Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 July	7 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barof

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

List for WP:PROD, but it seems to have sources--I'm not comfortable trying to evaluate them in this field, so since there seem to be notab;e performers, I bring it here for consensus DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This looks like a really good film, very high quality, and on a "shoestring budget" [1]. So far that is the only reasonably acceptable source I have found in the article. I am still searching through the other sources. I'm wondering if this will receive some awards somewhere. It was only released in February of this year. Here is the trailer if anyone is interested [2]. Impressive filming and acting. Also, it may be worth noting although this is a Bengali film it is covered by Times of India online (or Bombay Times). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notable cast members do not generally grant notability. What is missing is critical reviews and press coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - article is mostly a plot and after two weeks no one has found reliable sources to confer notability. I would expect to be able to find more press coverage if this were a notable subject. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Videto

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

The sources for this article are a mix of dead links and trivia. There’s an external link to the subject’s twitter feed and he has 36 followers. I think this is a promotional article for a non notable subject. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete Not notable under WP:NOTABLE as brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. Discussion about Google hits on articles talk page is irrelevant under WP:GHITS.Mrbuskin (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article, it's not notable and fails GNG, too.Forest90 (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Alexander Smith

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

No in-depth, significant coverage in secondary sources. Neutrality^talk 22:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Co.lab Xchange

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

Small local business, no claim of notability. Most refs are minor passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NCORP. MB 21:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MB 21:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MB 21:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Jackson (architect)

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

Currently this article is sourced to Ms. Jackson's linkedin profile and to websites for her companies/projects. Looking for sources, I found a few different versions of a promotional profile [3][4][5], a news article which quotes her as an expert on accessible design[6], two news articles about her winning a competition[7][8] and some other mentions [9][10][11][12], another award[13], and some publications of hers [14][15][16]. I don't think that this is sufficient biographical coverage to warrant an article. Cheers, gnu 57 15:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 15:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage by reliable sources. WildChild300^Talk 16:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, appears to be a perfectly competent architect but not wikinotable (ie. no wikisignificant awards won, or coverage), i note that article was created by Tara rmitstudent, a WP:SPA, and is/was probably a fan of this architect hence the promotional, cv like nature of the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that reference list is too narrow. Awards and exhibition list is unsourced. Looking at other entries in Category:Victorian_(Australia)_architects, does not appear that this one has enough merit to require an entry. Teraplane (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to USS Panay incident. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 04:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fon Huffman

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

While the honorable and valiant actions of the subject of the article being nominated should be remembered in some form, subject of the article falls under WP:BIO1E. In addition, Wikipedia is not a collection of obituaries. see WP:NOTOBITUARY. While the subject received significant coverage of a notable event's (USS Panay incident) last living survivor when they died, just having obituaries written does not necessarily mean that the subject is in fact independently notable. Therefore I bring forth this AfD, so that this article can be changed into a Redirect to the notable incident which the subject of this article was involved in. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Panay incident. Sourced to an obit. This is a WP:BIO1E situation - Huffman is mainly mentioned in the context of the Panay incident and isn't notable for other activities. His notability in the context of Panay itself is fairly low (he's mentioned in coverage of the incidents, he gave testimony and the postwar tribunal, and late in his life he a had a few "last survivor" interviews (+obit)). Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Panay incident. Wonderful that he went on to have a family and a secure, productive life. But there is zero notability aside from USS Panay incident.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect as above, the Article content could keep by merging or redirecting with a main Article as USS Panay incident.Forest90 (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Panay incident Looks like a WP:SINGLEEVENT.Feickus (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Panay incident. I'd normally vote to retain an article about someone who played a significant part in an important event, but he didn't; he was merely the last survivor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Copy-paste nomination by User:Charmk in revenge for his article being deleted. WP:POINT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clip (compiler)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG Charmk (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Line Spectra

