Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 August	20 August >

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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Cavallo

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. Barca (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - He currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL for now but because he is in a team and if he gets a game for Western United in the A-League then I would say to keep it. But for now I would put the page as a draft for now and wait to see if he does play. HawkAussie (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify still WP:TOOSOON but the A-League's not far off. SportingFlyer T·C 08:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No wide coverage and notability not shown. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per HawkAussie or SportingFlyer. Bookscale (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this attempt at promotion by a possibly interested party, though certainly a kamikaze account. Subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. -The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Novak

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

Does not appear to satisfy any of the six criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Three refs in the article: one to his personal website, one to the directory of the graduate program where he is currently doing a PhD, and one to the departmental webpage of the music school where he got his music degree. I did a bit of google news searching, and the only news item I found that concerns his work is this article in a local Cleveland newspaper where he is mentioned once [1]. I did not find any published reviews of his work either. The page says something about Film scores, but his name does not appear in IMDB in the credits for any films. So it looks to me like WP:COMPOSER is not satisfied at the moment. A prod was declined by the article's creator. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COMPOSER not met. WP:GNG not met. Google search does not help me to find sources to support either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete No indication that he's notable as a composer or musician. Lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable according to the public domain.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet any of the requirements for WP:COMPOSER and is not notable. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:COMPOSER. The fact that the contested text has been created by a kamikaze account does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reasonably strong consensus to Keep, but Keeep was also a possibility. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Long Johnson (album)

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

Not notable, just like the article on Oh Long Johnson. TheAwesome Hwyh 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the nom's opinion of the source of the album's name, this is an album that hit #1 on the Spanish charts. The citation for THAT stat appears on the band's page instead of this one, but regardless there appears to be a common sense argument for notability here, even if there is a poor amount of citation. -Markeer 00:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This is a charting album. Actually, it's more than a charting album as it went to no. 1 this year. It was in the charts for a total of ten weeks.Charlamos con Miss Caffeina sobre su disco 'Oh Long Johnson' (y descubrimos el significado de su título), Miss Caffeina - 'Oh Long Johnson' Spanish iTunes Chart Performance. The nominator for this page's deletion is the same nominator for the deletion of the "Oh Long Johnson" cat page. This should never have been put up for deletion Karl Twist (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why does it matter that I also nominated Oh Long Johnson? TheAwesome Hwyh 17:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Not in the slightest. -The Gnome (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep since subject, for better or worse, satisfies WP:NALBUMS #2, in that it has charted in Spain's national chart (see here). In fact, it reached the top position. -The Gnome (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Number 1 album in Spain is clearly going to be notable. --Michig (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed. I think we now have consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 13:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karakoram Motors

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

Company is mostly sourced with primary sources, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the claim that it's [one of] the oldest car assemblers in Pakistan seems to be true, that's certainly a good claim to notability. I note also that however poorly the article is currently sourced, that's mainly an editing matter not for AfD; and it's fine to use primary sources for basic facts about the firm. I see from the google news search that the firm was substantial enough to venture into Air Indus, so it certainly sounds notable. Perhaps we should ask an Urdu speaker to locate suitable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Old enough' is not a criteria and WP criteria is strict for-profit entities, see WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing in-depth in any reliable source about them in recent times. Störm (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've searched for any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability under the current name and the older name and all I can find are mentions-in-passing or directory listings. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 13:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atwood Oceanics

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

There is nothing about this company from notable sources except for the fact that it was bought out. Most of the article is self-cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor600 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As WP:LISTED implies, a formerly public company like this has lots of sources that demonstrate notability, such as [2] and others easily found with a DuckDuckGo search. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - To expand on the above, enough results also from newspapers.com which shows that this company passes WP:SIGCOV. Josalm64rc (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This account has received a checkuser block, so I've struck the vote Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:COMPANY, has not "been the subject of significant coverage" - of the three references, one is to a stock report, one about an acquisition and one about the founder's death = no in depth coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is a long stock report dedicated to the company (one of many such reports) not significant, in-depth coverage? UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- it's not media coverage and the WP:ORGCRITE guideline says, "there must be multiple of such qualifying sources" - a stock report merely confirms that the company exists, it does not establish notability - Epinoia (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the guideline says nothing about "media", there are detailed articles from Bloomberg here and here; Houston Chronicle here; much other media coverage during the ~20 years this multi-billion-dollar company was public. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, 1 !vote struck for a checkuser block
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:NCORP guidelines, references such as analyst reports and research reports meet the criteria for establishing notability. Of course it can be very difficult to find a link to one of these reports as they are often behind (very expensive) paywalls. This link is to an analyst report (for sale) prepared by GlobalData. This second link from Zacks also meets the criteria. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: satisfies WP:NORG per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vannar

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

This is supposed to be "a list of people bearing the surname Vannar" but it has three entries which are not about people with this surname. In fact, I can't find a single Wikipedia article about such people so I propose to delete the list. The article was previously Proded but the tag was removed by an IP without explanation. (Note that if kept, the article should be renamed to Vannar (surname) or something like that.) Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to AfD this page myself, for the reasons listed by the nom. Appears to be a WP:OR/made-up topic. None of the people on the list are actually named Vannar. The third item on the list is the name of a diety, not a person. Ref no 2 does not mention the name Vannar at all, as searching through its text in GoogleBooks shows. [3]. Looks like a likely WP:HOAX. Nsk92 (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is an attempt to list people who are/were members of the Vannar caste. Given its length, merging it with the main article would be the usual route. However, the sourcing needs to be checked first as in such lists it is usually the case that many of the sources are poor. User:Sitush/Common#Castelists may come into play at some point also. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you are correct that the page was intended to be a list of people who are/were members of the Vannar caste, there isn't anything in the article worth merging. Source number 2 does not mention Vannar, as noted in my comments above. Source no. 1 is now a dead link, but there seems to be a copy of it available elsewhere. No mention of Vannar there either. The third item on the list is a diety, not a person. Nsk92 (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said that the sources would need to be checked. - Sitush (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the one who prodded it, it is a list which contains not a single entry about what the list is supposed to contain. There is a caste called Vannar, but I can't find a single WP article about an individual with the name Vannar.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If Vannar included a list of people then it could be usable as a redirect, but I don't see any reason to create such a redirect at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The list contains only three names , at best it could be regarded as OR. Alex-h (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the people included in the list dont have the surname, nor they belong to the caste. Maybe a hoax, or could be OR. In any case, fails the notability criteria for lists. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices using Mediatek SoCs

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

This list of "products using another product" is just marketing material. There's no encyclopedic value to such a cross reference, and this serves as only promotion. Fails at least WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:RAWDATA. Mikeblas (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the precise reasons offered in the nomination. Wikipedia is not here to assist a product's marketing campaign. -The Gnome (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lip Service (2006 TV series)

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

No significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable media, fails WP:GNG. 1989 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One series non-notable time-filler involving talk show clips which likely has no entertainment value (or knowing talk shows, would be a lot different) in 2019. Nate • (chatter) 02:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Barca (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because it's not notable itself and also fails WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DynaScan

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

A digital sign manufacturer that fails WP:NCORP. The references in the article are all promotional; searching for new references turned up nothing significant, independent, and reliable.

