make stubs every time somebody announces a new thing they very much hope to do, but have not in fact done yet. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep:*Neutral:Delete: nom reasoning seems reasonable unless someone comes up with improvements.10:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 10:24, 2019 October 22 (UTC)

(Changed to neutral due to discussions at 28 October below) ... Microsoft are still (rightly or wrongly) advertising the licensing of the product [7] and Amazon cited it from a patent, albeit very minor. [8] and the links URLs are available on Wayback.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing MPD passing mention for MPD in designWorld Jan 2016 p 397. I'd also note [9] and [10]. Thats possibly not quite enough really for a keep. but I think there is some sign of implementation and some sign of uniqueness. Coin cell batteries are a likely target as bigger stuff is usually physically made Djm-leighpark/idiot proof against incorrect insertion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the topic accrued some speculative coverage in 2010, but a search for sources by date do not reaveal any sources published post 2010, which indicates to me the subject fails WP:NCORP (which also covers company products.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: For a while, I could not determine what to advise here. Wikipedia is not a collector of bad ideas, but this one is quite the opposite. It is a great idea. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that "great" is subjective. What exactly is great here? Well... it is a "great idea" in that it is an "idea with the potential to have impact". But ten years has passed and it did not have an actual impact. I tried looking for more details on it too. It seems its Channel 9 video has been taken down. Only the video's description page remains. Looks like it is just another idea that never took off. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dennis (product and gng) — Ched (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Changing to Keep Per Cunard's input. Barca (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Dennis Bratland: I wouldn't say nothing happened. I did find one peer reviewed journal article from 2012 which indicated that it is being used in the medical technology sector: "Designing a more patient-centric battery holder.(Emphasis On Batteries)"; Blaha, Tom, Medical Design Technology, Sept, 2012, Vol.16(7), p.16(2). This moves it towards a keep, but not sure if this quite meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They actually shipped a product that uses it? What's it called? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland: According to the article, Memory Protection Devices makes and sells them under a licensing deal and they are used by EMTs on ambulances. Pretty much all of their battery holders use them [11]. It's also used with patients who need life saving battery powered equipment that are not physically capable of changing the battery themselves. They still sell them by the looks of their website, so they have been selling from 2012-present day. 4meter4 (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like more of a reason to create Memory Protection Devices than keep an article about a patent Microsoft holds. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because it's still marketed as an InstaLoad Battery Carrier by Memory Protection Devices, and it's the actual InstaLoad invention that is the main subject of the sources. I don't think there are enough sources to create an article on Memory Protection Devices either. 4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who markets what as what does not dictate article creation. What matters is sources. Instaload has not received significant, ongoing, sustained coverage in independent reliable sources. It has a handful of brief mentions. Memory Protection Devices can claim to exist, yes, but it has hardly received significant coverage in reliable sources either. If it has, notability is not inherited from one to the other.

In the end, you've got to ask: what have you got for an article? Most of what's there is from press releases, or newsblogs parroting 1 for 1 every press release fact. How much content can you actually cite to independent sources? Not enough to ever grow beyond a stub. This has been a stub for 8 years and it will still be a stub in a decade. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong about a stub. Stubs are useful, and some notable topics only need a brief entry even in professionally published encyclopedias. There's no policy for deleting stubs. Further, you can't predict the future, and how an article may develop over time.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After evaluating the other sources in the article, I think there is enough here with the journal article I found to meet WP:SIGCOV. That journal article substantiates that the product is being used in a meaningful way to the world (ie real world notability). I added that content to the article. 4meter4 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Ched:@BarcrMac:@Flowing dreams:@SamHolt6: You may want to re-evaluate your decision based on the newly presented reference which is an independent peer reviewed journal article where InstaLoad being made and sold by Memory Protection Devices is the main subject of the article. I have a PDF of the article but I am not certain how to share that kind of file on wikipedia. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Flowing dreams has been blocked as a sock, I've struck through their edit. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 29 October 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)} 15:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per 4meter4. I vaguely remember an article, discussing this at about the time it was announced, and comparing it to competing solutions to the underlying problem, but don't remember any of the details any more (and unfortunately don't have time to search for it now). It might have been in a photography-related magazine, possibly even in German language. So, there was at least some (although not much) independent coverage back then. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Cmon people - read the guidelines for establishing notability! The references are garbage. This is an announcement from Microsoft, fails as a PRIMARY source as they cannot be used to establish notability. not independent. Exact same failure for this from newatlas.com which is entirely based on an announcement. This reference from electronicproducts.com is an advert/churnalism from a partner company (and written by Tom Blaha the CEO) that licensed the technology, it fails because it is not Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND. This reference is a Primary source and cannot be used to establish notability and it is basically an advert. The last reference inserted by 4meter4 does not appear to be available online but it is also written by Tom Blaha, therefore cannot be used to establish notability as he is the CEO of a connected company. Topic is a total failure of GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of the source I added. The article went through an academic peer review process, so discrediting it as a un-usable source is not really fair given the publishing criteria of the journal.4meter4 (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 4meter4, this is a common source of disgruntlement from those who have not properly read/comprehended the guidelines to references to *establish notability*. These are not the same guidelines are sources that may be used to support facts/information within an article. It is incorrect and inaccurate to say that I have "discredited" the reference as an "un-usable source". I have not. I have ruled it as inadmissible *for the purposes of establishing notability* because it is a Primary Source and also fails the test for "Independent Content" since it was written by the CEO - the same guy who was name-checked in Microsoft's Press Release!. Regardless of whether the publication is scholarly or academic, WP:ORGIND is very clear and unambiguous - "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by 4meter4 (talk · contribs). That the product received significant coverage in an academic peer-reviewed journal strongly establishes notability. I also found this article^{Internet Archive} in Geek.com that provides two paragraphs of analysis about InstaLoad from journalist Brian Osborne under "Brian's Opinion":
I can almost hear parents around the world rejoicing over the notion that they won’t have to try to read small battery diagrams on game controllers or toys anymore, ensuring that when they replace batteries they are putting them in the right way. Some people may be confused why Microsoft of all companies would be introducing such a technology. The answer is obvious when you consider Microsoft Hardware makes keyboards, mice and game controllers which are big consumers of batteries.
It was a nice touch that Microsoft decided to offer a royalty-free licensing program for products designed for people with hearing, vision or learning disabilities. It is these consumers who will probably benefit the most from the InstaLoad technology. It would have been unfortunate if they were forced to pay more for products to gain access to InstaLoad since a paid license to use the technology would add cost to a device.
Cunard (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Nope. It has been pointed out to you several times that the criteria for establishing notability goes far beyond mere "reliable sources". You know that. There must also be "Independent Content". Nor is an academic source an automatic acceptance. To reiterate what I've said above - we don't make exceptions that "Primary Sources" are acceptable if they're published in an academic peer-reviewed journal. We require "Independent Content" and has been pointed out to you several times in the past, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If you disagree, please point to the relevant guidelines that supports your point of view.

As to "Brian's Opinion", it provides no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation nor investigation. Brian couches his pronouncements in vagueness - he can "almost" hear parents rejoicing and certain consumers "probably" benefit the most. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 09:41, 7 November 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 trending towards keep. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Scowsill

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

Another five years on from the previous discussion, the subject does still not appear notable per WP:BIO as none of the sources provide substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree the WP:SIGCOV isn't established. In the sources available, he is mostly mentioned briefly or that source in question is a press release. Not notable. Gargleafg (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject seems adequately referenced in the media. There is a significant discussion of him in multiple reliable sources, including Forbes, Reuters (a few times), The New York Times (a few times), The Seattle Times, Washington Times, The National, El Pais, and others. The Wikimedia Commons contains dozens of images of the subject speaking at the global events, which as well signifies of decent notability.--WikedRohutirts (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are many sources in the article, but none of them establish notability. The claim above that there is "significant discussion of him in multiple reliable sources" is not the case. Many of the sources are just are him being quoted for something about the travel industry, and are not about him. Others are routine business announcements about executive hirings. None of the references in the article represent significant coverage from independent reliable sources. My own search turns up more of the same. Also the existence of photographs pf somebody at Commons does not indicate notability, it indicates somebody uploaded freely licensed photos of him.- Whpq (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He's a widely cited authority on the travel industry and is a ubiquitously interviewed commentator across the media in major and minor publications. There are many Q and A type interviews with him in the media where he is the main subject (or rather his opinions on topics). I did find some other sources through my university database, including quotes of him in peer reviewed journal articles and some articles where he is the main subject. Appologies for not having urls because my university search tool is internal and I don't have any to give by the means I am using to access the material. See these:

"World Travel and Tourism Council taps Scowsill as next CEO: resume includes stints with AA, Hilton, Opodo.(NEWS)(David Scowsill)"; Weissmann, Arnie; Travel Weekly, Oct 11, 2010, Vol.69(41), p.23 (main subject)
"Q&A with WTTC president, CEO David Scowsill.(World Travel and Tourism Council)(Interview)"; Scowsill, David; Travel Weekly, May 16, 2011, Vol.70(20), p.19
"Interview: WTFC's David Scowsill.(Interview); Baker, Michael B.; Business Travel News, Oct 10, 2011, Vol.28(14), p.6(1)
"BOOKS: The book that shook David Scowsill, chief executive of Opodo"; Management Today, Sept 15, 2003, p.44
"David Scowsill is Interviewed on Bloomberg Surveillance"; CEO Wire, Mar 13, 2014
"David Scowsill Talks About the Global Travel Industry and What Individual Nations Can Do to Help It Grow.(Travel Desk)(Q&A)(Industry overview)"; Christiansen, Kenan; The New York Times, March 30, 2014, p.3(L)
"Scowsill calls for unity"; Travel & Tourism News Middle East : TTN, Jul 1, 2011
"International Sustainable Tourism Policy"; Edgell, David; The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Fall 2015, Vol.22(1), pp.25-36 (cited in this peer reviewed journal article)
"2050 Scenarios for Long-Haul Tourism in the Evolving Global Climate Change Regime"; Vorster, Shaun ; Ungerer, Marius ; Volschenk, Jako; Sustainability, 2013, Vol.5(1), pp.1-51 (cited in this peer reviewed journal article)
"Job satisfaction and employee turnover determinants in high contact services: Insights from Employees’Online reviews"; Stamolampros, Panagiotis ; Korfiatis, Nikolaos ; Chalvatzis, Konstantinos ; Buhalis, Dimitrios; Tourism Management, December 2019, Vol.75, pp.130-147 (cited in this peer reviewed journal article.

In addition to these, there are close to 400 other print articles in which he is interviewed. Theres just enough RS to pass WP:GNG in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: This just looks like more of the same - none of them appear to provide substantial coverage of the subject and a million mentions, quotes and book reviews(!) cannot substitute for 2-3 sources providing substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 20:22, 31 October 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)} 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he seems to be the mainstream media go-to guy for comments on travel and tourism crises. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: I don't dispute that, apart from the should be a, but how does that translate into meeting any criteria for inclusion? SmartSE (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - People considered experts in major fields tend to have articles. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Sympathy with the nom, but the subject is interviewed in too many high-quality RS. His database of video appearances (CNN, CNBC, BBC etc.) is even more impressive ([12]). WP:BASIC says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability; these are not trivial references, the subject gives material interviews to major RS on the industry. Britishfinance (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RS appears to be SIGCOV and so gng is met. Wm335td (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial psychology

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

WP:TNT: I believe the current contents of the article are entirely original research. It was created in 2008 with no references, by a brand-new user who hasn't made any other substantial contributions. The article attributed the theory to a "Dan Curtis (b. 1963-)"; I have been unable to find any direct record of Mr. Curtis's work on the topic. Instead, there are a number of post-2008 sources which vaguely attribute the idea to Curtis, with some calling 1963 his year of birth, others the year in which he coined the term. For instance, [13][14][15]: these all seem to me instances of citogenesis/cribbing from Wikipedia.