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage. The notability claims here are getting playlisted on a satellite radio channel and getting a song placement in one episode of a TV series -- but both of those things are referenced to sources that fail to actually verify them at all, and neither of them are instant notability freebies that exempt the band from actually having to have any solid sources. And when it comes to the referencing, this is half primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and half community pennysavers from suburban Montreal which are not widely distributed enough to clear WP:GNG if they're the best sources a band can show because they never got any media attention beyond their hometown market. So these sources don't cut it, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sources from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Seriously lacking in acceptable reliable sources, hence no demonstration of notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MK Sportscars

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

Unreferenced, apart from its own website. Promotional. Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Googling" confirms the lack of notability. William2001^(talk) 21:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article. The subject is not notable.Forest90 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Copy-paste reprisal nomination by User:Charmk in response to his article being deleted. WP:POINT applies. No view on the underlying point. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tox (Python testing wrapper)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG Charmk (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep This is an obscure topic. And this {[17], [18] (Charmk is the only editor to the article PWCT (software))} followed immediately by [19] is an obvious bad-faith reprisal AfD. Now maybe Charmk has developed a sudden interest in Python. But I rather doubt that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm helping Wikipedia by discovering articles that doesn't belong to the encyclopedia, and this is one of them, please list references for notability because I can't find them. Charmk (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, listing software articles at AfD seems to be the only thing you do. Do you select all of them by picking those created by people who've just !voted keep at one of your AfDs? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia contains thousands of articles that fail GNG and must be deleted, I discovered a lot of these articles during the last years, and I'm trying to help Wikipedia by removing these articles, if an article is good and pass GNG, I will not open a deletion discussion, let us focus on helping Wikipedia (This is my goal) Charmk (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of articles. You just happened to pick this one. Yeah. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! You are the main contributor to the article! I'm sorry, if you are sure that this a notable topic and you will improve the article I will be happy to withdraw the nomination for deletion, but please tell me why the article topic is notable? Charmk (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh! You are the main contributor to the article!" Oh, don't pretend. You're fooling no-one. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Why you are attacking me instead of proving the article notability? because you know that the article topic is not notable Charmk (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and BTW, we generally notify the author(s) of articles when AfDing them. Why didn't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry and thanks for the information, I'm new to the process, I started doing this (submitting articles for deletion), 2 days ago. Charmk (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep- this is quite obviously a revenge nom. We shouldn't reward that kind of thing. However, looking at the article, it is indeed badly sourced crap and might not survive a good faith AfD, so no prejudice against speedy renomination. Reyk _YO! 07:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What! I'm really surprised, we are here to improve Wikipedia according to guidelines and policy, this topic doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia, voting for Keep just to attack me and ignore my contribution is not fair at all, I respect you and I respect Andy Dingley too, please show some respect for my useful contributions. Charmk (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Watercolor painting#Transparency. A consensus to redirect has emerged. Nothing is sourced so there is nothing to merge at this point. Just Chilling (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aquapasto