Article was apparently created as advertising; note the older versions. It is jealously guarded by several SPAs, one of which authored the article and has a name equivalent to the company's products. These accounts and IP canceled my PROD and keep removing my cleanup tags. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references for this company that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability - just existing is not notable - three of the references are press-releases and the fourth is to the company's own website - not enough significant coverage per WP:ORGSIG, WP:ORGCRIT, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NCORP or WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If somebody wants to recreate this as a WP:DAB page, that's cool. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josser

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

A word definition only, with no sources and not even listed in this glossary or any of the others I checked. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Redirect to Wiktionary:josser. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually planning to replace this with a small dab page (Josser Watling, a character in a film series played by Ernie Lotinga, British slang#J). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is potential for an encyclopedic article on the history of this position, its development over time, its cultural significance, etc, but none of that is here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation Plenty of terms such as: Doctor Josser K.C., Josser on the Farm, P.C. Josser, Josser Joins the Navy, Josser in the Army, Josser Watling, and Josser on the River. AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC) and no sources (WP:GNG) - no objection to a disambiguation page for the term - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good People in Love

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

Article about a web series, completely unsourced to any indication whatsoever of notability per WP:WEB. As always, the notability test for a web series is not that its own self-published web presence technically verifies that it exists -- it is that the web series has been the subject of reliable source coverage in real media independent of its own self-published web presence, but this article has been completely unsourced for seven years and even its self-published website is now a dead link. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No adequate sourcing has been found for this web series. The search fails WP:BASIC. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - there's no sourcing that I can find to get this over the line on GNG or anything else. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability by any guideline - Epinoia (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenStego

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

The sources do not show notability a before search in News Scholar and Books only show passing mentions in lists of similar products nothing in-depth. Fails WP:NSOFT Dom from Paris (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merve Sarı

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

I cannot find any WP:RS that demonstrates that 1) this person exists and 2) they won Miss Turkey 2012. Our own Miss Turkey article suggests that a "Merve Sarıbaş" was crowned the Miss Earth delegate in 2011, but all of my google-fu turns up either copy-pastes of this article, complete with grammatical errors, or a very tenuous YouTube rehost that suggests she was a top-ten runner-up in 2012...

Perhaps someone else will be more successful than me in establishing this person's notability, or even their existence, but I will not hold my breath! -- a ^{consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs} 17:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs} 17:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs} 17:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs} 17:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS, orphan, SPA whose 1st edit was to create this article. Likely fan/vanity. Searching basically turned-up web cruft. Glad to switch if anyone can show actual proof of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source is the website from the organization that crowned her, not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Citing (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-police sentiment

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Contains multiple inaccuracies and hoaxes. The subject of the article is not notable as it is a mismatch of multiple different subjects mixed together, and reads more like a propaganda or attack page then an informative or an encyclopedic article Mysticair667537 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 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 August 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (rewrite?)/don't bite the newbies. The main author of the article says they have written this article as part of a course on underrepresented topics in the social sciences. The writing is more like an academic than an encyclopedia article, but that can be fixed, and anti-police sentiment is a very real thing (a search on Google Scholar returns a lot of articles). It doesn't read at all like an attack page or propaganda. Inaccuracies can be fixed, and I did not see any obvious hoaxes.Citing (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article isn't the best - but it doesn't have problems with N, V or RS and I don't think it's at TNT levels. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn The article could be fixed and rewritten, however, the article at its current state is a mess, however, I do believe the article still has potential. Mysticair667537 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about widows or widowers

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

This article is just a listicle that is best suited for BuzzFeed or another site and not Wikipedia. I think the songs listed could be listed in a category and not like this article that hasn't been edited since December 2016. Pahiy (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable cross-section of topics, nor is it sourced at all, nor does it do a good job of covering the subject in any sort of comprehensive detail. Unless some sort of drastic overhaul, I’d say the best possible scenario outside of deletion would be to draftify it, but even that I imagine would eventually lead to an inevitable WP:G13 deletion realistically. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a citation to an old Entertainment Weekly article that is not available online, but I would bet that this WP article is a quick copy of a little pop culture list in that magazine, which the creator typed into Wikipedia one day then never visited again, not to mention doing no additional research to find other songs about widows/widowers, of which there are probably many more. I agree that it's not really an encyclopedic topic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there does not appear to be enough coverage of this topic as a group to justify a list. Aoba47 (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my edit was mistakenly reverted. So I put it again: *Delete, The article is not sourced, not a notable topic either Alex-h (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that. I redirected the edit because there was a strange URL added to my comment, and I must have missed that it would undo your comment. Thank you for putting it back up. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial list - WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:Overlistification - Epinoia (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Focke Wulf Fw 860

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

Unnecessary article on an obscure project that wasn't even slated for a prototype, let alone production. A better outlet would be a generic article covering ALL the 1950s and 60s German V/STOL projects Petebutt (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"That doesn't make it invalid. There are many other articles about concept aircraft includng the Focke-Wulf Triebflügel. Wikipedia is aimed to contain all known information and this is a part that interests some people. Some people would like to learn about it." PiggleMcDiggle (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Additional: "I have seen broken Wikilinks referencing the Fw 860 in other articles such as Tail-Sitter and Focke-Wulf. Surely we should be adding articles for them so that other users can select them and learn about the individual aircraft. As a counter to what was said by Petebutt, why should it be included within a generic article? A larger article may also omit much information of the precious little we know about the aircraft." PiggleMcDiggle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read What Wikipedia is not and WP:GNG incorporate this article in a generic article as it does not warrant a stand-alone article.--Petebutt (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not particulaly noteworthy as a concept and has limited coverage for a stand-alone article, far better to create an overview article on all these Focke-Wulf ideas/concepts/projects. MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above; there is virtually no information on the design itself, it's all background stuff. Just another paper aircraft, nothing that makes it in any way particularly notable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a list of Focke-wulf projects as MilboorneOne has mentioned Sam-2727 (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least two of the sources (books) appear to be reliable sources. I would be happy to work with the creator to improve this article, noting that AfD is a last resort and nominating a new user's submissions for deletion without an offer of assistance could be deemed as biting the newcomers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- but the two book citations aren't actually in reference to the article in question. They refer the higher efficiency of another type of plane. I can't find the books online, but that is what I can infer from their context. I'll ask the creator of the article for clarification. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any subject can be notable if it is covered in significant detail by reliable sources, even if it was an idea for a project that didn't go anywhere. Not being able to read the books I don't feel able to comment on whether their content would establish notability per WP:GNG, but Nimbus227's offer is helpful. Would draftifying this until that Nimbus and PiggleMcDiggle have worked up a more mainspace-ready article satisfy everyone? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 23:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the evidence of notability raised late during the course of the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Peary