Separately, a number of Chinese researchers have published work on an "artificial psychology" concept (e.g., [16][17][18]): This is distinct from the Curtis idea in that it involves using computers to model or analyze human psychology, rather than using psychological techniques to "reason" with an artificial intelligence. I am unable to determine whether the Chinese concept would merit a stand-alone article. Cheers, gnu 57 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep Whereas the proposal is correct in that as it stands this article is rather poor however there are appropriate secondary sources that discuss this topic, suggesting the article is salvageable. EvilxFish (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that other sources have discussed concepts called "artificial psychology" (which appear to me to overlap in scope with cognitive engineering); but I believe the particular contents of this article to be entirely made-up. Cheers, gnu 57 01:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This source appears reliable to me. I do recognise the concerns about citogenesis/circular referencing, but the source is peer-reviewed, which to me is a significant mitigating factor. If the original Wikipedia article was just made up, then the peers who were doing the reviewing would have caught that. I would tend to believe that instead, the original author was a subject-matter expert or knowledgeable student who had access to material that isn't free online.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Article could use some work but it is fine to build upon. DeloreanTimeMachine (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep But it needs many changes. I generally agree with the nom and think the first place this was published was here. That is why we need to correct it here. If we delete the article someone will add those refs based on (probable) cytogenesis. I'm not trusting any post-2008 source. I would change it back to "Dan Curtis (b. 1963-)". Was that more common for people without articles in 2008? Could make 3-4 sections for usage over time.Ngram chart Maybe pre-computer, early computer, Chinese researchers, Curtis section. This book from 1974 might be good for early computer Homo Cyberneticus: Artificial psychology and generative micro-sociology. StrayBolt (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Genovese

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

Still no evidence in the article that supports this person is notable (WP:BASIC). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jessica Bendinger a notable writer researched the subject for 4-5 years for the podcast she co-presents which is therefore a reliable source with a dozen or more episodes, also coverage in historic newspapers and LA Times already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the LA Times article, there's only blog-based folklore. This is not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:PERP. The LA Times article offers little to no information about her history against Vito or her supposed involvement in the queer community, which is only mentioned, not described. BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Also just because a podcast is being conducted by a notable person does not mean the content itself is notable, see WP:INHERITWEB. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the podcast is researched and written by a respected notable writer then it has strong claims to be a reliable source and there is also historic newspaper coverage,imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Still not enough to convey its notability per INHERITWEB - very little coverage on the podcast to show supposed notability. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITWEB discusses the notability of a source on the web. That is not relevant here. What matters is whether the source is, in this case, sufficiently reliable. A reliable source need not be notable. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant when you're trying to make the argument that she is notable just because she is in some podcast by a notable person that has very little coverage. Further, that LA Times article, the only reliable source in the article, is talking more about the podcast than it is about Anna, neither of which have enough coverage to have a stand alone article. This article along with the newspaper clipping that takes up a small portion of the paper do not provide sufficient evidence, or substance, that would warrant its own article outside the two sentences that could be written at Vito's, per BASIC. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source does not have to be popular or notable it only has to be reliable, for example an article in a scientific journal by a professor may not be popular or notable but it's still reliable Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And what I'm saying is, is that there are not enough reliable sources that prove to verify substantial info (BASIC) beyond the fact that she has testified once or twice against her husband and was a hostess at a gay bar (non notable) - all of which can be said in two lines at Vito Genovese (as I have already merged the small amount of verifiable information to his page). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a podcast about a person is not a book, and thus does not create automatic notability, and there is no other notability criteria covered. The fact we lack a birth year to me argues against the reliability of the article and that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Atlantic306, there is coverage in contemporary newspapers - over 800 results on Newspapers.com. It will take a while to go through them and add sources to the article - but it is clearly quite incorrect to say that there is only a podcast and an LA Times article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com requires a paid subscription and there is no indication if those sources are substantially about her, or just mention her in passing while talking about other things that are the main topics. Still not enough to meet BASIC or PERP. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a paid subscription to Newspapers.com (although actually it is possible to get one through Wikipedia). The sources can be clipped so that non-subscribers can view them. What I meant by "It will take a while to go through them and add sources to the article" is that I will read the newspaper articles, find the ones that are substantially about her, and add them to the article. You cannot say yet that it is not enough to meet any notability guideline, as the sources are not yet there to assess. Note that I did not !vote, I just commented about the existence of newspaper articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a lot of work - are you willing to do it - is anyone willing to do it? If the articles are hard to access for the general public or wikipedians, it will be difficult to verify the info. These articles are from the 50s - the clippings I've read that are accessible so far barely mention her involvement in the gay bars (or mention that she is waitress, not a supposed owner - which is not notable). Other than that we have the event where she testified against Vito. A single event. Barely notable - if at all. Perhaps the article may be better suited for the WP:DRAFTSPACE until it shows that it can meet notability guidelines (which I still really don't think it can). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently do it for articles brought to AfD, to check whether and then show that the subjects are notable. The sources are not hard to access once clipped, and even if they were, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that would be good if you could find sources to make it meet guidelines - however, until then, if it would take you a while, this article should really be moved to the draft space until it is ready, if it does not get deleted that is, as it is in shambles right now with regards to its writing style and sourcing. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have brought it to AfD, it should not be moved anywhere until there is a result here. If consensus is to draftify, then it will be moved to draftspace after the AfD ends. I hope that this will be relisted, as it has been listed for only one week so far, with one Keep !vote - there is certainly not consensus to delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - if it does not get deleted (which I still think it should for the record) - it should be moved to draft until it can be demonstrated it actually is a notable subject (which I still don't think it will be after scouring your news articles for the reasons I stated two posts above). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. It will be up to editors who participate in this discussion to give an opinion about whether the article meets notability guidelines and should be kept; does not meet notability guidelines and should be deleted, or merged, or redirected; or has potential but is not ready for mainspace and should be moved to draft. Then the closing editors will assess the consensus. If consensus is to keep, it will be kept. Until the AfD is closed, it needs to stay where it is. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, however, if the consensus here is not to delete, the appropriate move would be to draft it until it meets guidelines - as is something that is done when the topic may have the potential to be notable, we just don’t know yet or it will take a while to get it there in terms of time. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Per WP:AFDFORMAT the course of action is usually in the form of '"Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect"'. Drafting is not usually a common action, however, per WP:DRAFTIFY, "The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion." If this article is really notable according to the potential sources you have seen, the amount of time you or someone else will need to get this article to meet the notability standards may take some time. That would be the intention of moving this to draft if it is kept, definitely not as a 'backdoor deletion', let me make that clear. I would be happy to have this article around if it was written properly and had the appropriate sources to meet notability criteria. A look at Caterpillar84's talk page shows this alternative route has also been taken by other editors for Caterpillar84's other recent creations: Draft:Don't Sweat the Small Stuff for Teens, Draft:Hey, Look At Me! I Can Be. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:15, 30 October 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)} 15:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there's some reliable sources that she owned the Stonewall and other legendary LGBT nightclubs in NYC. Is that enough? Bearian (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She played an important role in LGBTQ history and has a close association with Stonewall, a national monument. Here are some additional sources of significance:

"THUG'S WIFE TESTIFIES; Mrs. Genovese Tells Pier Board of Gambling and Kickbacks". The New York Times. May 19, 1955.
Phoebe Letts (October 5, 2019). "The Latest Audio Buffet.(The Arts/Cultural Desk)". The New York Times. p. C4. (here her importance to the history of the Stonewall riots and the history of the Gay Rights Movement is highlighted)

In my opinion she passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources discuss Anna's role in the gay community or owning a gay bar or the details of the court hearing - all it ever is is a one sentence mention of her. Then you show another source that mentions the new podcast. This is an oral account - speculation not supported by sources that substantially demonstrate her notability beyond the occasional mention. Is this really what makes someone notable now? A mere mention in a few articles and a non notable podcast? What really is her "importance to the history of the Stonewall riots" - if she really was important she would be mentioned there - those sources do not explain this supposed importance. The NY Times source is also in their blog section which isn't a particularly good source ~~per WP:NEWSBLOG~~. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT blog is one of the most reliable news blogs around and this isn't an opinion piece and the podcast double series is by a notable writer who spent five years researching the topic Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the blog itself, however it also offers little to no info about the contributors to the podcast - ie it does not mention the backgrounds of these authors or that they "spent five years researching the topic". Again, this is INHERITWEB. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look at the LA times source, and see that's where you are getting that info about the years researching the topic - although the number of years isn't super clear since all it really says is "five years ago found a cache of letters while cleaning out the storage unit of a recently deceased older friend." This is the only research they discuss. Notable? You can research any topic you like, that doesn't make it notable. They also write, "researching gay nightlife of the 1950s that Bendiger and Seligman first stumbled onto the story of Anna Genovese". The nightlife is the subject here, not Anna. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quit wikilawyering Vaselineeeeeeee. Look at who the author of the blog is and the authority lent to the blog by virtue of who is sponsoring it. Further, the first source was just to show significant coverage in another part of her life. I didn't' say the first source was to support her activity in LGBTQ rights.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that that wasn't a great use of NEWSBLOG (scratched) - I had looked at who the author was and couldn't find any info on the person, although knowing NY Times is a good source, I assumed their blog would probably be alright, but still not the best source out there as it does not provide any substantial or useful info related to Anna Genovese anyway. Other than that, I wouldn't say "being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines" is wikilawyering. The point is, is that she is known, relatively, for one event that involved testifying against her husband (where neither are notable enough for its own article outside of Vito's article), I disagree with you that the sources demonstrate significant coverage (to me they do not - ie several sources that show the outcome of this testimony, and thereby any supposed importance of this testimony other than just than the fact that she did testify and what monetary compensation she was seeking for her husband). Even if she was the first wife to testify against her husband, let's say, this is still not notable enough because she is not the subject of that testimony, Vito is. Then we have her supposed gay community importance (which is a BIG claim that needs solid sources), that is largely undocumented other than some oral accounts and mere speculative mentions of her in a couple sources is also not enough to meet BASIC. I know you didn't say the first source - that's why I said it was the second source that you said talks about her supposed importance in the gay community, and brought it upon yourself to connect her with the Stonewall riots, which the source does not mention, and even if she was mentioned in sources as part of the Stonewall riots, it is the event that is notable not her. Don't try to make her sound more important than she really was. Keep in mind, I do not have paid versions for these sites, so I am going off of what is barely legible in the newspaper clippings and sources I can find in books and through Internet Archive. If you provide any other sources that can address some of the concerns I made above, please provide the quotes. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vaselineeeeeeee, may I suggest that you read WP:BLUDGEON? RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: My goal isn't to get you to change your !vote, it's to show that there isn't enough verifiable evidence, to satisfy the basic guideline of WP:BASIC, in that showing this subject is notable beyond the couple notable sources provided that do not substantiate any aspects of her collective life (can't ignore evidence that is not available). So when people bring up sources that still do not convey evidence to warrant this subject an own article, I'm not going to not comment on it, and when people reply to me, I'm not going to not reply back. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NEXIST meets GNG with RSs. Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York Times believes the pod cast about her is notable enough to write a review about it [19] as are others [20]. The LA Times gives her significant coverage [21]. She seems to have played a notable role in a historic event. Dream Focus 22:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG per sourcing. Per third party reliable sources. Plenty of coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ugh, this is disappointing. Per WP:PERP "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". The only thing that makes her remotely notable is her involvement in one trial - her testimony against Vito. This can, and is, easily incorporated into Vito's article. A trial of a woman divorcing her husband or being a waitress at a couple gay bars, mixed with speculations about her sexuality, does not make her notable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Running gay bars on behalf of a gangster Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Running vs being a waitress is disputed in sources, none of which really matters anyway because so have hundreds others, all of which are not notable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Lightburst and BabbaQ: Mind pointing to how those conditions are met rather than just arbitrarily stating they are? These are some of your WP:NEXIST sources available, provided by User:RebeccaGreen/sandbox: "82 Club [140], [141] ; divorce case, mother, home, lush living, alimony [142], [143], [144], [145], [146]; neighbour of Mrs Roosevelt [147]; on census etc at Ancestry [148], [149], [150], [151]." WP:GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" (also see follow up example about Martin Walker). Tell me how GNG is passed? Being mentioned as a bar worker, in a divorce case, a mother, living lush and being a neighbour of Roosevelt and being on Ancestry (not reliable [[22]]) classifies a notable person now—but hey they're mentions in a couple reliable sources, so she's notable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:@Vaselineeeeeeee: pity the closer who has to weed through this bludgeoned AfD. Apologies. Lightburst (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I'm trying to have a discussion, which you seem to be against. Note Lightburst's inability and/or unwillingness to defend/discuss his simple, unsubstantiated claim. WP:NEXIST is not satisfied per outside existing sources found that still do not substantiate this person's notability beyond mere mentions and non-notable events per GNG, BASIC and PERP. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Look at this record on this AfD and tell me a casual observer wouldn't consider your involvement WP:BLUDGEONING at this point. I suggest you take a step back and let the editors state their opinions. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of whether Anna Genovese meets notability guidelines. Perhaps I've commented too much, (pointing to the history is unfair and unrepresentative though as much of those edits are stylistic) however, when editors such as yourself unsubstantially claim they meet notability guidelines, are we not to show reasons, quoting the guide, of how they do not? Are we not to respond to fellow editors who respond back? At a RfA, are votes not taken seriously when they are not backed up and are called upon by other editors to expand on their vote? Lightburst, I am not trying to get you to change your vote, once again, I am simply trying to understand why you are not willing and/or able to defend/discuss your simple, unsubstantiated claim if this article actually meets the guidelines you have mentioned, when the sources mentioned here and researched by other editors and Rebecca do not appear to do so as I have shown above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vaselineeeeeeee, I see that you found the sources I have saved in my sandbox. They do not constitute the totality of sources on Anna Genovese. Nor have I saved the Ancestry search results in order to include them in the article. Searching Ancestry and similar databases is WP:OR, apart from the fact that census returns are primary sources and may not refer to the same person. What they do give me, and the reason why I search on websites like Ancestry, is more information to use in searches of secondary sources. Searching any database, whether it's digitised newspapers or Google, does not immediately bring up all possible results - in digitised sources, sometimes the OCR fails, and in Google, perhaps it's their algorithms, I don't know. Providing more information in the source, or using other search terms, can find results that are otherwise missed. Please do not use links I have saved in work in progress to argue about a subject's notability - there is a reason that I have not (yet) added them to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, Atlantic306's initial argument is WP:SIGCOV – 4-5 years of research by a notable author on the BLP subject, brocast via a podcast series sponsored by the New York Times, a WP:RS/P. In addition, RebeccaGreen's, and other, references also support broader WP:GNG. There is certainly no consensus to delete this BLP (I was almost tempted to close it myself on that basis), however, there is also a clear consensus that it passes WP:BASIC as a Keep. Meeting WP:BASIC is not a legal concept, it is the consensus of a collection of Wikipedians following guidelines (not rules), as to what constitutes sufficient RS that can support a subject's GNG. I know that Vaselineeeeeeee has worked hard on this AfD, but they should listen to what other experienced Wikipedian's are saying – I have been there myself (many times); you go in with one view, and it gets completely turned, but that is what makes it interesting. Britishfinance (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: I'm still not convinced SIGCOV is satisfied because the 'significant coverage' are mostly non-substantial mentions, mainly for one event, mixed in with speculation about her sexuality and running a gay bar, which are non-notable, but I do respect your response and view. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 6 November 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 per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kal Hourd

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

We seem to have another non-notable obscure Canadian country singer here.