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

Dic-def. There must be some other article to move this one line sub-stub into. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources or notability. hard to take one line page seriously. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles start out as stubs. If they weren't taken seriously, which means looking for sources before coming to an opinion, then we would have a pretty empty encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most hard drug users start out by smoking pot, which is not the same thing as saying that smoking pot inevitably leads to using hard drugs. I haven't actuallu counted, but I would guess that the vast majority of stubs have been stubs since they were created, so an article's stub-ness doesn't tell us anything about its capacity to be grown into an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But per WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST the quality of an article doesn't influence the notability of a topic.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree that there probably is some art-related page to which this could be redirected. William2001^(talk) 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Exists and is commercially available from various suppliers. Perhaps this is known under vastly different names in other countries making it difficult to find sources? I would like to see this article expanded with information about ingredients, origin, application examples etc., but for as long as it remains so short and unreferenced, it should just be redirected to watercolour as a redirect with possibilities. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that Aquapasto exists and is available. However, we cannot just have any commercial products on Wikipedia. I cannot find any significant coverage on this product. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 19:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the results of the Google Books search automatically linked by the nomination? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a stub, not a dictionary definition – see WP:DICDEF, which explains the difference. There are plenty of sources out there, if needed. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then add them. This article has been in this state for many years. Also, see this for the back story of articles created by the same now-banned editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be desirable for them to be added (even if only in "raw" form for a start), because this would establish notability per WP:GNG. But per WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST the (lack of) quality of an article should not have an influence on the question if it is notable.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a brand name for a product by Winsor & Newton. Existence of a named consumer product is not notability. Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that this is a brand name of Winsor & Newton, because I find this name also being used by other suppliers internationally? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can find any number of places that sell Elmer's-brand glue, which has no bearing on "Elmer's" being a brand name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that another company, Schminke, sells a product called "AQUA-pasto medium", [20] while the W&N product is called "Aquapasto". [21]. From the descriptions, they appear to perform the same function. There is no indication of trademarking on the W&N product's tube. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to support notability. Barca (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, Matthiaspaul, Phil Bridger, Reywas92, what do you think about Watercolor_painting#Transparency as a target for a redirect? Drmies (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I suggested the possibility of a redirect already (for as long as nobody wants to write more about the topic).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Surrealist techniques#Sifflage. Sandstein 11:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soufflage

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

Unreferenced sub-stub. All Ghits seem to be related to this article. Already included (in its entirety) in Surrealist techniques Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources or notability. hard to take seriously when there's nothing to it. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect Can't find any sources. Fails WP:GNG. William2001^(talk) 21:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Surrealist techniques#Soufflage~~ Surrealist techniques#Sifflage, which is the same as this article, as BMK noted. There does not seem to be evidence for notability or any practical reason for a separate article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC) ......(Changed redirect destination per conversation below.) --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is that the editor who added it there is the same person who wrote this article. If you look at the edit history of surrealist techniques you will find a long history of xyr contributions being challenged for being unverifiable, for just one example see this edit. We only have this in that article because people (mis-)treated the blankings for unverifiability as vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This, along with a whole bunch of other stuff supplied by one person, including decretage (c.f. this edit summary and Talk:Surrealist techniques#On decretages and depliages), were challenged for verifiability in 2003 (back when AFD was VFD and we did not have the deletion log that we do now). If the statement that we are still cleaning this up after 16 years does not ring a bell, then please see this.
So, is this verifiably true, as so much else apparently wasn't? It may seem so from ISBN 9781616735159. But that was written in 2011 and has the same subjects as our article from 2011 with mainly word-for-word and punctuation-for-punctuation identical descriptions. soufflage is the French word for glass-blowing, and I can find no sources at all predating Wikipedia that describe this as an artistic technique. this, for example, is also from 2011 and outright points to Wikipedia several times. this is from 2017 and also points to Wikipedia.
This is unverifiable.
The irony is that had the people in 2011 consulted an encyclopaedia article written by Professor Mona Hadler rather than by User:Daniel C. Boyer, they would have found that Ernst's technique is "sifflage", and that there's little more that Hadler or anyone else says about it than the now verifiable Surrealist techniques#Sifflage currently does. Yes, we are still cleaning up after User:Daniel C. Boyer after 16 years.
Uncle G (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! Thanks for that work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Uncle G's information above, and feeling WP:BOLD, I have moved the article to Sifflage and converted it to a redirect to Surrealist techniques#Sifflage. If anyone thinks this is egregiously out of process, please undo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Soufflage and Sifflage to Surrealist techniques#Sifflage for now. I have added a number of references, including an older one using the term Sifflage. I have heard about the technique in the past and would like to learn more about it, but don't have the time to start a deeper research into this topic. It would also be interesting to find out when and where the "Soufflage" variant originated. If, at a later stage, some expert can provide more information on the technique than just the couple of sentences we have so far, an article can be written under Sifflage.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, I'd love to close this sooner rather than later, but there's still an outstanding delete vote, by MaskedSinger, and although this is headed for WP:SNOW I'd rather play it by the book. Thanks, and thanks also to Uncle G and Matthiaspaul. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 11:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealist Women