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

Based on my searching, doesn't meet either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for WP:OR for four years. Significant input from what I assume is the subject himself, contrary to WP:AUTO.

Article is sole-source to an encyclopedia.com article. Encyclopedia.com claims to be a reliable source, but I can't find anything that convinces me they have the editorial review processes required to be called that. In any case, it's a WP:TERTIARY source; we need WP:SECONDARY sources to meet WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if there is a lack of in depth coverage there are literally dozens of sources that cite his books and this may tilt the balance for #1 of WP:NAUTHOR here are just a few. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] If there was just one more in-depth source I would !vote to keep.--Dom from Paris (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reviews of his books in contemporary papers digitised on Newspapers.com: Cult Movies [15], [16]; Alternate Oscars [17], [18], [19], [20]; Cult Movies II [21], [22]; Cult Baseball Players [23], [24]; We Played the Game [25]; 1,001 Reasons to Love Baseball [26] - and plenty more. He definitely meets WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources Rebecca Green and I found he meets #1 and #4 of WP:NAUTHOR. --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. Carey Smith

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

This person does not appear to be notable.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Many of the sources aren't independent, reliable or are actually about the company with Smith only appearing for quotes. However, the Forbes article is good, as it's written by an actual staff member which RSN is in favour of, as opposed to a contributor which are not permitted. Lexington Herald Leader also contains a good amount about him, even after filtering out some of the content as direct/indirect quotes. Given he's just meeting GNG, I think he might just edge it, even if another decent source can't be found. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman. 2 sources, one not really all that in depth, are just not enough to justify articles on businessmen. We need more extensive sourcing than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erol User

Not notable businessman. The article is written in a self-promotion style with many (exagerated and unverifiable) statements. I already deleted few of them: Tens of awards without any proof, MBA denied by Harvard Business School (I contacted the registrar service), Membership in thinktanks and clubs ( club of Rome and Budapest without being listed in the official websites). All articles and references seem to be from his own biography website. R3lo sd (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bad sign when every source cited in the history of the article has the article subject as its author. I cannot find any independent reliable sources from which a biography could be constructed. There are people named Erol User here and there, but they are definitely not this person. (I turned up an Erol Üçer, too; again, not this person.) Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It’s a self-promotional article, not notable. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Lucarini

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. World level and medalist fencer.-Binbaksa (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. There is no narrative beyond a couple of brief notes, probably derived from a statistical source. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quoting WP:NATHLETE Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international competition I see two here. There is no additional sport specific guideline for fencing. Another irrational AfD from the same NOM who apparently can't read. Also nominating Michela Battiston and Camilla Mancini also medalists from the same competition. I think this NOM should be blocked from further disruptions. Trackinfo (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - someone doesn't seem to understand that Universiade's are not senior competitions.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Someone does not seem to understand that Universiade is a Senior competition (for students between 18 and 25) and does not seem to know very well the great value of being an Universiade winner especially in Fencing.--Binbaksa (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, and I quote, the universiade is "an international multi-sport event, organized for university athletes" (emphasis mine). Therefore, not a senior event.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of Universiade's downgrading from a global competition of University students to a youth level meet. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to where that discussion has been held. Trackinfo (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. University level competitions are not senior meets.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You apparently do not have a decision to base that on. Trackinfo (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete If the Universiade is a major senior event why does the FIE give no rating points for it? How is a university competition considered "the highest level", which is what WP:NSPORT requires? Not seeing significant coverage to meet the GNG and a world ranking of #143[27] does not show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Italy at the 2019 Summer Universiade I do not see anything that convinces me that WP:NSPORT is met since subject has never competed at the highest level. I'm not seeing the coverage to show WP:GNG is met and it looks like WP:BLP1E applies since all claimed notability stems from the one Universiade. I think Sandals1 makes good points. Having said all that, I am willing to accept a redirect to the aforementioned article. I just don't think an individual article is warranted at this time. Papaursa (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michela Battiston

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. World level medalist.-Binbaksa (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. There is no narrative beyond a couple of brief notes, probably derived from a statistical source. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quoting WP:NATHLETE Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international competition I see two here. There is no additional sport specific guideline for fencing. Another irrational AfD from the same NOM who apparently can't read. Also nominating Lucia Lucarini and Camilla Mancini also medalists from the same competition. I think this NOM should be blocked from further disruptions. Trackinfo (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - someone doesn't seem to understand that Universiade's are not senior competitions.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of Universiade's downgrading from a global competition of University students to a youth level meet. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to where that discussion has been held. Trackinfo (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. University level competitions are not senior meets.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You apparently do not have a decision to base that on. Trackinfo (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete No significant non-routine coverage to meet the GNG. As mentioned previously, the universiade is not the highest level of competition for fencers. The FIE doesn't consider it a major event and a world ranking of 50 is not usually considered enough to show notability. Even boxers, in a more widely known sport, need to be in the top 15 and top 10 judoka have been put up for deletion. I mention these because they are fellow combat sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandals1 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Italy at the 2019 Summer Universiade I think Sandals1 makes good points. I do not see anything that convinces me that WP:NSPORT is met since the subject has never competed at the highest level. I'm not seeing the coverage to show WP:GNG is met and it also looks like WP:BLP1E applies since all claimed notability stems from the one Universiade games. Having said all that, I am willing to propose a redirect to the aforementioned article. I just don't think an individual article is warranted at this time. Papaursa (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodeus (Marvel Comics)