This article mentions that an astronaut was taking his music into space. The biggest coverage by far is that he was one of several musicians whose albums were taken into space by an astronaut -- which says more about the astronaut than it does about the musicians.

His name shows up several times in the Regina Leader-Post, but nearly all of them are just directory listings of concerts, or fluff pieces like the above that have little to say other than "Kal saw his own album at Walmart". For instance, this is just a fluff piece about him performing at a local bar, larded with a bunch of name-dropping and non-notable awards (Saskatchewan Country Music Awards do not seem to be a major third-party award that would meet WP:NMUSIC #8) to make him seem more accomplished than he really is in a "local boy makes good" way. No newspaper other than the Leader-Post has given him even the faintest of mentions, and he doesn't seem to have ever performed significantly outside of SK except at one non-notable festival.

His only album turns up absolutely zero reviews, despite having a fairly unique title which is unlikely to be conducive to false positives or difficulty in finding proper sources.

Zero results on americanradiohistory.com, a site that archives many multi-national music publications, including Canadian ones.

His name is so obscure that Google keeps trying to autocorrect it to "Kal Hours".

While he does meet WP:NMUSIC with one charted single, it spent only one week at the lowest position on the Canadian Country Music charts. This puts him into the same boat as, say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waycross (band) where the utter lack of sourcing overrode the fact that a single made the charts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So, as well as having a charting single, he won a rising star award at the 2007 Saskatchewan Country Music Association Awards [23], and three awards at the 2010 Saskatchewan Country Music Association Awards (single of the year; album of the year; song of the year) [24]; and song of the year award in 2012 [25]. There's a review of the album in the Star-Phoenix [26] (a newspaper other than the Leader-Post) (that's what should be in the article, but it had a url for a completely different newspaper article). More coverage of his album going into space in the Star-Phoenix [27]. His song When Pink Is Just a Color Again was the Pink Ribbon International official song in 2009 [28]. I have clipped the "Kal saw his own album at Walmart" article and will add it to this article - it says a bit more than that, actually. I'll add these sources and information to the article, and anything else I find. (I don't think "autotext knows the name" is a criterion of any notability guidelines.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Not a single one of the awards you named is notable per WP:NMUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:00, 30 October 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)} 15:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as enough sources have been identified above to show a pass of WP:GNG with reviews of his work as well as the charting so also passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 and as the article is being improved there is no longer a requirement for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 1 November 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. Withdrawn by nom and a consensus to keep - no need to prolong. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withlocals

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

Company ad-like entry, most of references are blogs, press releases and primary. A few mentions in passing. Some usual startup trivial coverage related to fundraising. There is a piece about it in The Australian Financial Review ([29]) but I don't think it is sufficient to warrant keeping this, but maybe if we look at other sources together (my WP:BEFORE doesn't show anything else that's good) we can find reasons to not delete this... right now IMHO it falls on the wrong end of boderline, but with the AFR piece it at least shows a possibility of not being your garden variety spam (plus, the creator is an experienced Wikipedian I respect :D and not some COI SPI, so AGF on the intent, too). Further thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Note, I'm article's author).

I have gone through google-scholar today and added 6 academic references to the lead paragraph (tightening that section up in the process). I acknowledge that these academic articles only refer to Withlocals in order to illustrate their wider points but I believe they collectively help demonstrate that the organisation is sufficiently notable to be seen as representative of trends about the 'sharing economy' and 'gastronomic tourism' - particularly in southeast asia, the market where the company focused initially. I would also argue that the "horizon 2020" - from the European Commission grant makes it notable on the basis that they've won a government-funded support 'prize'.

As a side point, given that you took the time to check the edit history you will have noticed that the article had been being expanded daily - I hadn't abandoned it. I'd have appreciated if you would have brought your concerns about the notability of the article to me directly (e.g. pinging me on its talkpage) rather than going straight for the deletion nomination which starts a ticking-clock. Late last week I also asked the organisation itself if they had any other press-clippings they had collected, and if they could provide some free-licensed multimedia, to supplement the article - so that might come in soon too. As you state yourself Piotrus, you know and trust me so you're not claiming this is drive-by spam: my motivation for creating the article is that I recently signed-up to be a local guide on this platform in my home city, and was doing research about it in the process. Witty lama 10:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably a bit too hasty. The odds are good that this will be kept, but I'd appreciate a third party looking at this before I consider withdrawing my vote. AfD, in the end, are the only place we can count on attracting more editors to comment on such issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 23 October 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)} 15:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be enough independent coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Coldwell, Will (2016-10-17). "Regional know-how: the best websites for contacting local guides". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
Carter, Jamie (2018-08-01). "Three apps and websites that offer travellers a local experience, and make sure money you spend benefits people on the ground". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
Marcela, Ana (2016-01-19). "Withlocals chega a Lisboa e Porto" [Withlocals arrives in Lisbon and Porto]. pt:Dinheiro Vivo (jornal) (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
Verstegen, Gert-Jan (2017-10-11). "Eindhovense startup Withlocals haalt 3,5 miljoen euro op" [Eindhoven startup Withlocals raises 3.5 million euros] (in Dutch). RTL Nieuws. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
O'Hear, Steve (2013-09-16). "Withlocals Raises $500K For Its Local Travel Experiences Marketplace Targeting Southeast Asia". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.

Sources with quotes

Coldwell, Will (2016-10-17). "Regional know-how: the best websites for contacting local guides". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
The article notes:
With Locals

More intimate travel experiences can be found through the With Locals site. While Trip4Real is still predominantely focused on Western Europe, With Locals has a big spread in Asia, with activities and tours (mainly food/dining related) to book everywhere from Indonesia to Sri Lanka, Thailand to the Philippines. These include an organic home-cooked meal in a bamboo house in Bali, tea-tasting in Old Bangkok and a riverside picnic in Saigon.
Carter, Jamie (2018-08-01). "Three apps and websites that offer travellers a local experience, and make sure money you spend benefits people on the ground". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
The article notes:
WithLocals

Much like social dining app EatWith, this distinctly Airbnb-style app includes food tours run by local people, but also quirky walking tours and other guided experiences. Examples include “The Only Authentic Cu Chi Tunnels Tour With a Local” in Ho Chi Minh City, “Gordon Ramsay’s Favourite Thai Food Tour” in Bangkok, and “Magical Harry Potter Walking Tour With a True Fan” in London.
For each tour there are extensive descriptions, detailed itineraries, photos and plenty of reviews, and everything can be booked and arranged via the app. What makes this different to EatWith is that for each experience you get a choice of hosts; each provides a short video introduction, and you can even start an online chat with them.
WithLocals offers more than 1,200 experiences in 50 cities in 22 countries, but it lacks a map of the world with its activities plotted, which would avoid the inevitable disappointment of searching for a destination that is not yet covered.
Marcela, Ana (2016-01-19). "Withlocals chega a Lisboa e Porto" [Withlocals arrives in Lisbon and Porto]. pt:Dinheiro Vivo (jornal) (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
From Google Translate:
Learning to make tiles or getting to know Lisbon on a Vespa are two of the offers that the Withlocals network is offering to tourists who want to know Lisbon and Porto, but with a different twist: the experiences are with and organized with the locals. The international network starts in the Portuguese market from this Tuesday.
Portugal is the fifth European country to host Withlocals, being the 15th country in the network founded in 2013 in Asia by two Dutch. ”Portugal was in our expansion plans since we launched in Europe and we have been monitoring how things have evolved in the world. says Madalina Buzdugan, communication manager of Withlocals a Vivo. “With Porto being voted Europe's hidden treasure several years in a row and Lisbon being recommended for its great value and authenticity, it was only natural that it was one of Withlocals' next destinations,” he adds.
...
It all started when Marijn Maas and Willem Maas traveled to Asia. The experiences were different. Honeymooners Marijn Maas made the usual five-star hotel circuit, but the best memories were gathered at a meal at a local family's home, and the stories shared around a table. Willem Maas, after traveling 6 months around the region using local guides, concluded that in this relationship it was the travel agencies, not the guides, who made the most profits.
Verstegen, Gert-Jan (2017-10-11). "Eindhovense startup Withlocals haalt 3,5 miljoen euro op" [Eindhoven startup Withlocals raises 3.5 million euros] (in Dutch). RTL Nieuws. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
The article notes:
The Eindhoven-based company Withlocals, which links travelers to locals, has received an investment of 3.5 million euros. The startup acts as an online marketplace for private tours and activities on holiday.
...
Now Withlocals is active in 24 cities. With the raised investment, 40 cities must be added, including New York and Hong Kong. "We need about three weeks for a new city. We search for guides on Facebook. We have a Skype conversation with those people. Anyone who remains is then looked up, and with that we do a demo tour," Keij tells RTL Z.
...
Withlocals already has strong competition. Airbnb has been offering Airbnb Experiences for a while now. There too you can book activities directly with local residents. The difference lies in the way tours can be personalized.
O'Hear, Steve (2013-09-16). "Withlocals Raises $500K For Its Local Travel Experiences Marketplace Targeting Southeast Asia". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
The article notes:
Withlocals, a peer-to-peer marketplace for locals to offer travellers various experiences, such as tours, home dining, and other local activities, has raised $500,000 in funding from startup builder and backer Greenhouse Group.
The Netherlands-founded startup will use the investment to launch out of beta this fall and, curiously, target Southeast Asia — a move it says differentiates itself from U.S. competitor Vayable.
One way to think of Withlocals is as an Airbnb for travel experiences (in fact, rival Vayable has partnered with Airbnb). It enables locals to sell travel experiences within three categories: — “EAT Withlocals,” “TOURS Withlocals,” and “ACTIVITIES Withlocals” — the idea being to enable a more authentic travel experience for tourists while enabling locals to make money through the platform.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Withlocals to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those references Cunard. I've added them in. Witty lama 12:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the sources, Wittylama. Thank you for withdrawing the AfD, Piotrus. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. The consensus seems pretty clear. Thanks for participating in the discussion, hope some further / new sources found can be used to expand this futher. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 4 November 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. It is well established that SNGs are subordinate to the GNG. An article that meets an SNG (which this one might, though GPL93's point is a salient one) might be given a little bit of extra leeway if its compliance with GNG is a close call, the subject of this article is a living person, and COATRACK concerns are live ones. Additionally, the keep !votes here rely almost entirely on the SNGs, with nothing to establish that it's even close to compliance with the GNG. Steve Smith (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin G. Ross

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

The article as it stands is something of a COATRACK and fails NPOV, especially since the "Marriage and Divorce" section is sourced entirely from primary sources. (There was previously a negative section entitled "Judicial tenure" that was sourced entirely from a Google search.) While enough of the negative stuff has been removed to "save" this from G10, a Google search shows no evidence of passing the GNG; the results are mainly primary sources, and after half a page it starts showing results from a different Kevin Ross, who's a judge from Delaware. Given this and the present BLP concerns I don't think this topic is worthy of a Wikipedia article at this time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson:

This is all verifiable and true. This is all public. His divorce opinion is public. This article cannot be deleted and is well sourced. It is not overwhelmingly negative. This is what the opinion said. It's totally neutral. It is utterly ridiculous for you to attempt to delete a page of a public official. Are you working with him or are you his friend?

https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/2014/a13-611.html

Wikiposteryolo (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiposteryolo, that material is true or even verifiable does not guarantee inclusion into Wikipedia. NPOV is about selective emphasis of facts to distort the big picture just as much as, if not more than, the facts themselves and their sourcing; Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Also, a generic Google search (reference #4), without even mentioning the specific entry, does not good sourcing make, nor does the court case as it's a primary source. The fact that Ross is a living person makes these issues much more acute for Wikipedia's purposes. Merely being a public official does not qualify a person for a Wikipedia article, and even without the NPOV issues I fail to see evidence that Ross does pass that bar (no pun intended). It also doesn't help your case to insinuate without evidence that I am somehow connected with the subject of the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally false. The marriage and divorce section was sourced entirely from a Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion and is properly cited. This past comment did not even bother to go look at the opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiposteryolo (talk • contribs) 17:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiposteryolo, there's no need to look at the opinion for this purpose as it is a primary source. A Wikipedia article, especially a biography on a living person, should not be sourced entirely or even mostly on primary sources, as they are easily interpreted according to the editor's viewpoint, contrary to Wikipedia policy. For that very reason, the court opinion does not establish notability and allow this article to be kept. Also, please do not put further comments on the top of the page, as that confuses people and interrupts the flow of the conversation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiposteryolo you have asserted in your recent edits (now reverted) that the judge's appeal of the trial court decree to the court of appeals "is a serious conflict of interest". You are wrong. First, that is your uninformed opinion and prohibited original research. Second, even judges are allowed to be parties in court actions; even judges are entitled to equal treatment under the law, which includes the rights of appeal. Third, the court which decided the case comprised retired judges and not his colleagues on the court. And fourth, they found against him.