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

Unsourced, non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources or notability. hard to take seriously when there's nothing to it. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only things I can find are book-selling websites. Fails WP:GNG. William2001^(talk) 21:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, surprised at the lack of sources discussing/reviewing this book given the number of libraries (around 900) that hold it. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick search shows reviews in Library Journal, Women's Studies, Journal of Gender Studies, New Left Review and The Art Book. I will try to add info and evaluation from reviews to this sub-stub. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother with Library Journal, which, like Kirkus Reviews, essentially reviews almost everything, so their review does not show notability. The others -- if they are peer-reviewed -- should be good, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Library Journal, Kirkus, and other similar "trade" book review journals/magazines are not precluded from WP:NBOOK (unless a footnote has been snuck in recently:)), (although there is some disquiet amongst editors about kirkus (and PW(?) willing to accept payments for reviews relatively recently?), so they can be used, that said, a book that has only 2 of these sort of reviews and nothing else may be a bit shaky.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added six reviews as sources, and used information and assessments from the reviews to summarise the content and impact of the anthology. The book definitely meets WP:NBOOK #1, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the Nominator, Beyond My Ken: please do not remove sources just because you cannot find them, or consider that they do not add to notability. Library Journal is not a banned source, and other editors can assess its usefulness or otherwise in contributing to notability. Please WP:AGF with regard to The Art Book. I assume that your edit summary "not found" means that you could not find the source, but per WP:SOURCEACCESS, " If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf". RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, a review in LJ does not confer notability; at best it verifies that the book was published. A refernce which cannot be verified should be removed from the article it appears in. It's not an access problem, I got a "404" error. Perhaps your URL is incorrect? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reference which cannot be verified by someone, not necessarily the AfD nominator. I could remove all the urls, and the references would be just as valid. I have just done that - any editor who has access to Ebsco or Jstor or similar databases can use the journal titles, volume, issue and page numbers to locate the reviews. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:AGF. I did not make them up. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point me to a policy which directs that a person who nominates an article for deletion cannot subsequently edit it? Or, more speciically, remove sources which cannot be verified? I'd appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you seem to be impugning in some of your comments that I hold an animus against this book - I do not. I nominated it for deletion along with other articles which were created by a now-banned editor. All the articles were unreferenced or severely under-referenced, and appeared to me to be non-notable because of it. It looks as if your research has shown this particular article to be notable per NBOOK, and that's fine with me - part of the reason for AfD is to provoke people to research something that was not properly referenced in the first place. I am happy to be shown that I was apparently wrong in this nomination, so I formally withdraw it. That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether particular references are valid or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to verified, which as I pointed out above, in the section WP:SOURCEACCESS says, "If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf." It was not apparent to me that you had asked anyone else to access the source you removed, a source which gave volume, issue and page numbers, as well as the title and author of the particular article. Particularly during an AfD discussion, it does not seem helpful for anyone to remove a reference which other editors may not have the same difficulty accessing as you had, or which could be supplied on request, and which may help them to assess the notability of the book. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, has been reviewed in various sources, article has been updated to reflect this (thanks to RebeccaGreen). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article passes WP:NBOOK. Good work by the participants and Rebecca GreenLightburst (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kudos to RebeccaGreen for the impressive improvements to this article. I believe it passes WP:NBOOK and WP:N and should not be deleted. — Hunter Ka hn 04:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed...thanks to the improvements to this article we now have a consensus that we should keep Surrealist Women - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Surrealist poets