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

Straightforward failure of WP:GNG. No reliable secondary sources exist for any of these very minor characters. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: A. BOZ (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. Minor character with no real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of marvel characters: not individually notable ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: A: there does not appear to be enough coverage to support an individual article, but it is still a viable search term. The above list seems like the best redirect target. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to delete per the discussion below. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I still believe delete is the best option, but if we must redirect, I believe List of Marvel Comics demons is much less indiscriminate. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The character isn't notable enough within the fiction to be included on the character list. Given the long list of unimportant characters who share the name, redirecting to List of Marvel Comics demons might cause confusion. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Journal of Architecture

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

Indexed nowhere, fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not indexed in any selective databases (or even non-selective ones...), no independent sources. Fails NJournals and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The next issue of the Cornell Journal is coming out in Fall 2019. It has been on a hiatus but great issue coming soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.67.214 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the comment above wouldn't change anything, because all references to the journal online (e.g. google scholar) are from the journal itself or Cornell, so fails to have independent sources either way. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Fries

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

Not notable BodaciousTattvas (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subject that fails WP:GNG. No reliable third-party sources are given. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough sources and not notable Alex-h (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources of either Fries or his books, so appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. --Michig (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ahmed Khaled Tawfik. Tone 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safari (novel)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ahmed Khaled Tawfik - extensive series of books, but no citations to show that it is a notable series - does not meet any of the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT - Epinoia (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Euphiction

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

Non-notable orphaned article full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism - no sources cited so delete per WP:NEO - Epinoia (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Place Waikiki Beach

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

Non-notable hotel that fails WP:GNG Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some mundane local coverage concerning its conversion to Hyatt branding from its former name "Ocean Resort Hotel Waikiki", but nothing significant. Unremarkable building that is not in any way a local landmark.----Pontificalibus 14:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Mcampany (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. R3lo sd (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no other contributors (non-admin closure) Hug^syrup 12:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burak Dakak

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

Almost completely unsourced BLP article. One source was added after its initial BLPPROD, but this is far too short for it to be a plausible source for most of the content. A quick Google translate of that source confirms his existence, that he's an actor, date of birth, and lists his films to 2018, but not his brother, pet dog, and all the rest of this detailed content etc. PamD 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PamD 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. PamD 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: will just remove the unsourced content and see how it goes. Sorry about that. PamD 09:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terhi Holster

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

I am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I want the article to be deleted. Toivohopehaap (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Toivohopehaap: Greetings. First of all we do not know if you are the subject as you claimed. Secondaly, even you are the subject, it is not up to the subject to state it their are notable or not but is determined by the Wikipedia notability guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is WP:BIODEL, but verification of the user as the subject is another another thing. --Pudeo (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The search links above do not return many results for the purposes of WP:GNG, although the article mentions achievements from the mid-1990s, which might only have been reported on in print. We don't have a specific guideline for ski-orienteerers, but there is Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Orienteering. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I'll assume good faith on the identify of the requester. We shouldn't force someone to have an article about them when the person is not a public person or someone in an important position (such as politicians). Privacy matters and in many countries it matters more than in the US or UK. -kyykaarme (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need to respect people's pricacy unless they are well known and often covered, which this person clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Placebo. Clear consensus that this topic is already covered by placebo, as nobody has made an argument as to why it would require a separate article. Going by redirect rather than delete or merge because some valid points about preserving the content in some form have been made, but also concerns that this is a WP:POVFORK and the content may thus not be suitable for wholesale copying/merging. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Placebo studies

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

WP:POVFORK of placebo written from the point of view that the placebo effect is a thing, when the main article establishes the opposite. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Placebo is a big topic as there are numerous books about it. It's not difficult to find sources which focus upon studies such as Experimental Placebo Studies or Setting the Agenda for Placebo Studies. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothign to emrge, this is already in placebo, it's just that one editor doesn't like the way it's presented. Classic POVFORK, in fact. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. For example, the page in question gives details of the early work of Louis Lasagna – a respectable physician at Yale and this information does not appear in the other page. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/delete – Nothing in this article is specific to "placebo studies" over "placebo effect" except for the first sentence. I'm seeing no evidence that this Kaptchuk (who by the way owns "an herbal and acupuncture clinic") was a pioneer of the study of the placebo effect, their program wasn't founded until 2011. A few of the recent meta-studies could be merged into the main article. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kaptchuk has spent decades trying to establish that the placebo effect is a thing, becuse he admits that acupuncture is a placebo, and he's an acupuncturist. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the field of research on placebos... --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For a discussion about the POV that this article is supposedly a fork from, see Talk:Placebo#Real_or_not. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not an actual POVFORK, as it was created in 2012. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Delete. Anything salvagable would make more sense in Placebo per WP:NOPAGE. Alexbrn (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Amberdeep Singh. czar 13:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi (Punjabi film)

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

There're no authentic reference or news. Sajid 06:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sajid 06:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The page was moved from Jodi (upcoming film) to Jodi (Punjabi film) after this was opened. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amberdeep Singh the director. Too soon for a dedicated article, but the history might be useful if the film does become notable. Wug·a·po·des 23:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Henry Hall

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

Mayor of a small city without further assertion of notability, does not appear to pass WP:NPOL Reywas92^Talk 07:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taunton MA is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors — but the sources here are a genealogical register and a biographical sketch in a local history book, which is not enough referencing to get a mayor over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage. To deem a smalltown mayor notable enough for Wikipedia, we need considerably more than just one or two pieces of technical verification that he existed — the notability test for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article about his political career, not the ability to locate the names of his wife and kids. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even today, Taunton is a medium-sized city; back in his term in the mid-19th Century it was small. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayor of a place that is not significant enough to make its mayor notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 13:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hannelore Knuts

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

Not enough reliable sources to establish notability by the standards. Purely appearances. Trillfendi (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added to the article quite a few RS that describe her as a top model of the late nineties, and she has also some interesting work collaborating with artists. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HouseOfChange has improved the article significantly. Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely per HouseOfChange and their edits to the article, adding sufficient RSs to establish base notability. Hug^syrup 12:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HOC's changes ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barnard (executioner)

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

Of the existing sources, only one short article focuses on him, so WP:GNG isn't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whilst the existence of a famous South African surgeon by the same name complicates things, I was unable to find any further supporting references in my WP:BEFORE and so, unless other references can be found, this fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not nearly adequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability cannot be judged simply by looking at the sources cited in an article, which two of the three delete arguments here are based on. There are several sources that discuss the subject to some extent that are not currently cited in the article: [28], [29], [30], [31], "Final 52 Steps to Ending a Life", Pretoria News (accessible via PressReader - states Barnard was the longest-serving executioner, executed more than 1,500 people, and offered his services to neighbouring countries). Maybe not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, but if we had a guideline for notability of (legalized) killers, a tally of 1,500 would probably be seen as significant enough. --Michig (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Mysterious