All of which raises the question: What is your personal vendetta against the judges who are the subject of your articles and edits? Whatever they are, they don't belong on Wikipedia. Kablammo (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow, I thought you were exaggerating with the Google search but holy cow it really was sourced with a Google search. Yep, definitely delete this. This is the kind of article that gives Wikipedia a bad name and the sooner it's gone, the better. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the remaining calumny, so the article should be judged as it now reads. The position he holds is on a court with statewide jurisdiction, but intermediate between the trial courts and the supreme court. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_courts_and_judges/Notability#Judges_of_state_courts_of_appeals. I take no position. Kablammo (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC) I have now voted to delete, based on the discussion here. Kablammo (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference Kablammo. Here's a bit that seems to line up with your link: Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. In particular, state courts of appeals judges who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts in the state, by federal courts, or by state courts in other states, are highly likely to be notable. If there are other articles about this judge. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State appellate court judges are considered notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. As 38.142.216.106 quoted above, such judges are not inherently notable (and the SNGs don't trump the GNG in any event), although it does leave some leeway for external evidence of notability. However, I don't see such evidence.

The Minnesota courts website is good in establishing verification of facts, but I don't believe it establishes notability in isolation, as several other judges in the system of lesser notability are included.

Ballotpedia is likewise not a source that establishes notability in isolation, although per the lack of consensus that surrounds its use on Wikipedia as a reliable source it perhaps can be used for verification.

Of the other two sources returned by a Google Search on my end, one is a Bloomberg piece that's just stats and the other is his divorce opinion, which is a primary source.

All in all, I feel that this is a borderline case; were this not a BLP I'd default to keep, but as Ross is a living person I feel that we should play it safe and default to delete. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. I don't think that the article was created in bad faith, but it seems like the only reason it was created was to include the BLP violation material that was removed previously. Beyond that, there's essentially no third party coverage that meets the requirements of WP:GNG, just generic information confirming that he exists and is a judge. It's not that state appellate judges are inherently non-notable, but there's no actual information about him other than basic directory information. We don't even really have a bio -- when was he born? 38.142.216.106 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no substantial sources that show notability. On this level of sourcing we would make every judge who holds an elective judgeship notable, and that is clearly not the intent of any of our guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily; trial court judges are elected locally (within their respective districts) and few would contend that they are automatically notable. Appellate court judges are elected statewide. But given the inability of WP to adequately maintain BLPs I have not voted "Keep" here. Kablammo (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE. He's an appellate judge, but I don't see any of the usual indications of notability as a lawyer. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I too subscribe to WP:IFINDOUBTCREATE, but I believe that BLPs should default to delete. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State appellate court judges are considered notable. @John M Wolfson: Your analysis of SNG not trumping GNG is incorrect. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: an SNG can never be used to exclude a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult. In other words, SNGs do trump GNG because SNGS are about lowering the standard of inclusion in certain cases.4meter4 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's only in cases where the subject already meets the GNG, which is debatable in this case. See also this comment from SpinningSpark, which says that The principle that SNGs do not trump GNG, that is, that they only indicate that the subject may be notable, is a principle that has wide consensus amongst editors (but still argued about enough not to have been explicitly written into guidelines). (emphasis mine). SNGs are not a "get-out-of-jail free card" for non-notable topics, and this borderline case is made more fraught by the fact that Ross is a living person. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to draft~~ Delete. I was actually leaning towards deletion under the notability guidelines of WP:USCJ, but I did find a newspaper article referencing a "Kevin G. Ross" who was an Iowa police officer in 1988 (which this Kevin G. Ross was) who was an alternate delegate to the 1988 Republican National Convention (the article is Stacy Swadish, "Two head for GOP convention", Iowa City Press-Citizen (August 13, 1988), p. 1B). The article goes into enough depth to indicate that Ross was a Democrat up until the Carter administration, thereafter became a Republican, and supported Pat Robertson in the primaries. If this is the same Kevin G. Ross, I would send to draft for further development, as it seems unlikely that this person was appointed to the court of appeals in a biographical vacuum. bd2412 T 04:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's true, that would make me reconsider my position. However, the Political Graveyard here notes only the "Kevin Ross" in the 1988 Convention without any mention of a judicial (or any other) career; as other entries do include judgeships where appropriate, this might be absence of evidence being evidence of absence. I would support a move to draftspace iff the link between 1988 GOP Ross and this Ross is more firmly supported. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This Minnesota courts biography indicates that he's African-American, in agreement with the Political Graveyard entry of the 1988 Convention Ross, in addition to the other biographical details mentioned earlier. However, it doesn't say anything about the Convention itself (not that I'd expect it to); and neither do any of the sources provided by a Google Search. I now believe that it is the same person, in which case draftspace might be appropriate, but the evidence hitherto collected is somewhat circumstantial and SYNTHy to the point where I still feel keeping this in the mainspace is inappropriate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:46, 30 October 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)} 15:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the same Kevin G. Ross. He was an Iowa police officer before begging politicians for a seat on the bench in Hennepin County. He treats litigants like trash and is a prosecutor through and through. He also mentioned during that shooting of Philando Castille appeal that the officer had probable cause to shoot him because he smelled "marijuana" smoke. @JonMWOlfson what's your issue with verified facts? His marriage is public. All appellate records are public. It must be inserted into his article. He appealed the case to his own court to get favorable treatment. That's a matter of public concern and is therefore a product for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiposteryolo (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, now I get the feeling that you're not here in the best faith, or if you are that you severely misunderstand several of Wikipedia's policies. It doesn't matter that these facts are independently true, or even verifiable, for Wikipedia's purposes. They need to be brought into a bigger picture in accordance with our policy on having a neutral point of view. In particular, Wikipedia is not for advocacy of a certain position or righting great wrongs. Even if there really isn't much nice to say about Ross, such fact(s) need to be thoroughly discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources, and what paltry sources exist don't cut it, especially as this is a biography of a living person. In the future, please make sure you really and thoroughly understand these rules and guidelines before making another article, especially one on a living person. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am leaning more towards deletion if the relatively thin case for notability here is going to be offset by the time drain of a low-level article drawing constant attacks and efforts to insert POV. bd2412 T 04:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Under existing policy, Judge Ross is not automatically notable because of his position. And his marriage dissolution and (likely) service as an alternate to a national political convention are insufficient to confer notability. And we should not rely his biography on the court's website— those are self-authored. Kablammo (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appellate judge that meets the notability guidelines of WP. WP:NOTPAPER. We have reliable sources. Easy keep. WP:PRESERVE. Wm335td (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to badger, but might I ask what sources are those? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ross is a state appellate judge, but for a specific district (Minnesota's 3rd congressional district), so his position is not actually statewide. I don't see notability conferred by the current sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Borderline case that has gone from NC to a lean towards Delete since last relist; one last relist to see whether Delete is confirmed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my position above from "move to draft" to "delete". bd2412 T 18:13, 11 November 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Odii

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

Article doesn't establish notability. The content and references given are promotional in nature, lacks in-depth coverage from WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article have citations and references from credible sources establishing notablility. it was written in an objective and unbiased style and shows no conflict of interest. Keep Kojomo (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN, essentially a personal bio that's SEOed out the max as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTRESUME is also relevant here. The citations offered to attempt to dress this out as an article are either not significant, not reliable, or not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it seems to be a well-meaning effort, but it's far too promotional in tone and might take a lot of effort to clean it up; stubification is probably needed. There is wide coverage in many sources, but except for one article (footnote 1 as of this moment), the coverage is shallow - lists of up-and-coming entrepreneurs under 30 and that ilk. If it is not deleted, I strongly urge a userfication to clean it up. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete, notlinkedin. Mahveotm (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator of article & subject of article may be familiar hence obstructing neutrality & causing WP:COI. Furthermore subject of article hasn’t received sufficient WP:SIGCOV in reliable press to establish notability. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT WP:NOTRESUME Wm335td (talk) 22:44, 7 November 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) 08:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Kahafizadeh

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

Fails WP:GNG, although it's tough to find sources I understand. Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nom, the article only appears to mention a single event, for which there's only one source available. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 04:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major coverage in independent, reliable sources. IvoryTower123 (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable coverage. Barca (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom's reasoning. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:23, 12 November 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 Isaac Newton Vail. Clear consensus to redirect to this article. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annular Theory (Vailan Theory)

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

Appears to be a non notable fringe topic that has only 1 main proponent. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - there don't appear to be independent sources that even comment about this theory. Clearly non-notable. --mikeu ^talk 14:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect or weak delete works for me. The new Vail page seems like a good target. --mikeu ^talk 20:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into this more I'm not sure that redirects like Canopy theory, Annular theory, Vailen theory, etc. add much value. Are these really terms that are widely referenced by modern creationists? I don't mind the redirects but I also don't see a compelling need for them to exist.[30][31] As an aside, Isaac Newton Vail is fascinating. I'm glad to see that this didn't fall through the cracks. --mikeu ^talk 15:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copying from its talk page: No relevance. The article includes two good references for things not related to Vail's invention, one reference to Vail and one reference to a single article discussing it, both over 100 years old. The Wikipedia article is full of misconceptions, misrepresentations of science and so on. --mfb (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is a poor article on one aspect of Isaac Newton Vail's eccentric thinking. I've had a look and Vail is certainly notable, as a 19th century catastrophist, with a reasonable number of reliable sources such as Armstrong's 1988 'Evolution of Creationism' - yes, there's nutty physics, nutty geology, and creationism all rolled into one sticky ball; Vail is a major figure within Pseudoscience. I've written a short article on Vail and suggest that we Redirect to there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's another possible redirect target at Flood geology#Canopy theory which is also decently cited. Canopy theory redirects there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct seems OK.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Isaac Newton Vail would be OK, as would deleting outright (the page title is a bit too awkward to be a plausible search term). XOR'easter (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as outdated non-notable fringe theory WegianWarrior (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Isaac Newton Vail. Flood geology#Canopy theory would be okay too, but there seems to be more support for the former. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isaac Newton Vail. The section about the theory there has a “further information” link to the relevant section of the flood geology article, so both are covered. Brunton (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vail article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 4 November 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. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of Municipal Council Sopore

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

Fails WP:NPOL, specifically local politicians are not prima facie notable unless there is sourcing showing otherwise, and as such a list of local politicians in a specific locality are also not presumed notable. In my WP:BEFORE I failed to find any instances of significant coverage of the membership of Sopore Municipal Council either. Did consider speedy deletion via WP:A7 but AFD seemed the more certain way of going. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sopore is not a very large city and does not automatically need a its own article for the council. Merge to that article if you wish. Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Municipal Council Sopore. ミラ P 14:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it falls short of WP:GNG Kb03 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. This is a city of under 120,000 - a small town by standards of that country, the second-largest in the world. It does not seem to be a town of regional importance, nor a state capital. It would make a terrible precedent and consensus is unlikely to change soon. A smerger would not be out of the question. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Foarp Fails WP:NPOL, specifically local politicians are not notable without WP:BASIC or an WP:SNG pass. Wm335td (talk) 22:33, 7 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imsk

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

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything notable from WP:BEFORE, either, and there's almost no content anyway. Doesn't look like it would be a primary topic anyway, although the other acronyms would have different capitalization. A PROD probably would have worked based on the age of the article, the small history of edits, and the number of watchers being <30 people. -2pou (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not able to find any reliable, secondary sources discussing this fictional planet at all. Rorshacma (talk) 19:00, 31 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White Triangle

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

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to say fancruft, as a fan, but that's what it is. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 4 November 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)} 17:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsaas Song

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

Fails WP:NSONG. This article is a mess – if it was notable, the article title should be Ehsaas (song) anyway, but there doesn't seem to be any notability for the song itself. The text is the plot and cast of the movie where the song comes from. The infobox is for the movie, complete with movie poster. Lots of references to streaming sites for the song, or gossip blogs, but apart from the opening paragraph which states the singer, writer and producer, I can't find any information about the song itself. It seems like the sensible thing would be to redirect to the film, but the two Wikipedia articles about "Ehsaas" don't appear to be about the 2018 movie, and the singer doesn't have an article, so those aren't options either. If someone can find reliable sources in Hindi I'll gladly reconsider the nomination, but otherwise I can't see any other option other than to WP:TNT the article and rewrite it about the movie instead, incorporating whatever reliable information there is about the song, and rename the article. Richard3120 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the song fails WP:NSONG. I couldnt find any coverage of the song in reliable sources. There are couple of press releases, and two similar articles which most probably are paid ones. They are already used as refs in article. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article must not be deleted as i have added enough reliable news links and which are not paid. Kslm0007 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Kslm0007 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

The only reliable links are the Hindustanlive and Amarujala newspapers, and all they tell you is that the song is going to be released, and the names of the stars and director of the video – nothing to demonstrate notability. The Dainik Jayant and Bollywood Tadka (a gossip website) are profiles of the director and do not mention the song. The rest are links to music streaming websites. Richard3120 (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have written all the details of this song, in which Sandeep Bharadwaj has played the lead, who played the lead in killing Veerappan, I have also mentored the name of its director and producer and this song has come in the Jin Jin International Pottles as MP3. I have also seen all their links and I have also mentored youtube link sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslm0007 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you feel that this page should be deleted, then I respect you Sir, as you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslm0007 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respect sir, You can check again I have added the gender of Dainik Jagran and also add the singing theme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslm0007 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the problem – you have added the name of the lead actor in the video, the video's director, a YouTube link, MP3 sites where you can hear the song... but absolutely nothing about the song itself, nor why it is notable. And now we find that the song isn't called "Ehsaas" at all, it's in fact "the song from the Ehsaas video", which makes the article title even more incorrect. To have an article on Wikipedia it needs to pass the criteria at WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks sir for guiding me, I will take care from here on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslm0007 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. This appears to be notable from significant coverage in at least two possibly reliable English sources. Under "Khwashise tha" it might be notable, but it's difficult to find online because that's a common phrase. I suggest that if it is kept, it ought to be redirected. In lieu of deletion, I suggest possibly userfying the page. Bearian (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: hi. I think you are mixing up two different songs. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: could you please point us in the direction of the sources you think might be reliable, because I can't find anything? Richard3120 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A re-list to see if Bearian's sources can be employed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails all tests for notability. I don't see any way to save it. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSONG. Tens of thousands of Bollywood songs, and some are notable. Like the theme from Slumdog Millionaire. However there is not any notability in this one yet. Lightburst (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment too Richard3120 I looked on Google, but now I can't find them again. I give up. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 8 November 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 Legion of Super-Heroes. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Planets

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

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legion of Superheroes. While lacking the reliable secondary sources needed to support an independent article, it is a major element of the Legion of Superheroes mythos, and is already discussed on the target page, making it a valid Redirect candidate. My only real concern is that its a pretty vague/generic title. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Updated I was actually getting behind some of these planet deletions in AfD or PROD, but when searching for one of the others, I came across these articles, both of which are directly about "United Planets", so unfortunately, I can't back this one. More so since it showed up so high in my search for a distinct article.