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

After removing all entries whose articles did not indicate that they were surrealists (using a very liberal criterion), this small list with no explanatory material connected to it would seem to be better served by Category:Surrealist poets. There doesn't seem to be any need for both the cat and the list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite a few reasons to include both a list and a category per WP:AOAL, not least of which is that list pages are accessible to beginner editors. In terms of overlapping content, the argument that a cat and list are redundant is not categorized as a valid reason for deletion, according to WP:NOTDUP. That said, the list will definitely be more useful if it actually includes descriptions and sources, so those newbies have a precedent to build on. I will try add to it. OhioShmyo (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The nomination is contrary to WP:NOTDUP. The list has existed since 2003, before categories existed. It's clearly notable per WP:LISTN as there are numerous sources which discuss and list such poets. Andrew D. (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SALLEAD:
A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title. This introductory material is especially important for lists that feature little or no other non-list prose in their article body. Even when the selection criteria might seem obvious to some, an explicit standard is often helpful to both readers, to understand the scope, and other editors, to reduce the tendency to include trivial or off-topic entries. The lead section can also be used to explain the structure of embedded lists in the article body when no better location suggests itself.
This article provided no context and no criteria for inclusion (as indicated by the numerous entries I've already removed because their articles didn't in any way mention surrealism). The criteria appears to have been the personal opinions of the now-banned creating editor, User:Daniel C. Boyer. A small amount of context has now been added, but really not enough to give the list article significantly more value than the category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per OhioShmyo above.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP - not a valid rationale for deletion. As Andrew D. notes, it meets the criteria of WP:LISTN, and OhioShmyo as notes, there are good reasons to have lists, per WP:AOAL. The list article can be improved, but that is a matter of content, not a reason for deletion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete no-notable — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England

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

No evidence of any notability with no reliable external sources. It also suffers from systemic COI editing. This is a very small congregation and seems to have been hardly noticed by mainstream sources. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G3 as an obvious hoax. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rica Ethier

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

Obscure child actor autobiography; so garbled that I cannot detect any valid assertion of notability Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Social media as sources?!? MaskedSinger (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is an article-clinching notability claim, the references are entirely to social networking profiles rather than reliable sources, and this is written in such incoherent English ("The network announced that leave to agent expect to "body-pain" and "crying serye" since leave to network") that I literally can't make heads or tails of what it's even trying to say. To be perfectly honest, I actually suspect a total WP:HOAX, even if I don't have the depth of knowledge of the Philippine media ecosystem to prove that. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources at all, and Googling doesn't produce any. William2001^(talk) 21:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A child actor would not be switching Filipino networks like this as if they were a journeyman outfielder, nor this many roles (even for the Philippines, the authorities would have intervened). This simply seems to be a Filipino TV fan playing pretend online that they're inescapable on Filipino TV, and they've never appeared on any television network in the country. Nate • (chatter) 01:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not any reliable sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not notable. Maybe another random kid who just created a hoax article about herself. -WayKurat (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rechecked every edit of this user (including those edits from tl.wiki and the social media accounts that were used as sources), the user based this hoax TV personality to Amy Perez. I would also recommend to block this user for editing here in en.wiki. -WayKurat (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Veda Bharati

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

Fails WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 14:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially per nom. Not much more to add other than that I agree there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing new to add - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Sykes (British entrepreneur)

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

The prod was removed by a single purpose (possibly proxy) IP with no convincing statements. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as required by the general notability guideline. Current sources are passing mentions and a few reads like interviews and press releases. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because as stated above, no reliable sources cover the subject. WildChild300^Talk 16:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus indicates the subject is notable, but definitely some work to be done here. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 04:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim G. Shaffer

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and/or WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the sources we rely on it can be difficult to assess the impact of academics whose major work was published in the 1980s and 1990s. Shaffer contributed to the anthropology of the Indus Valley Civilization and is a critic of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. Shaffer's three most cited works are a 1992 article with 108 citations, a book chapter from 1984 with 104 citations, and a book chapter from 1982 with 71 citations, with the 1980s chapters' citations probably underestimated. Google scholar has yet to include the citations found in many book chapters from this era. In any case this is enough to show the impact of his work. The 1980s chapters are cited well into the 2000s. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The top 5 citation counts are:- 155, 147, 108, 104, 80 and 71.