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

Sourcing is a long ways away from meeting WP:GNG. Despite having been aired in several different regions, the only available sources are entries on affiliated websites, TV databases, and press releases. I couldn't find anything in several different internet searches, although it was admittedly complicated by a lot of false positives from news reports that include the phrase "breaking mysterious". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a History Channel series that has been broadcast in the United States and in many countries around the world. It deals with important, non-fiction subject matter, such as NSA mass surveillance programs (interview with former NSA employee Thomas A. Drake), CIA mind control experiments (MKULTRA), the JFK assassination (interview with former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, who protected JFK), etc. There is surprisingly little information on this series available beside this Wikipedia article, so it would be a shame to delete it. I have not been able to find any news articles or reviews of this series, but it is not a major network program aimed at a mass audience. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It apparently premiered in 2017 on H2 in the United States...which is impossible since H2 has been Viceland since early 2016. Another paint-by-numbers history series that exists to merely fill a timeslot, and not much more. Nate • (chatter) 07:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does Wikipedia really want to be an encyclopedia that has an article about Dads (2013 TV series) (which has been called the 2nd worst TV series in modern history - https://www.businessinsider.com/worst-tv-shows-of-all-time-critics-2016-10 ) but not have an article about a series dealing with serious issues in American history from a critical perspective? Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like you're trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which is not what Wikipedia is for. On a separate note, if you think that a being aired on the History channel is evidence that something is serious, important television, I have some bad news for you... _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dads lasted an entire season on a major broadcast network with known actors...of course we're going to put it here, no matter if it literally dissolved brains as viewers watched. This is pretty much "Tin Hat Theories: The Series", lasted six episodes with little to no public notice, and we can't even source its airing history because the premiere date and air run corresponds to a time where its network didn't exist. We have some basic inclusion standards here, and this doesn't meet them. Nate • (chatter) 03:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Drake is a real person and NSA mass data collection was real: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/snowden-surveillance-subverting-constitution MKULTRA was a real CIA program: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7920010/cia-mkultra-mind-control-drugs-hypnosis-electric-documents/ The JFK "Chicago Plot" was a real, historical event: https://abc7chicago.com/archive/9315215/ These are not "Tinfoil Hat" conspiracy theories, although some people would like to paint them that way.

Yes, and we have what I hope is a decent article about MKULTRA and all these other events. But just making a tv show about an important event does not make the tv show itself important or notable. That having been said, what's important in this discussion is the sourcing, not the subject matter. Find me three multi-paragraph reviews (or other significant coverage) of Breaking Mysterious in reliable, independent sources, and I will be more than happy to vote keep. Though you may want to avoid looking for coverage in The Sun (RSP entry) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To address the concern about this being a show about imaginary topics, I've added references to the article for most of the topics featured in the program. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are now three or more citations by media websites in the article. According to WP:GNG, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." Ghostofnemo (talk)

Other languages are fine, but the sources you've added are not significant independent coverage, they're either 1) TV guide style listings or 2) unrelated articles about the subjects of the TV show that do not mention Breaking Mysterious. Please look for actual reviews of the subject by professional critics, as they are generally the easiest kind of significant coverage to find for a tv show. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These look more like reviews than TV listings to me.

Investigate some of the greatest mysteries with HISTORY TV18’s ‘Breaking Mysterious’!, Media Infoline https://www.mediainfoline.com/entertainment/history-tv18s-breaking-mysterious
Breaking Mysterious, TV Time https://www.tvtime.com/es/show/343890 Google translation: "Radio announcer Jimmy Church and a dedicated group of collaborators investigate the greatest mysteries and controversies of our strange world. Is the CIA behind a popular mobile game? Did the US Government create an army of mentally controlled murderers? Other issues they will deal with are: a possible plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy weeks before the tragic events in Dallas, a search for the missing Confederate gold, a new and unsuspected lair of Bigfoot, a novel travel theory in time, and some nuclear weapons missing in the US. We seek revelation, the answers, the truth. We seek to understand what is not explained."
Otkrivanje tajanstvenog, Moj TV https://mojtv.net/emisije/98596/otkrivanje-tajanstvenog.aspx Google translation: "Is a popular virtual smartphone game part of a CIA surveillance plot? A look at the frightening future of armed microdrons and the search for the first National Security Agency alert to inspire Edward Snowden. These are just some of the mysteries this series reveals to us. Radio presenter Jim Church (Blackout, Coast to CoastAM) and a dedicated group of truth-seekers embark on a journey to explore the greatest mysteries, controversies, and conspiracies of our strange world: a possible secret UFO underwater base off the coast of California; a popular virtual smartphone game that may be part of a CIA operation; the alleged plot to assassinate J.F.K. just weeks before the tragic event in Dallas; the search for the lost gold of the Confederacy; the appearance of Bigfoot in an unexpected area. All this, with a new theory about time travel and atomic weapons lost off the coast of Georgia. To get the answer you have to unravel in a mysterious way." Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the references look like TV listings WP:REFBOMBING - other references are supporting the topics of the shows - the topics covered by the series may be notable, but there is nothing to show that the series itself is notable per WP:CONTN, "Article content does not determine notability" - Epinoia (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le mariage

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

Unnotable company, page created by COI editor – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is a non-notable company. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD G11. Any article that uses the word "leading" in the first sentence and written by a COI editor is going to be irretrievable spam regardless of any notability it doesn't have. SpinningSpark 14:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Luxury wedding planners are by design, unable to have full-market appeal and in the end, nobody thinks of who created an absurdly-large wedding that you know was coordinated by many more people and companies. Nate • (chatter) 03:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither a COI, or using "leading" in the first sentence, are valid reasons for deletion, but having searched for sources, I didn't find enough to justify an article. I found these that don't appear in the article: 15min (Lithuanian source - brief mention), Al Sharq Times - more substantial, but not a source I'm sure about. I think that unless more coverage can be identified, then (despite clearly working on some huge wedding occasions) the subject isn't shown to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Tajbakhsh

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

Notability appears to rest on one Financial Tribune article, which appears to be a re-worked press release; the rest are passing mentions, and one nomination (I can't even find evidence of the claimed win) for a music website's award for arrangement. Possibly there are further, better sources in Persian - non-detectable by me. As it stands, fails WP:NARTIST. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The award mentioned in the article ("Best pop music arranger, Tehran, 2013") should be listed in fact as "the best instrument player" (along with 19 other instrument players), according to this ref. (Musicema.com is the creator of this award).