Brian Bendis Bringing the Legion’s United Planets into DC Continuity at Bleeding Cool
Legion of Super-Heroes: What You Need to Know About the United Planets at CBR

I don't exactly think it's a good article, but if GNG/Notability is the basis for removal, I don't think those particular arguments hold water. -2pou (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those have anything that can actually be added to the article, so not sure why you think they're particularly relevant. It's just a "here's an in-universe summary of something slightly relevant to recent comic news." TTN (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they don't add to the article, but that isn't really what I was trying to do. I also don't particularly care if the article is kept or not; I simply don't think that a valid reason for deletion has been presented thus far. I might be able to look for one, but I don't have any interest in doing additional research into reasons for deletion. I'll look at them if presented to me (or abstain), but the ones that are always in my mind are notability and copyright. Notability is the only thing that has been presented thus far.
I find the articles relevant simply in establishing notability. Yes, there is in-universe content in there, but when I read GNG, these are the bullet points to hit:
✓Significant - The topic is definitely directly addressed, and in detail
✓Reliable - Both sites have editors
✓Sources (plural) - There are two
✓Independent - Both sites are not affiliated with DC
I assume that when you bring up in-universe, you are suggesting that this negates the significant coverage piece. That may be true in some cases, but I personally don't think making a hard and fast rule linking those two is valid—it is a case-by-case evaluation. In this particular case, two separate sites have felt the need to publish news about the article in question. In doing so, they use a lot of in-universe material, but it is done in order to establish context and help explain why they felt the need to write an article directly about the topic. I would feel differently if this was an issue recap that simply says these things happened. That's just my take, though. If no-one agrees, that's OK. If not kept, I'd lean towards Rorschacma's redirect suggestion over deletion. -2pou (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional topics need to have real world information per WP:PLOT, so a source that provides no real world information cannot be called significant coverage. You also need to look at those articles in the full context of those sites. Those kind of "what is this obscure topic being brought into relevance by a recent event" articles are a dime a dozen. Similar to how Top X lists deserve less weight than other articles, cookie cutter articles like that are nothing more than a means of catching relevant search results for a niche topical event in that sphere of influence. TTN (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That is overall a different argument, though I see your link. This was fun. -2pou (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma and cheap. -2pou (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Legion of Superheroes.4meter4 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADV Group

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

Article doesn't establish notability. The references given are promotional in nature, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I can't see how this marketing company is anything other than run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP, HighKing⁺⁺ 17:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. "The sources are Turkish" is not a valid argument. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016 Dürümlü bombing

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

AfD opened on behalf of an IP, who claims that the sources are POV and the truth is unverified. As they appear to have been blocked, see my talkpage for the rationale. I am neutral, but there's no harm in discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reserving judgment until I can do more research. This might be WP:NOTNEWS Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The article reports the facts. I suppose NPOV could be argued as 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', but the event is notable and meets the criteria at WP:GNG. Any NPOV concerns can be addressed on the article's talk page (although personally I see no problem with the article as written).4meter4 (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure this should have been brought to AFD - the sourcing is there, the IP editor may not have believed it but that's a different thing. FOARP (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If an editor believes that strongly that an article should not be here there's no harm in discussing it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there's 40-50 AFDs a day and many go weakly attended, and it's not great to have an AFD which even the nom isn't convinced should have been brought. FOARP (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion, if an admin is approached by an inexperienced editor who expresses concerns about an article that appear to be reasonable then it is our responsibility to address those concerns. Otherwise what are we here for? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable bombing stub. No POV issues or a reason to delete. KasimMejia (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources are Turkish. Turkey has no journalistic freedom (see Censorship_in_Turkey#Censorship_of_the_media and Media_of_Turkey), with the media being well known for having a deep anti-Kurdish bias and making blatantly false statements. (again, see Media_of_Turkey. This is repeatedly confirmed there, if confirmation was needed). Hence none of those sources can be regarded as WP:RS, especially in regards these matters. There is also one Kurdish source used, but the article states that the source says the exact opposite of what the source actually says. As for notability... Why is it notable? If it was, as the Kurdish source (which is used to confirm the exact opposite of what it states) is to be trusted (though it is, to be fair, also biased. In the other direction), then this was not a bombing, but an accidental explosion. Why would that be notable? (also, I'd say that WP:NOTNEWS, which Lightburst mentioned [thanks for mentioning that], should apply). Also, how is this not just baseless accusations, against the PKK? Aren't attack articles, against living people, against the rules?--213.113.121.42 (talk) 03:19, 17 November 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 Bhat, Daskroi. There is only one reasoned "keep" opinion. Otherwise it's a split between merge and delete. Redirect is a compromise as it allows editorial consensus to determine what, if anything, to merge. Sandstein 13:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lakkadiya Hanuman Temple

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

Not notable. Sources are primary. Fails WP:GNG and has no more coverage in secondary reliable sources. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. or Merge' to the article on the town The sources listed are secondary, not primary. The links do not work, but that does not mean that plain information such as this is not sourceable. We do not remove articles because of dead links unlesswe are sure there is no other possible source . DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG before taking part in deletion, please check reference. First one is government site of district administration and has no mention of this temple except name of village. And second one is related to ISKCON organisation, not to this temple. Third, name of lakkadiya hanuman is present in every 2 out of 5 villages of Gujarat. Wiki must not have articles on each temples. And as per Wikipedia’s policy of verifiability, all content must be verifiable.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’m pinging locals @Nizil Shah and Gazal world: for their comment about place and pinging @DBigXray, Ms Sarah Welch, and Winged Blades of Godric: who’re active participants in Wikiproject Hinduism.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harshil169 what does this translate to ? Wooden Hanuman Temple ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes loosely. Temple made up from wood.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bhat village. --Gazal world (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after Merge into Bhat village per DGG and Gazal world. Not notable on its own, and would be prone to content forking if left alone (I did a quick source checks on google scholar/books/news/jstor/etc). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a (admittedly quick) gsearch has not brought up any indepth sources that give this any significance, no problems with having it mentioned at Bhat, Daskroi. ps. i note that the article creator appeared to have made lots of Bhat related articles (including the village), this one is just not wikinotable enough for a standalone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass my standards for houses of worship. There's no evidence of when it was built or its Architectural style: much less its significance as a pilgrimage site or house of worship. Just to be sure, I did an online search and found 14 blogs and mirrors. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian thanks for your searches, [32] that you linked is a wikipedia mirror.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Bhat village. It exists and we should WP:PRESERVE Wm335td (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wm335td: you know you didn’t read the PRESERVE before commenting. This temple doesn’t meet WP:V. Isn’t that clear for you? How can unverifiable information can be tolerated on Wikipedia?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bhat, Daskroi.4meter4 (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the last re-list, we have a Keep, Delete and a Merge. Try another re-list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems appropriate at this time. This does not appear to be a notable temple and the village article is not so big that merging will be an issue. Guy (help!) 13:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Details are not verifiable. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are WP:V and WP:OR concerns with this one. Dee 03 16:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDIA contributor here. There are WP:V and WP:OR concerns and there is absolutely nothing worth saving in this article, so the merge or redirect options are not viable. The temple in itself fails WP:GNG.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:54, 14 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Talakchand Zabakba Visalpur Sarvajanik High School

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and even if it passes then also these simple details can be easily created after. No verifiable information is available to us. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it actually exists, there's a longstanding consensus that high school articles are generally notable. tedder (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder, But no verifiable information is available in article or on internet which is violation of basic policy WP:Verifiability. Will your vote still be same?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedder: that consensus changed in February 2017 RFC :) —usernamekiran(talk) 10:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the mass approval of allowing articles just because they exist without adequate sourcing was a horrible decision and needs to be ended.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of available sources with which to meet WP:V and WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears to be a run of the mill school. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 4 November 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. With respect to "User:DGG, the subject is actually notable to a great extent. ", we generally want evidence of notability, not a mere assertion that it exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Oladipupo

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

the references that are not their own publications are a combination of PR and mentions, and do not show notability DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG, the subject is actually notable to a great extent. References deemed PR should be pulled off although they provide information about the subject which I made neutral. Mutiat Mustapha (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he owns stuff. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources presented are a combination of promotional PR and passing mentions. Nothing that suggests significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is apparent in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:05, 7 November 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. Fram (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hise Model A

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

A company which only developed one aircraft, of which they only built a prototype. The only book that has given it any attention is this, a highly specialized 127 page book that spends 4 lines on this plane. If even the source where you could expect to find most information on this, only has so little to say about it (and no other sources could be found[33]), then it seems to lack the required notability. Fram (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find virtually nothing (beyond the brief mention in that single source) about Fred Hise, his company (was it actually even a company?), or this plane. Effectively, all that we can say is "A guy built a slightly distinctive plane in Michigan in the 1920s" and ... that's not enough to clear the notability bar absent additional sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Yeah, okay, so my source searching on this was clearly wasn't up to my usual standards. That said, I think we're best off with a Move here, to Hise Aircraft Corporation as nearly all the sources are more directly about the company than their prototype plane. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A brief mention here on p507 of a report in the US journal Aviation on the 1929 Cleveland airshow, where it was exhibited, together with specifications here (p508) and a mention of a revised version [34] (registration required I'm afraid) - not a huge amount, but can fill out the article a little.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the sources and detail that User:RecycledPixels added demonstrate that SGNG is met, so Keep.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found some additional sources, and even a photograph from the Smithsonian (maybe). The company received an order for 5 aircraft valued at $100,000 ($1,500,000 today) but the airline purchasing the planes had its authorization to sell stock yanked because it spent all of its money on the planes, leaving nothing for operations. I only have Google snippet view of the "Orders and Opinions of the Michigan Public Service Commission" source, but that may provide additional information if someone has better access to it. I haven't spent a ton of time digging around this, but I suspect the cancelled order plus the onset of the Great Depression led to the demise of the company. So it's not really about a guy who built one airplane and flew it once. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image that I found and uploaded was apparently put on Flickr by a user on the Commons blacklist who is known for misrepresenting the copyright status of their images. So it might not be usable. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, thanks for all the improvements and finding sources which were not easily accessible. Fram (talk) 06:49, 4 November 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 no consensus. This deletion discussion was initated by an initially unproven request for deletion by the article subject that was substantiated later in the course of discussion by Bearian, citing concerns that Mrs. Campbell is being harassed as a consequence of this page existing. Most of the keep arguments here rely on notability claims, which are reasonably argued and mostly uncontested. The key delete arguments rely on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and the arguments made by the subject but haven't gone uncontested (e.g Xxanthippe's and David Eppstein's concerns) and the counterarguments are non-negligible.

On balance, it seems like this discussion has no clear consensus in favour of deletion as there are valid points on both sides, and it seems like the criteria on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE do not necessarily require deletion. That said, I'll be extending the protection of the article to indefinite and open a discussion at WP:BLPN as the concerns raised here should not be simply let slide. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Campbell (educator)

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

Subject, Rebecca Campbell, would like article removed Feeneyh (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this a genuine request by a 1 edit Spa? If not, its a slam-dunk Keep (to use a sports metaphor, hopefully correctly). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 32 publications with over 100 cites each and an h-index of 55 [35] is an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. The US government and APA awards [36] [37] are a likely pass of #C2. We could possibly consider WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but only with stronger evidence that the request actually comes from the subject, and even then I think she's too prominent for that to work. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It looks like there's a good case for passing WP:PROF, and it's not clear how a fairly standard (if unpolished) academic bio like this could constitute such a risk to the subject that it outweighs the public interest in having the page available. Should MSU also scrub her from their website? Nor is it clear that the deletion request is actually legitimate. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No evidence has been supplied that the deletion request is genuine. I suggest that AfD nominations should not be allowed, except through an admin, until a user is WP:extended confirmed. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - regarding the level of evidence needed to indicate that the subject would like deletion is interesting. We frequently accept users who take a username indicating the person more directly as indication - despite no more evidence on them (e.g. the recent Mark Lindquist AfD). OTRS is the more preferred route, though obviously the subject has to agree to have their confirmation made public. This comment is not a commentary on the notability (or lack) of the subject Nosebagbear (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - full professor at a large research university with significant research (and alma mater of two of my relatives). I would agree to deletion of a marginal case or a minor (e.g. child actor). I've reached out via email to the subject. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Initially closed as a keep but I was told a formal request way made to delete. Relisting in order to allow for a proper discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 12:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence that the subject wants deletion, no reason given for proposed deletion, article complies with policy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After I emailed the subject, I received a reply email from her requesting deletion due to emailed threats on her work email, connected from an external link on the article. It seems that disturbed persons are finding her email address via a link from her Wikipedia page, and emailing her weekly threats of a serious and credible nature. In lieu of deletion, I also requested long-term semi-protection on WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter protected for 1 week, which I've increased to 2 to cover the potential length of the AfD. If the page isn't deleted, a further discussion can be had as to long-term protection Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject easily passes notability requirements. --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have reconsidered my !vote in the light of Bearian's further information, and now I tip over to the "delete" side. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging Xxanthippe, David Eppstein, and Roxy, the dog who referred to the lack of confirmation. XOR'easter (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very sadly, on account of Bearian's remarks and with thanks for his initiative. Removing a link is, in my view, insufficient. Thincat (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment we appear to be being asked to delete our encyclopaedic article because the subjects email address is on the subjects workplace website? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So we are to have no coverage on researchers of sexual violence because the crazies will seek them out and harass them? That seems like an inappropriate outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a significant and difficult issue. I can appreciate arguments on either side. In this particular case the abused email address is of msu origin. I note that many institutions do not make public the email addresses of their staff (which makes it harder for both ill wishers and well wishers to contact the staff). The problem is with the msu website, not with Wikipedia. Perhaps the best solution would be for msu to change her work email and remove it from public view rather than delete the Wikipedia BLP. My earlier keep is maintained as the reported reason for deletion is not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The problem arose from lax security of the subject's web site. Wikipedia was not to blame. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I guess the best argument for "keep" that I could make is that it's on MSU to implement some basic #@%&#!-ing precautions, and perhaps it's too late for anything we do to make a real difference. I mulled that over, failed to be satisfied by any course of action, and ended up less unsatisfied with "delete" than with "keep". XOR'easter (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to give my take on this after !voting delete. I think we should delete the article because the subject asked us to, not specifically because of links or email addresses, not because of the nature of her research. I don't think WP would be significantly harmed in this particular instance though I do realise that deletion might be seen as the start of an undesirable trend. In balancing encyclopedic comprehensiveness against reducing personal risk (or fear of risk), on the whole, I think the latter is more important. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since everybody is commenting, I just spent a trivially easy two minutes finding her email and phone number, in numerous places. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per Thincat. It’s unfortunate that it has come to this, but I can’t on good conscience say that we should ignore the subject’s request on something like this especially given the ongoing harassment which may be linked to our page. Michepman (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The harassment is not linked to Wikipedia, which does not give her email address. Her email address (and telephone number) are on her own public web site and many other places on the web, the former also on her Google scholar profile, but not on Wikipedia. Any connection of the harassment to Wikipedia is unproven. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. E-mails on her WP BLP cannot be the source of the problem as her details are easily searchable online. In such cases I would be suspicious that there is some unfavourable content in the BLP that the subject does not like, however, in this case, I don't think any such unfavourable content exists? It is possible that her work leads her to give testimony in court cases, for which she can be harassed by defendants etc. However, I am still not sure that deleting her WP BLP would give her much additional anonymity in regard to this, given it is just a collection of public sources? Perhaps a follow-up e-mail could be sent to the subject outlining these points (which are also made above by other editors), so she could clarify her rationale? Britishfinance (talk) 10:41, 6 November 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, but start move discussion. OK, from reading this discussion it seems like the concerns are less with the existence of the article and more about the title it currently resides under as it's not clear that it should be called a "conspiracy theory". What little discussion on the first point there is does not clearly indicate a consensus for either deletion or keeping, so no consensus. On the name question it seems like there is a consensus that the current name is inappropriate, but AFD isn't the correct venue for discussing article renames. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War against Islam conspiracy theory

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

This started as a redirect. User:Bless sins removed the redirect in May 2006 but left the title - the lead started "War on Islam is a term used by some Muslims and westerners alike to describe military actions taken against Muslims by Western powers, prior to and after 9/11." and the text didn't mention a conspiracy theory. The lead later called it a neologism - the phrase "conspiracy theory" was only added in July 2016, without source.[38] Even today the only use of the phrase is in the lead where it's used twice. and much if not most of it doesn't seem based on sources talking about a conspiracy theory but about the "English-language political neologism of "War on Islam" which the article says was only popularized as a conspiracy theory after 2001 - although the source, pp. 559 and 560 of this book[39] seems to be referring to 9/11 conspiracy theories.[40] So no sources that I've checked so far call it a conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be a number of sourced uses of the term, or of language consistent with the idea of organized western hostility against the Islamic world, in the article. Having said that, the organization of the article is not great, and there is some questionable material. For instance, the article cites the billion bibles website, which appears to be beyond "fringe." There may be some value in trying to clean up the article. EastTN (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EastTN: what sources use the phrase "conspiracy theory" to describe a war on Islam? Doug Weller talk 13:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doug Weller: Sorry, I didn't catch that the use of the term "conspiracy theory" was your core concern. That's my mistake - I should have read more carefully. While I personally think it has many of the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory, I wouldn't be opposed to changing the article title to something more neutral. Perhaps we could just delete the word "conspiracy" and make it "War Against Islam theory"? EastTN (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @EastTN: maybe, see the descriptions at War as metaphor and Anti-Islam for that title. Let's see what others say, and in any case it's a bit of a mess. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Doug Weller: I completely agree that it needs work. I noticed that both War as metaphor and Anti-Islam both use just "War against Islam". That could work, but it could implicitly imply that there is a coordinated war against Islam. My instinct is that it would be more neutral to include another word, such as "theory", to avoid taking sides on that point. On the other hand, there is an article entitled "War on Women" even though Republicans would deny that there is such a thing, and an article entitled "War on Coal" even though the Obama administration would not have characterized their policies that way. But instead of "War on Christmas" we have "Christmas Controversies". Could we do something similar and go with something like "War against Islam Controversy"? EastTN (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At first I was going to Ivote delete. But looking deeper at the article there is something here. I think "conspiracy theory" should not be part of the title, at all. Also, it can be said, that Sayyid Qutb, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Osama bin Laden had a point. It can be said, that Muslims have been vilified by those who are not willing to raise their consciousness, because the actions of a few placed a label on Muslims. And it could be true that a number of Muslims die every day as a result of attacks - this I don't know.

But, it is not a coordinated effort as is claimed by the three aforementioned Muslim leaders. Yet, going back to the 1980s and the time of Ayatollah Khomeini, the west was indeed involved in a proxy war against the Islamic state known as Iran. The Unites States was allied with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which was at war with Iran. Millions did die on both sides. From the intro in the Wikipedia article entitled Iran–Iraq War, it says -- "The United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, France, and most Arab countries provided political and logistic support for Iraq, while Iran was largely isolated."

So, from the Muslim perspective, millions have been killed with support form the West. Anyway, whatever is here, is not really a conspiracy theory. Also, saying "conspiracy theory" in this context seems to disregard any validity that Islam is denigrated by other people and other groups. Then there is the "racial" or "ethnic" memory of the Crusades, where Christianity was involved. I'm going to keep reviewing this. At this moment I am agreeing "theory" would be a much better than conspiracy theory, due to its neutral wording. But, is "War against Islam" a real thing?

There is no declared war against Islam on the planet. The only perceived War on Islam (in the West), that I can recall at the moment is the several Crusades. Other than that I am not sure we can include that in the title. Wikipedia reports what reliable secondary sources say. Was the war between Iraq and Iran a War on Islam? I don't know how to answer that. I can say from the West's perspective, it was a war for disputed territory between to countries - but is that the accurate perspective? Sorry, for such a long post. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

"...it is not a coordinated effort as is claimed by the three aforementioned Muslim leaders." My sense is that the article was originally intended to discuss the claims made by Muslim leaders such as these that there is a widespread, coordinated effort by the West to attack the Islamic world as a whole. If so, the challenge is figuring out what to call that claim. Language like "War on Islam" and "War against Islam" has been used to describe the idea. But we need to avoid implicitly endorsing the idea that there is such a coordinated effort, given that many Westerners deny that it exists. We also need to be careful that we don't confuse the idea with other concepts, such as wars fought for territorial reasons or to suppress terrorism. EastTN (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see what you're saying. I think it is worth it to find a title because their rhetoric has been heard by many and resonated with many. The rhetoric seems to have historical impact looking to the past and for the implications for the future. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to look this over as in-depth as I would like. But so far, from what I have read, I think "War on Islam" as part of the title is not a bad idea. It's as much a hyperbole as the other article titles mentioned and it speaks to what we have been discussing. Perhaps one of the following would work: "War on Islam theory"; "Concept of War on Islam"; "War on Islam concept"; "War on Islam ideology"; "...philosophy"; "...position"; "...premise"; "...system"; "...rationale"; and so on. I prefer not to use "theory" because I think it will appear to be a made up topic. The others seem equally OK. I will have to mull them over. In any case, how do these proposed titles come across to others?---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too hung up on the specific word we use. Of the options you threw out, I like "Concept of War on Islam", "War of Islam theory" and "War of Islam concept" in declining order of preference. But honestly, I think any of them would be better than what we have, so I'm not inclined to arm-wrestle over which one we use. EastTN (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No time right now, but I hate the overuse of "theory" - it's often not appropriate and I don't think it is here. "Charges of/there there is" or something similar? Doug Weller talk 16:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with not using the word "theory". I could live with "Charges of..." I also like "Concept of War against Islam" or "War against Islam Controversy". EastTN (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we have a few people involved in this discussion. It seems we can throw around some good ideas. Let's give more time for Doug to chime in again. It seems he wants to say more.

So, this is good. "Charges of War on Islam" is accurate, Concept of War On Islam is good. "War Against Islam controversy" is OK, but I'm not sure it is a controversy. Taken from the view of the Muslim leaders I don't see an actual controversy. What they are saying is straightforward and I don't see anyone debating them. I don't see corruption emanating from their organizations. I don't see anyone challenging them in the domain they occupy.

To give a little contrast, even though I am guessing we all know this - there are moderate political forces in Iran, sometimes the pendulum swings their way, but they still answer to or are beholden to the more conservative domains - seemingly without controversy. Hopefully, this make sense. If it doesn't please feel free to chime in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with waiting for Doug to weigh in again. And I would be comfortable with any of those three titles. As an aside, I don't think "controversy" is unfair. There may be broad agreement within the Islamic world. However, we have documented sources for prominent Western leaders such as Obama and Bush denying the existence of the kind of coordinated "war" that Qutb, Khomeini and bin Laden allege. Salman Rushdie's comments seem relevant here too. So if we look beyond the Islamic world, it does seem to me that there's a real and significant disagreement about whether this "War on Islam" exists, and if it does, what the nature of it is. That's why I would be comfortable with "controversy" as well as "Charges" or "Concept".

(Just for the record, I think we've both waffled between "War against Islam" and "War on Islam". The two seem equivalent to me, and I'd be comfortable with either one.) EastTN (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on "War on Islam". I missed that. That is an error on my part - I meant to stick with "War Against Islam." Yet, I agree the two seem equivalent to me as well. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you make a good point that this can be construed as a controversy, when looking at the bigger picture. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Doug, do you have any additional thoughts, or are you comfortable with the direction we're headed in? Thanks. EastTN (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy. I think I prefer "War on Islam controversy". Doug Weller talk 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That works for me. Steve, does that work for you? EastTN (talk) 21:24, 4 November 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.