For sources in Persian:

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

Farhikht (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete no indication that the subject meets GNG, and it's not clear that the awards won are sufficiently notable for ANYBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. I know that I have commented in this discussion, but the nominator had already made a botched attempt to withdraw that I hadn't noticed and it's pretty much snow keep anyway. SpinningSpark 19:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Taunton, Massachusetts

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

This list does not have many reliable sources, and most of these people do not qualify by the notability criteria. Interstellarity (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Category:Lists of mayors of places in the United States. Not every entry on a list needs its own article for a list article to exist. Plenty of blue links though to justify it. Dream Focus 19:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Dream Focus. I'm assuming that more of them are notable, but that no articles were created yet for them. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do not have any rule that every mayor of a town or city always has to already be bluelinked before we're allowed to create or maintain a list of their names; open-ended lists that are vulnerable to the addition of self-promotional wannabe spam, like a generic list of writers or musicians, can have an "article must already exist" restriction placed on them, but closed-ended lists with tightly defined inclusion criteria, like a list of past and present holders of a specific political office, are not barred from containing redlinked or unlinked names — as long as the person's membership in that defined topic is verifiable, they're allowed to be named in the list whether they have an article or not. Spotchecking some of the articles that do exist, I can see that their actual notability may sometimes be debatable — Taunton isn't large enough to guarantee every mayor an instant free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because he exists, but not all of the articles I randomly spotchecked are referenced well enough to get the subject over the bar — but deleting the list now is putting the cart before the horse. If you have questions about the notability of some or all of the mayors in this list who have articles, then tackle getting those non-notable mayors deleted first, and then we can revisit whether the list is worth keeping anymore on the basis of however many articles are left once the problematic ones have been canned. But as things stand right now, enough of the mayors in this list do have articles whether they should or not, and there's no rule that they all have to have articles before a list of them is allowed to exist. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep there are dozens of such articles, nominator should have considered that before nominating._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:59, 17 August 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 August 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some articles like theses don't even have blue-linked mayors. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has made the classic mistake at AFD of confusing absence of sources in the aricle with non-existence of sources. As a check, I searched for the first unsourced entry, "Onias S. Paige", and found a source which also verifies several other entries. Please read WP:BEFORE before making any more AFD nominations. Also, as others have said, it is not necessary for every entry on a list to be notable, per WP:CSC criteria #2 and #3. SpinningSpark 14:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination. Interstellarity (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like the later added sources have convinced people that this is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Emerson Bashen

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

Except for one patent, she fails to establish what she is notable for. Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, clearly promotional piece, needs deletion. Meeanaya (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD by DGG was weak, else it would have been deleted 5 years back. Meeanaya (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to have been extensively edited by the subject, apparently to promote her business handling EEO claims--see earlier versions. In the process she seems to have restored some copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one paptent does not come even close to making someone notable. People trying to use Wikipedia as a promotion tool is done way too much and we need to stop it before Wikipedia gets shifted to being Indeed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is an orphan, mostly OR, and essentially a piece of business promo. Agree with JPL: with the increasing erosion of notability standards, WP is slowly becoming a directory. Agricola44 (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:GNG with 3 long profiles of her, with lots of biographical info, one in the article already (BlackPast.org [32]), and two others that I've found quite quickly: Face2Face Africa [33] and Black Enterprise [34], plus a short entry here [35]. It's clear that the subject and others working for her have edited the article, and it does need work to remove unencyclopaedic descriptions, but she does meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the article, adding the sources listed above and others. Just as a matter of interest, the article is not an orphan, and has not been for at least 4 years (not that being an orphan is a reason for deletion). Nor is it OR - all information is sourced to the references, except for the degree at Tulane Law School, for which I haven't yet found a source. If no sources can be found, that can be deleted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTPAPER Notable woman. If the article has a WP:POV problem or a WP:PROMOTIONAL feel, it should be edited. WP:ATD. She is Number 45 on Ebony's Power 100 list. Chicago Reporter, Face2Face Africa, Black Enterprise. Notable Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has coverage in a number of sources (this one seems especially good). The page definitely has issues, but this is a case where improvement is preferable over deletion. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:GNG, I think this is a good example of WP:DINC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 13:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Beatenbough

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

Fails to establish why he is notable, he has president of trucking companies but fails to establish notability outside of these companies. Meeanaya (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was really inclined to vote "keep" on this one given the number of sources, but reviewing them on line they all appear to be related to the companies he worked for and not significant coverage of him per se. As such this fails WP:GNG. PS - probably there is an article to be written about PIE and some of the other companies he worked for. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is a few sources, they relate to the companies he was working for. Thus it fails WP:GNG Taewangkorea (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coverage of the subject is not wide enough to show notability, thus it fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lacks coverage about him. Everything is about the companies he was working for and mentions of him are incidental.Sandals1 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill business person; little evidence on line or in published books. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 13:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bednar

AfDs for this article:

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

Not independently notable outside of his company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, clearly corporate spam. Meeanaya (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Coverage is mainly passing mentions of him in deals his company was involved in (or wanted to be). No significant coverage of him personally.Sandals1 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - he's had some coverage and the businesses he ran were major, but not quite there. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 13:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Belkind

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

Not independently notable outside of his company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, clearly corporate spam. Meeanaya (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless we view the award or position as inherently notable, then nom is correct that he makes the coverage, he doesn't get it. (A recurring issue for both reporters and the actual news organisations). He's clearly an impressive journalist, but I don't believe he meets WP:BASIC. No single redirect target Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither award seems substantial or prestigious enough to overcome the fundamental lack of notability and decent independent sources covering the individual in any depth. Hug^syrup 13:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though as creator of the page I'm a bit biased, I've checked sources etc. again and agree with all above (except that it isn't corporate spam ;)). At the time I was still new (as I still feel compared to most of you) to Wiki and felt like the award, his presidency at the National Press Club and other positions might be enough to meet general notability. Hurts me to see a "deletion" in my account history, but that's life I guess :D Thank you all for weighing in!--Ruhri Jörg 13:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to the first article I wrote (way back in 2012), which was both a COI and a failure of what we'd now call NORG, and didn't last past NPP. Mine was definitely clearer cut than this one! Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Thanks for the feedback, really appreciate it and feel encouraged! Can't help but still mess up stuff occasionally :D And people don't seem to ever read / remember this (although I'm not a complete newbie anymore, I hope ;)). Thanks again! --Ruhri Jörg 14:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the National Press Club is not so important a group that it would overcome WP:NOTINHERITED. There's not so much coverage of him. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 13:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark P. Vergnano