I've history merged it into the (declined) draft at Draft:Shikha Chhabra. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Chhabra

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

Fails WP:GNGACTOR, no sources exist except social media profiles. Andrew Base (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 30 October 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)} 17:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JournalServer

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

An unsuccessful project. Not obviously notable and lacking references. Rathfelder (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Even though the project was short lived, it was notable. See 1, 2, and other brief mentions I can see. It was an early collaborative project in open publishing, so significant. Mccapra (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Mccapra's ref. no. 2 appears solid, but ref. no. 1 appears to be a report issued by Open Journal about themselves. It is not clear to me that this is about JournalServer or independent of the subject if it is - it does not mention the term "JournalServer" but instead merely talks about publishing a couple of journals using "jouranl server". Even if it is independent of the subject, it is not WP:SIGCOV as it is a bare mention. In my WP:BEFORE I couldn't find any other instances of WP:SIGCOV and as such this fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FOARP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Further, what is the value of an article on a now defunct short lived website that carried academic journals that are still available in other formats? It's doubtful this information will be of any value to the reading public because the content housed at this website is now housed elsewhere. For example, the Wiley Online Library Database Model 2018 houses the Journal of the Chinese Chemical Society and the Indian Journal of Tuberculosis is housed at the DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals. Anybody looking for the content once at this website can find it elsewhere in a search at their local library very easily. There is really nothing notable about a short-lived academic website warehouse with minimal content which has been moved elsewhere to larger hosts of academic journals.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 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) 16:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Burgos CF season

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY and WP:NSEASONS as it did not play a fully professional league. Asturkian (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NSEASONS. Can't fail WP:NFOOTBALL as that applies to biographies. Giant Snowman 09:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG HawkAussie (talk) 21:45, 4 November 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 University of Sydney Library. Unsourced article with no support for Keep, but a support for a Redirect (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney eScholarship

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

Very short and devoid of useful content or references Rathfelder (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Sydney Library. Bookscale (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a totally unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what about a redirect then? It's part of the uni library now (see [https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/ here), definitely not worth its own article, but redirect solves this. Bookscale (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Sydney Library.4meter4 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 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. Nom withdrawn after RS were provided on which there was a consensus that they met GNG (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bionicle: Matoran Adventures

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

Received no reviews according to Metacritic and GameRankings and I don’t think it received any notable coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 18:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Argonaut Games. Contains no references and thus clearly fails WP:GNG. 🕵️Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually looking at the sources provided by Lordtobi it does seem to have could enough sources to be made into a workable article but currently no sources are even provided in the article thus is essentially WP:OR for all I know so I would still suggest this to be redirected until it can be appropriately sourced. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, available sources: [41][42][43][44][45][46] (review)[47] (review). These might be helpful to determine notability. Lordtobi (✉) 18:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like decent pre-release coverage, but only a handful of reviews. Hm. This is worth considering. Toa Nidhiki05 18:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Game Informer reviewed it in the November 2002 issue as well. This review was incorrectly attributed to a different Bionicle game in GameRankings. I’m going to withdraw this nomination. There seems to be enough to salvage something here. Toa Nidhiki05 18:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator has withdrawn in a later comment, but a redirect !vote exists. Regarding the redirect !vote, it is of note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability does not hinge upon the state of sourcing in articles. Overall, this discussion would benefit from more input for a solid consensus to form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references found above are enough to convince me that WP:GNG is met. Lowercaserho (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator withdrawn. Passes WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 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 20:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DWER

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

Can't find any record of this radio station anywhere in the Philippines, let alone in Isabela. Currently, the second source does not list the station, and the first source actually contradicts this article, saying that frequency 104.1 FM in Isabella is a station with the call sign, PU, which is owned by Kaissar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DWER-FM is in the 2018 NTC list (page 3). It probably gained a call sign after the release of the 2010 list (reference #1). --Bluemask (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable here. Wm335td (talk) 22:26, 7 November 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. There was no consensus for either keep or delete prior to a substantial reworking of the article. Consensus since that reworking seems to be in favor of keeping. Any possible rename may achieve consensus through normal processes. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table-glass

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

Unsourced, not known by such a name in English, unlikely to be notable, just an ordinary faceted drinking glass. If we're to have an article on such a thing, let's start with sources. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem to be a common name for this, and even if it were it's just a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. This is definitely not just a dictionary definition. The style is also referred to as beveled glass [48][49][50][51] (and briefly here and here). It might make sense to move the article to there, or to the Russian name. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beveled glass has a much more common meaning and an article already. Maybe Beveled drinking glass? Or Faceted glass? Ribbed glassware? Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a DICDEF, seems to have a notable existence and history in Russian culture, much like Podstakannik, and other concepts. AFD is not the place to ask for sources, complain about the article name, or merely suggest that it is just 'unlikely to be notable'. Spokoyni (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question How is this different than Highball glass? Could possibly merge with that article, as a sub-section related to this apparently Russian variant, no? Alternatively, if worthy of its own article, I think it should be moved to something that is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME as I certainly don't call these type of glasses "table glass". I guess I'd maybe !vote to move to Ribbed glassware. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ribbed glassware (or similar name)—something consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. I think this is a case of WP:LOSTINTRANSLATION. Ping me with any significant sources to reconsider my !vote and rationale. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Andrew Davidson: and @RoySmith: made some useful arguments in the 1st nomination on merging with Tumbler (glass). That seems like a potentially useful approach, as I think it's worthwhile noting this type of tumbler's apparent Russian origins, but we should do so perhaps as a merged article or, alternatively, by renaming this article, no? Doug Mehus (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to a section in Tumbler (glass) seems like a good idea to me. I see it's got a link there already. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of different ideas here, including deletion, retention, merging and moving. Relisting in hopes for a more solid consensus to form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless someone can find significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - have rewritten the article, using a small selection of the sources available - a lot more in Russian than in English not suprisingly, and can add more if required. An even stronger keep. Spokoyni (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Spokoyni: do you have a suggestion for a better title? Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting question. A literal translation of гранёный стакан is 'Faceted glass'. There would be the option of treating it like Podstakannik, and using 'granyonyi stakan', but this is perhaps suboptimal. Podstakannik is not quite a loanword yet, but is mostly used untranslated in English, the same is not true for the granyonyi stakan, at least not yet. In internet searches, variations on 'Faceted glass Russia' are always about this concept, but 'Bevelled glass Russia' are not. So I think the name solution could be best fixed with the title 'Faceted glass'. Spokoyni (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Facted glass is OK by me. I'll do an RM. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Get consensus post new updates by Spokoyni
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, and article now shows this with improvements made, i will leave it to others to decide on a rename if required, that can be discussed on article talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Faceted glass per Spokoyni.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Motors

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has a previous removed WP:PROD, so soft deletion isn't an option; giving this another shot at input for a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few references to the article. There are more to be found. I find that there is some notability and so therefore I !vote keep. Wm335td (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This article can be improved. VF9 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Closing admin should observe that added sources are not WP:RS. Störm (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, none of the references are good. I've checked for additional good sources but I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As of 19 November 2019, this article has The Express Tribune (newspaper), Asianet News and (3) other improved references. Today I updated and gave new references and before me (3) references were given by Wm335td above on 13 November 2019.Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV per the following sources including two peer reviewed journal articles:

Bartos, Frank (April 2003). Direct-Drive Linear Motion Lives!. Vol. 50(4). p. 34. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) (peer reviewed)
Motoman - palletizing in the freezer. Vol. 30(6). December 1, 2003. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) (peer reviewed)
UK keen to up trade links with Pakistan. June 15, 2012. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Deputy high commissioner says UK committed to building trade ties with Pakistan. June 14, 2012. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Saeedi, Tariq. HASCOL CHAIRMAN TALKS ABOUT BALOCHISTAN'S ENERGY POTENTIAL. p. 19-20. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Mckie, David (May 24, 1995). Democracy can spare a few mediocre MPs. p. 15. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Vasilash, Gary (November 1995). The first look: Motoman pushes the envelope of robot development. Vol. 107(11. p. 35. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 21 November 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOSTIIMA Business School

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

Following Wikipedia:College and university article advice and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there is a "challenge-able consensus" (in legal jargon, a "rebuttable presumption)" that all accredited degree-awarding tertiary institutions are notable, unless shown to be otherwise. In my opinion, this is one of those cases. Looking at the references cited (other than List of MBA schools in India, which is inherently an unreliable source):

collegedunia.com appears to be at best a LinkedIn-style website for personal CVs and advertisements for businesses
EurAsian Times is at best a news aggregator
https://www.fostiima.org/aicte-approval.php is simply the parent organisation's assertion of accreditation
https://www.jagranjosh.com appears to be similar

There is no evidence in reliable sources that this purported tertiary institution is an accredited education provider. As such it should be treated as a business, and would appear to me fail the WP:CORPDEPTH test. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sbsinha.bhushan (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Shirt58 (talk) Please check https://www.facilities.aicte-india.org/dashboard/pages/angulardashboard.php#!/approved this link for your reference... you have to select there state Delhi and you will see all the AICTE Approved colleges will be listed there after Typing FOSTIIMA Business School in search box you will find this college name. Thanks ![reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any good sources on the school after extensive searches.4meter4 (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:29, 15 November 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 only "keep" argument is "it's old", but we need sources for an article, not time. Sandstein 08:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ormeau Golf Club

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly not notable as a course. Its main claim to notability is its age - it was founded in February 1893. https://www.fairwaysandfundays.com/irelands-oldest-golf-courses/ mentions the 10 oldest in Ireland. 10th on their list is Ballybunion Golf Club from 1893 but I suspect Ormeau may be a few months older. So, on the basis that it may be in the top 10 oldest courses in Ireland, I'd be inclined to keep it. Nigej (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is no significant coverage and the article relies on its own website for it's notability reasoning. The Belfast City Council source is dead, so there is nothing, unless you can find something else. Please remember that wikipedia has no deadlines, so how long an article has been around is not a reason to keep it. ww2censor (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only source I could find was "An Author At Golf.", The Youth's Companion (1827-1929), Feb 23, 1899, Vol.73(8), p.91 which is basically a human interest story thanking a member of the golf club for a great time on the golf course by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle of Sherlock Holmes fame. Not exactly RS but interesting.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Moving to Delete as not enough RS has been provided to meet GNG at this AfD; try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 09:50, 17 November 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. ST47 (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Visit

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

Fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and doesn't establish WP:Notability; a plot summary is already present in List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes. I originally added a {{notability}} flag in 2008, which got removed in 2012 for no apparent reason. (This AfD is a test case for all the other episodes for this series.) – sgeureka ^t•c 09:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete - As much as it pains me to vote delete on this, no, this is basically WP:ALLPLOT and hence fails WP:NOT. There is no evidence that this episode (or any of the other episodes, which could be nominated together with this one) is notable independently of Yes Minister, and as such it also fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see a wikia dedicated to this show, so I am not sure if there is any other website that hosts a better plot summary for this episode (Series). But WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument to keep this... maybe transwiki to Wikibooks? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- in regards to future AFDs, I'd be wary of lumping every episode together. Certain things (for example, the special between the two series, would probably receive enough individual media coverage for being out of the ordinary. Individual episodes might also receive differential levels of coverage. matt91486 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is AfD concensus that (most of) the articles shouldn't exist, then I'll probably just redirect the other episode articles to the LoE, citing this AfD and its rationale. If someone wants to revive the articles by solving the AfD concerns, fine, but nothing has been improved for 11 years, so... *shrugs* – sgeureka ^t•c 10:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without sources, there is no need for this to exist. TTN (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These expanded Plot-articles for Yes Minister should probably be merged into the main article as shorter plots (eg less than 10 lines per norm); would be a shame to lose this material until such a merger was completed? Also, probably shouldn’t delete individual articles until a group-solution has been decided. Britishfinance (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Wm335td (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Britishfinance. 4meter4 (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sgeureka could re-nom the series (who are all in the same shape), and propose they be merged into the main Yes Minister article that should be re-done as a proper "Series" article with 10-line plot summaries for each episode, E.g. like this Chernobyl (miniseries)? There is too much plot here, but many Yes Minister enthusiasts (myself included), like to have a way to remind themselves of what happened in each one? Britishfinance (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with redirecting all of them to the LoE, and interested editors can salvage what they want from the ep article history. However, I do not support leaving the articles up for longer - eleven years have been long enough. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT#PLOT applies. Second choice redirect to the main article or an article about the seasons, if existent. What we should not do is leave them under a merge tag for another decade doing nothing. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list of episodes page. There's no good reason to delete content where there's a valid merge target as an alternative to deletion. There's no real, pressing issue that militates towards getting rid of this content now. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Definately not Delete given the content here. These are useful material for creating shorter plots as part of a larger topic article. Britishfinance (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes is already doing. The plot summaries are already fine and per WP:UNDUE don't need more than one or two summary sentences extra, which you won't find in the ep articles. A plot reminder from e.g. IMDb can help here as well, so it's not like deletion would hurt. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just one line summaries - way too short. We want the main article to look like this: Chernobyl (miniseries). This content of this article (and all others in the series) should be written down into a 10-line summary per Chernobyl; otherwise, I would not delete the article. Britishfinance (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion, specifically FOARP. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least find a way to keep the plot summary, it would be a shame for so much hardwork to be wasted and the pages are useful. As long as the serise as a whole is notable then keeping each episode page like many other shows have.Zubin12 (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly respect that an editor put work into this article, but that is not really a good reason to keep something. The final part falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Some shows have episodes that received enough coverage for individual articles, while others do not have this. Such comparisons are not particularly useful for this particular discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes. Unfortunately, and as noted above, there are already short summaries of the episodes in the main article/list. Large scale merging seems likely to bloat the target article. However this is a viable search term and would make a good redirect. That would also satisfy some of the concerns of various editors with respect to preserving the material in the editing history of the redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 24 November 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 Dragon Gate USA. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGUSA Uprising

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

This event (or the two others of the same name held in 2011 and 2012) seems to lack the required notability for an article. It happened and is listed on fansites and databases, but looking for better searches (both with DGUSA Uprising and "Dragon Gate" Uprising as search terms) failed to produce anything. Fram (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Non of this promotions events appear to be independently notable. I would suggest creating a page similar to List of House of Hardcore events and merge all of them together there. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dragon Gate USA. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragon Gate USA.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChineseSkill

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

Not noteable - fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a business directory for small unknown companiesWP:NOTDIRECTORY Iamchinahand (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as in Skritter. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another spammy article about an insignificant app. -Zanhe (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not noteable - fails WP:GNG--SalmanZ (talk) 23:40, 1 November 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. bd2412 T 05:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skritter