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

I cant see any signs of notability. Not independently notable outside of his role at company, No indepth news coverage, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. This is one of the places where we have some of the worst presentism possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV of Vergano per se, independent of his role at Chemours, in my WP:BEFORE, and as such this fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - once again, Chemours is not so important a company that it would overcome WP:NOTINHERITED. There's not so much coverage of him. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Free Church of England. It's not clear how much should be merged but that can be addressed in a separate discussion. There is a strong consensus against keeping this page with merge being the preferred option. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of any notability. No independent refs at all and searches find nothing better. It appears to be another small sect intent on maintaining its differences. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Evangelical Connexion is a small church it doesn't need deletion it needs editors do their job right. So yes destroy one small church getting one bit of recognition. You have served your master well. Keep it with amendments not destroy everything in your path because you are so sad only thing you have done is be an editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C489:A100:14B3:7779:A019:3B32 (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. It looks like someone is cite-spamming. I see 2 books in the cite list, but one of them looks like the sect's constitution (it is used as a ref in explaining the organization of the sect). The other is fairly malformed, but it looks like vanity press. Rockphed (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I didn't see the old version, how does this one compare to the previous 2 times it was nominated for deletion? Maybe it should be speedy deleted and salted? Rockphed (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification The 2nd AfD was speedily deleted by an admin part way through its normal process. A refund was requested and granted, so this version is substantially the same as that deleted at the second AfD. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; otherwise merge back to Free Church of England. That is itself an older splinter from the Church of England. This is a splinter of a splinter. The four congregations adhering to the Connection seem also to be listed in the Free Church of England article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Free Church of England not independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Free Church of England due to the directory findings of Peterkingiron--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see sufficient sources which meet the requirements of WP:NORG for there to be a stand alone article. Based on the sources provided in the article and a brief search I am not convinced that there is even sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources for it to be covered in Free Church of England (beyond bare mention) without crossing into undue emphasis on a minor schismatic sect. Jbh ^Talk 19:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Deleted by administrator Liz as G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Justi Rino) in violation of ban or block . Nsk92 (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martino Lupini

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

Appears to be a bit too early for passing WP:PROF. Four years past PhD, h-index of 11, only student level awards. I am not seeing anything else in the article to indicate passing WP:PROF. Probably soon but not yet. PROD declined by the article's creator, therefore I am listing it for an AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. It's always problematic evaluating researchers in pure mathematics because our most commonly used metric, citations, works so badly in this field, but with only an entry-level faculty position and best-dissertation awards to go on we have no evidence of academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The deletion proposal is based on personal and unqualified opinion about dr Lupini's academic achievements and arbitrary interpretation of the WP:PROF criteria. As to the dr. Lupini's academic achievements we can read from Rising star in mathematics world featured in inaugural lecture series: "Dr. Martino Lupini from CalTech University who is producing “exciting and cutting edge mathematics” will speak at the inaugural H.N. Gupta Memorial Lecture March 2 at the U of R"; " Lupini is considered a rising star in the mathematics world.". As to the WP:PROF, its Criterion 2 is arbitrarily interpreted since it's not visible from this criterion how profound research results in the mathematics foundations demonstrated in someone's dissertation could be put on the same academic level as the IMO or the Putnam competition results of the secondary school and undergraduate students. In addition, at many universities worldwide the graduate studies are those leading to the MSc degree, the PhD studies are not considered as the graduate ones, rather above of the graduate ones. Therefore the Criterion 2 of the WP:PROF is unclear and imprecise and nowhere regarding the PhD dissertation disqualified as not notable.
Dr. Lupini's academic achievements are far above those listed by Nsk92 and Epstein which can be seen here: Research papers and preprints in Combinatorics, Dynamycal Systems, Operator Algebras, Functional Analysis and Model Theory. There are two books published by the world renown Springer Verlag. Then there is a long list of Invited Talks.
The Google h index cannot be taken seriously as a measure of the serious academic credentials and achievements since h-high in such fields like the fixed point or the inequalities cannot be ever superimposed to h-low index of a serious researcher in the mathematics foundations.
At the end, the ASL is not an institution supporting talented secondary school or undergraduate students - rather "an international organization supporting research and critical studies in logic. Its primary function is to provide an effective forum for the presentation, publication, and critical discussion of scholarly work in this area of inquiry.". Therefore the Sacks Prize is about "stunning results", "results that stand out", "a deep and sustained study", etc. - i.e. not a student level award as Nsk92 stated above.--Justi Rino (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Invidious comparisons, special pleading, walls of text, and hints that the article creator might be the return of a blocked sockpuppet (previously active on the article for Lupini's academic grandfather, which would be cause for G5 speedy deletion) aside, the two books could become an indication of notability through WP:AUTHOR rather than WP:PROF, but only if they had multiple published reviews each. "Introduction to Sofic and Hyperlinear Groups" appears to have two, the bare minimum (MR3408561 in Math. Reviews and MR3616345 in Bull Symb. Logic) but although Nonstandard methods in Ramsey theory has one pending in Math. Reviews it doesn't seem to have any published yet. Again, WP:TOOSOON, although maybe the wait will be shorter for notability in this direction. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Justi Rino's sockpuppetry is now confirmed. If we are going to consider G5 speedy deletion for Martino Lupini, perhaps we should also consider it for Justin T. Moore and Ilijas Farah, both created by a previous incarnation of the same puppetmaster and primarily edited by socks? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Moore appears notable per WP:PROF#C3 and Farah perhaps by WP:PROF#C1, but I'd support deleting both under the general principle of banned meaning banned. XOR'easter (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with XOR'easter. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, thank you, XOR'easter. I tagged the page as CSD G5 and I see that it has already been deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Setting aside citations as generally unilluminating for pure mathematics, all we have is a couple awards that might merit a mention but aren't enough to confer wiki-notability, and a pair of (co-authored) books that haven't yet earned the recognition necessary to meet WP:AUTHOR. (A PhD thesis can contain great work, but if it's the kind of accomplishment that would confer wiki-notability, then it would receive recognition above and beyond awards explicitly devoted to student work.) Unspecific praise in a press release counts for nothing. I'd suggest draftifying, but the possibility of sockpuppetry rules that out (we shouldn't preserve content that is eligible for speedy deletion). Nor is there any indication that his work has poked out into publications like Quanta which generally do a decent job at writing about mathematics in a popular or semi-popular way. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to "speedy delete" per the identification of the article creator as a sockpuppet of a blocked user. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. --JBL (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So You Think You Can Dance (American season 16) Top Ten finalists

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

Poorly sourced content fork of dubious necessity; it is not at all clear that this needs to be a separate article from the main So You Think You Can Dance (American season 16). While it is true that a couple of the early seasons have standalone contestant lists separately from the season articles, they mostly feature poorly sourced deep trivia that wouldn't even be kept in standalone BLPs if these people qualified for those -- separate contestant lists literally haven't existed since Season 6, with consensus having shifted toward keeping the contestant lists in the main season article rather than spinning them off as separate articles, and the only reason that even S2 through S6 still have standalone lists is a lack of editor commitment to actually cleaning up all the unencyclopedic bumf in them. This is cruft, not a model we should be reviving for the current season after having deprecated it for a full decade. Even the referencing here is mostly unreliable junk like Meaww and Goldderby and/or routine "local kid gets on reality show" coverage in the contestants' hometown local newspapers, not reliable or notability-making sources about the show. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form, obviously. It was deleted twice from the main article where I had put it some this seemed like the best place to house it. Obviously adding to each bio will take time. As each will be getting media coverage as a top ten finalist the article will grow. If there is a better place to house these bios I’m open. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the contestants are not yet notable enough for their own standalone BLPs (which they're not, so don't take this as a license to try), then why do we need to create or maintain extended minibios of them, in either the season article or a standalone minibio compilation like this, at all? Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking to start a few of the bios, Eddie Hoyt’s for one, but I was having Internet connectivity issues and also working on Rainbow Honor Walk, so put it off for the moment. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People are not automatically eligible for BLPs just for being competitors in a reality show. The person who wins the season in the finale is the only one who gets an article because of SYTYCD itself; anybody else who competed but didn't win still has to build their notability the same way a dancer who was never on the show at all has to, namely by continuing to work as a dancer and/or choreographer and achieving something that would get them over our notability standards for dancers or choreographers. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going by WP:GNG. This was the step to see which would have their own articles. The show itself feeds out biographical content every show in its aired video packages. Just like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, etc. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The show is not an independent source for the purposes of establishing the standalone notability of its contestants; it is a directly affiliated source. Just like American Idol, America's Got Talent, etc.: their non-winning competitors don't automatically get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning competitors on a reality show either, but also have to establish their notability the regular way by achieving something more notable in their continued careers after the show. Brian Justin Crum got an article because he had an actual charting hit that got him over NMUSIC, not because he was on AGT; D.J. Demers got an article when he scored a Juno Award nomination for a comedy album, not because he was on AGT in and of itself; Jennifer Hudson got an article when she was in Dreamgirls and became a major movie and music star who now cleared NACTOR and NMUSIC, not because she was on AI. They don't have articles because they were on reality shows and lost; they have articles because they kept working, and went on to achieve something more notable, after their non-winning runs on reality shows ended. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why you’re talking past me? I never suggested these finalists were notable because they were a finalist. I started compiling these to see if any did meet WP:GNG before creating their articles. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the remarkably rare event that a non-winning competitor in a reality show somehow already clears GNG on coverage already received before they were even on the show, that'll be immediately apparent without needing an article like this to exist as a premature placeholder — in fact, if a person is actually in that situation, then there's already a significant probability that their article already exists. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was created in the main article where I think it belongs. Only after an anon deleted it, and I saw at least five other identical articles did I chose this option. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unneeded fork; this should stay in So You Think You Can Dance (American season 16) in whatever form is WP:TV-appropriate, and we don't need to carbon-copy fox.com/sytycd for biographical information. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ve never even seen Fox.com/sytycd. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're enough of a fan of the show to think we need an article like this, but you've never gone to the show's own primary website at all? Seems unlikely somehow. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I’d be willing to bet the far majority of people who watch shows never visit their websites. No, I never have, despite your suspicion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if you couldn't gain the consensus in the article for its inclusion maybe there was a reason why. Absolutely no reason to have this split off. --Gonnym (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It was one anon. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Definitely does not need its own article. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a repeat of information largely already in So You Think You Can Dance (American season 16) - Overlistification, WP:LISTCRUFT - Epinoia (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keep votes merely stating "meets nfooty" do not even begin to answer the challenge that the player fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nenad Vekić

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. -- Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does actually pass NFOOTY, 14 apps (+ cup apps) for Tuen Mun SA in the Hong Kong First Division League (listed at WP:FPL; until 2014) in 2011–12 - per Soccerway. R96Skinner (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Has played in the Hong Kong Premier League. Simione001 (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and therefore fails WP:FOOTY. WP:FOOTY is guidance given as part of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) which states "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." WP:FOOTY is therefore merely guidance as to whether a subject is likely to pass WP:GNG. In this case the guidance fails because there isn't signifiant coverage in reliable sources. A biography needs more than statistical tables as a source.----Pontificalibus 06:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No sources, no article. We cannot meet WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:NOT when the only available sources are primary statistics databases. This article has no secondary sources at all, and I can't find any online. Without sources, we end up with a one-line article such as the one we have now. If sources are found, the article can always be recreated. Until then, having this article violates like every content policy we have. – Levivich 01:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing I feel I should add to Levivich’s incontrovertible reasoning is that the reasoning is even stronger in the case of a BLP.—Mkativerata (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, why has this even come to afd (unless (cue ominous music) its a concerted effort to "defooty" wikipedia:)), at the very least this can be a redirect to Marconi Stallions FC, as player name may be a wikireader search term. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indepth coverage in independent secondary sources. The NFOOTY guidelines do not trump GNG and if the coverage can't be found there is no reason to keep the article. The criteria NFOOTY are so easy to pass that no one bothers to even add in depth coverage so maybe it is time to remind editors that GNG matters! --Dom from Paris (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why should that be at the expense of this article? Simione001 (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be applied to all articles. This one doesn't meet the criteria, please don't hesitate to find the sources that are needed. Just because it wasn't applied to other articles doesn't mean it shouldn't here as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search for sources reveals only routine coverage, mostly on statistical websites. No evidence that this player meets the WP:GNG. WP:NFOOTY, as part of WP:NSPORT does not trump GNG, as confirmed by the community in this discussion. Harrias ^talk 07:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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