AfDs for this article:

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

Not noteable - fails WP:GNG. References from first AfD were very weak - not in-depth. Wikipedia is not a business directory for small unknown companiesWP:NOTDIRECTORY Iamchinahand (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Search is complicated by the fact that "Skritter" is a word in Norwegian, but in my WP:BEFORE all I could find were drive-by references and press-release material. Fails WP:GNG let alone WP:CORP. The Japan Today reference cited in the previous AFD might have been helpful but since it is now a 404 link I cannot assess it, but even if it was WP:SIGCOV it, by itself, would not be enough to sustain notability. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unremarkable software, fails WP:GNG. -Zanhe (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG.--SalmanZ (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added the Japan Today ref to the article. I'd also comment if the nom. was on article defence they would likely have gathered a tagging as a possible Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. The nom's contributions [52] appear to be one narrow focus of AfD for Japanese/Chinese langauge learning ... with little other contributions from the account ... which may be a concern.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:23, 1 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Step into Chinese

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

Not noteable - fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a business directory for small unknown companiesWP:NOTDIRECTORY Iamchinahand (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as in Skritter. FOARP (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. Two other articles written by the same user, TuxMathScrabble and TuxWordSmith, should probably be deleted as well. -Zanhe (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above, --SalmanZ (talk) 23:29, 30 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lyro

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

Procedural nomination, since I declined the PROD because the article was previously deleted via PROD in 2007. The nominator was Mccapra (t c) and their reason was: "Short lived non notable social networking site." –Darkwind (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –Darkwind (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale above. Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a word in some languages, and a surname, which complicates searching, but no WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although I am seeing some at-launch posts around the launch (e.g. Mashable (Jan 2008), perhaps close to meeting WP:PRODUCTREV concerns), these seem to me to be propositional coverage. My searches are not finding the substantial coverage of this venture and its closure which could demonstrate WP:NCORP or WP:NWEB notability. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Defunct company that doesn't seem to have enough coverage at the time or after. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:15, 31 October 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) 16:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North American Basketball League (disambiguation)

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

There is one primary topic, North American Basketball League, and only one other topic, North American Basketball League (1964–1968). Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Disambiguation_pages_with_only_two_entries, the recommended practice is just to use a hatnote at the primary topic. A disambiguation page is unnecessary. —Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disambiguation is not required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem particularly necessary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:41, 1 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Wales (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was deleted back in 2014 for a lack of notability. That issue persists. There is some local news coverage of Wales of dubious quality, and quite a few interviews or promotional sources. What's lacking are independent reviews of Wales' performances or any indication that he meets WP:NACTOR. The Daily Record is the best source out there, but one good source is not enough. Huon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - gets close to WP:BASIC based on the Daily Record article but there's no other article that isn't at least a bit dubious in terms of reliability/independence. I did consider this coverage in Cosmopolitan but it seems a bit too close to a WP:GOSSIP sheet-type-article. FOARP (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Gimme a break! The Daily Record article all but says: "This guy is NOT notable. He has had only bit parts (like the guys in red shirts on Star Trek!), and this is his first modelling gig." Some of his acting credits are community theatre roles as a child. Some of the roles listed are upcoming (maybe those films/tv shows will never be released, or his characters will be edited out). The Cosmopolitan article doesn't say anything about him except that they found some shlump who had a bit part in GOT and *doesn't like the show!* And nearly all of the roles listed in his WP article are unreferenced (and from non-notable works). He is so definitely not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NACTOR and the (abrupt but likely accurate) summary by Ssilvers. To which I have nothing to add. Other than to highlight the COI/SPA/PROMO overtones. Which are a contributory concern. Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. There is nothing in the article to suggest he meets notability. I would note that none of the projects/productions he is credited as being involved with would seem to be notable enough to have an article apart from one (Game of Thrones) where he is listed as being uncredited. Dunarc (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails NACTOR. Spleodrach (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that GNG is established; no need to prolong. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Ní Ghallchóir

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

Sole claim to notability rests on being one of the List of Eurovision Song Contest presenters. Other than that fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, no indication of in-depth coverage, awards, significance. I prodded this a few years back, but was deprodded. AFAIK from the discussions we had back then this was part of a series of similar articles created by a fan or fans of Eurovisions who were under the impression that everything related to that show is notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED bears keeping in mind. Few years on, the individual does not seem to have become more notable, so it's time for AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BASIC, at least two instances of WP:SIGCOV in more than one reliable source are needed. The first is this Irish Independent article which gives her three short paras and highlights the reasons for her notability (introduced the Irish language to many people in Ireland, hosted Eurovision) - nb. this is not a case of "inherited" notability because that would be editors saying, without supporting sources, that she was notable for hosting Eurovision, rather than having a reliable source state that this is the case. From that article, I see she now goes under the name Bernadette Ó hUiginn, and searching for that name I see she is also covered in this Irish Times article. I also see from the Nival database that she has had a number of exhibitions for her artwork including at Dún Aimhirgin which is a "prestigious state-run gallery" in Ireland. Additionally there's this coverage in the US Congressional records (EDIT: this appears to have been a story published in the Washington Post which can be read here). As with a lot of Irish gaelic names, searching in this case is complicated by the large number of variants of each name so there's probably more out there, but even with what's been found thus far seems like a pass for WP:BASIC and also WP:NARTIST (particularly 4(b)). FOARP (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An entry for a Eurovision Song Contest presenter is just as important as a presenter for any other relevant television show. Why do I mention this, because the presenter in question is the face to a worldwide audience - the Eurovision Song Contest is still one of the most watched television programmes worldwide. Whilst I except that not all TV presenters need a Wikipedia entry, I think it is significant that the Eurovision presenters should be entitled to an entry, given the fact they have presented one of the biggest television programmes, worldwide. To say that the entry is insignificant due to the lack of in-depth coverage, awards and significance I find to be an understatement. Mrluke485 (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2019 (GMT)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mrluke485, you took the words right out of my mouth. She was the face of the nation, well known by everybody. I suspect if you dig deep you will find a mountain of references. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She passes GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good sourcing. Host of Eurovision. Passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Macross characters. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 00:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milia Fallyna Jenius

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

Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. A significant, but I don't think, main, character from original Macross series. Her husband Maximilian Jenius who had a similar role was already merged and redirected to the list of Macross characters, and I don't see anything in the article or in my BEFORE search to suggest she has received more of a coverage. Some mentions in passing, some summaries of fictional character bio, and that's about it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the references provide real world information to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Macross characters as yet more supporting recurring characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Macross characters.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 6 November 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 that the article has been speedily deleted by Bbb23 per CSD G5 ([53]). (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 17:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Mehraein

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO, WP:GNG, or WP:NSPORT. According to the reference provided, he was part of a team that came in third in a diving competition. ... discospinster _talk 02:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 02:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 02:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability and I suspect it could be autobiographical. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the sport references written by notable journalist :
- ~~Some Picture taken by notable journalists : # Photo # Photo ---- Uniteme (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)~~ strike sock of Amin mehraien. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears the article has already been deleted per G5. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:18, 30 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on NBC commentators

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

I believe this list falls foul of NOTDIR. Most of these people are notable, sure, and that's great, and they reported on the Olympics, which is in their respective articles, I imagine--but that they reported on these various Olympics is not in itself noteworthy enough to be listed in a separate article. And that is proven, I believe, by the sourcing here, which is as meager and as primary as one should expect: that someone comments on Olympic events is rarely the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. So, delete. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure this passes WP:LISTN. Maybe make a category, but I don't think this is defining either. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessive minutiae not covered in independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 04:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:15, 30 October 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 A217 road. Clear consensus to merge (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitcham Bridge

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. There are thousands or tens of thousands of small bridges in the world (WP:ROTM). It's not even clear that this is actually named the Mitcham Bridge - it may just be a bridge in Mitcham. The only refs are two routine local stories about flooding that occurred when the bridge was being repaired. Much of the article has no citations. Not enough here to establish notability. MB 01:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MB 01:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MB 01:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to A217 road which is the name of the street on which the bridge crosses (as a viable alternative to deletion). The material supported by local sources can be included in this article as part of the relevant sections on the local area. Bookscale (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Not notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. Nightfury 12:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A217 road per Bookscale. The problems I am seeing are: The bridge was virtually unknown before it collapsed, with the collapse itself not generating much coverage either; nom makes a valid point about the article name, so that even if kept, we have this source giving it as Mitcham Bridge, but others are calling it Bishopsford Bridge, Bishopsford Road Bridge, Bishopsford Road/London Road bridge, and even just the bridge, which means that establishing the correct name would be a chore. StonyBrook (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A217 road per above. Barring any evidence that the bridge itself is notable, i.e., sourcing exists that it was of historic importance prior to its collapse, it can be briefly discussed at that article. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:24, 30 October 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. Leaning towards keep, as several reliable sources were discussed and don't seem to have been specifically challenged. ST47 (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Batagov

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

I found https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2018/03/21/classical-cd-of-the-week-anton-batagovs-bach-is-for-tripping/ but I cannot find any unaffiliated sources that discuss the subject or his works. At the very least, the article (and the Russian, French and Japanese ones) need to be re-written to remove unsourced content and promotional tone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. One should simply do search in Russian and immediately find numerous books with non-trivial description of the person, [54], news, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Even the Russian sources are passing mentions or not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, absolutely not. These Russian books are totally reliable RS, and they cover the subject in depth and clearly establish his notability: "Антон Батагов — широко известный композитор, пианист, общественный деятель — лидирующая фигура в искусстве minimal art. Музыкальные события последнего времени — концерты в Москве, Пермский международный ...". My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - A passing mention in a book is proof that it covers the subject in depth? I take it that's why they're not used in the Russian-language article either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please check the book. At least five full pages are about him, and this is an academic-oriented book on the subject of music in 20th century. The subject is described as a "leader" in his area. This is nothing "passing". My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, only brief mentions in sources and promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.12.89 (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NMUSIC. He was a finalist in the 1986 International Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow. His recordings and compositions have been reviewed in major publications, and his work has been studied in academic publications within the field of musicology. See:

"BACH: Partitas 4+6; Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring.(Guide to Records)"; Haskins, American Record Guide, 2018, Vol.81(1), p.69(1)
"Film Reviews: MUSIC FOR DECEMBER"; Stratton, David; Jul 24, 1995; Variety (Archive: 1905-2000), Vol.359(12), p.74
"First Performances"; Tempo, 1992(182), pp.25-32
"Winning and losing in russian new music today.(p.487-511)"; Quillen, William; Journal of the American Musicological Society, 2014, Vol.67(2), p.487(25)

Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to Keep as GNG refs have not been challenged; try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This editors votes are problematic as per their talkpage here and here, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifthavenuebrands: I checked yesterday saw that that this was a new account. And it is usually not the place to begin editing so quickly. The first edit was to nominate an article for deletion. That is usually something for an experienced editor. And then !voting 56 AFDs in 36 minutes. Please slow down. There is not a good way to asses notability so quickly. Wm335td (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable - Jay (talk) 08:22, 22 November 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 Skrull. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 03:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorrek VII

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to either Skrull or List of Marvel Comics characters: D. BOZ (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skrull. He is already discussed on that page, making it the better target for a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skrull.4meter4 (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning against Keep but not clear if it is a Merge or Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skrull. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 07:25, 14 November 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 Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 03:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Manelli

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to either Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos or List of Marvel Comics characters: M. BOZ (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos. Insufficient reliable secondary sources to support an independent article, but he is already covered on the main page for the comic series/team, making it useful as a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos.4meter4 (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning against Keep but not clear if it is a Merge or Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. Tone 11:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Man

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. BOZ (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G Lightburst (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and more of a plot device than a character. No reliable secondary sources means nothing to merge. Considered a redirect to Kang the Conqueror, but not mentioned there. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G.4meter4 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD heading for a NC (two D, two M, and two K); however, the willingness of Keeps ro merge, means a merge could also be considered; try a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. I would tend to think that someone who types "Growing man" into the search bar in Wikipedia is looking for Development of the human body, Developmental psychology or Maturity (psychological). They're also quite likely to be a child, who might be confused to find an article about a comic book character. The current content, if kept, should be moved to Growing Man (comics) (and if merged it should still be moved there in order to retain attribution). I don't really care whether the article about the comic book character is kept, merged or deleted.—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "character" is extremely minor, and there seem to be no reliable, secondary sources discussing it. At the very least, I was unable to find any, and none of the "Keep" or "Merge" votes above provided any. Thus, merging non-notable, only primary sourced information to other articles does not solve anything, it just conflates the target article/list with even more non-notable cruft. There are also the concerns that S Marshall brought up regarding the article's name space, so regardless of the results of this AFD, that is definitely an issue that should be addressed. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 7 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar Photographic Society

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

Fails WP:GROUP. Previously PROD'ed by Ifnord, was contested seemingly in bad faith. — Frood (talk!) 00:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Frood (talk!) 00:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frood (talk!) 00:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's an abundance of reliable sources which can be used to expand it. It's notable for its annual competition/exhibition. [55]

[56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

Undoubtedly meets content requirements. "Short" is never a valid reason to prod or AFD an article, what were you saying about bad faith?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One thing that makes this organization and its competition notable is that it is actually run by the Gibraltar Government, and the prize money awarded by the Ministry of Culture. Since this is a publicly funded society through tax dollars there is a public interest in maintaining an article. Passes WP:SIGCOV per Blofeld.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 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.