Google scholar has yet to include the citations found in many book chapters from this era is not true for his domain. And, I need to evaluate a bit more about the average citation-metrics in/around these domains. ∯WBG^converse 07:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the aforementioned citation counts (155, 147, 108, 104, 80 and 71), 4 articles with over 100 citations, clearly relevant according to WP:NACADEMIC. --hroest 20:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I immediately found discussion of his work in major newspapers, not mere quote-the-expert type stuff, newspapers in India and Britain diving into scholarly debates. He is deeply involved in the scholarly conversations about the meaning of the archaeological record northwest India. What is needed is an editor familiar with the field willingto beuid a good page. the page we have is shoddy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the sourcing and references back up them meeting WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The key point is the total lack of significant coverage for either player. The only sources were directory entries or routine selection mentions and no in-depth coverage has been brought forward by any of the commentators. This means that both players fail WP:GNG. Out of all the comments, only one, a 'delete' !voter, has addressed this. The debate has hinged around compliance with WP:NCRIC. The balance of views is that criteria 4 is critical and that that has not been met. Most of the 'keep' !votes, though pointing up flaws in the project guidelines, did not effectively address them.

Turning now to the FAQs at the top of the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) page, Q1 and Q2 are particularly relevant. Looking at A1 and A2, with A2 saying "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. " it is clear that meeting WP:NCRIC alone is not sufficient without at least the potential to meet WP:GNG. In this instance, I am not seeing a consensus that even WP:NCRIC is met and with the article clearly failing WP:GNG the close must be to 'delete'.

I am happy to userfy these articles if an editor considers that they can be expanded with suitable sources. Just Chilling (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Gough

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

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Whilst they have made an international debut for an Associate team, they fail point #4 of WP:NCRIC as they have not played in a World T20 (men or women), Global Qualifier (men or women) or Regional Final (men only) fixture. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rightly or wrongly, the ICC has granted full international status to these matches. St Anselm (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: - apologies, my nomination should have included the text "after 1 July 2018... " before the "a World T20 (men or women), Global Qualifier (men or women) or Regional Final (men only)" part. This was discussed at the Cricket Project to tighten the notability guidance and not to allow all these players to become automatically notable playing for an Associate side. These players have not played in a World T20, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing in regards to Christina Gough? She is currently captaining Germany in the 2019 ICC Women's Qualifier Europe, you just recently added players who participated in the equivalent mens tournament on Guernsey.--Moedk (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Guernsey matches were part of the European Regional Final. The women's regional qualifiers feed into the main 2019 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier tournament. So if/when they play in the latter, then they meet the notability requirement. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. The guidelines surrounding both men's and women's T20I cricketers from associate nations are pretty clear. StickyWicket (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the status of the matches she's played in don't concern me as much as the lack of in depth secondary sources - I can find odd mentions, but that's it. If there are lots of German language sources then I might be interested, but until then this strikes me as not meeting notability guidelines. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she has represented her country at the highest level and therefore enough to prove notability. On one side, we say any one who played in single domestic cricket match as notable and then we are arguing for her notability. Women's cricket and German-language sources are hard to find. Störm (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: Lots of Associate cricketers have now "represented (their) country at the highest level" since the ICC changed the rules on awarding full T20I status to all of its members. Per WP:NCRIC #4, Associate Players need to have played in one of the tournaments listed after 1 July 2018 to now meet WP:NCIC, and neither of these two individuals currently meet that requirement. Hope that helps. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what WP:NCRIC #4 says, the subject passes NCRIC #1: "Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level." St Anselm (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and for Associate players, they need to meet #4 after 1 July 2018. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be discussed again as they were made on ad hoc basis. As they have represented their country so, it should enough to meet notability. Every sport follows this rule. Störm (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion was to tighten the notability guidelines, to avoid a flood of non-notable biographies for all Associate players after the 1 July 2018 change. For example, should all the red-links for this men's and this women's tournament have an article, simply because they played for their national side? So it was agreed at the Cricket Project only to create them if/when any of those cricketers involved played in a World T20, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we implement similar measures to restrict domestic cricket players biographies, especially List A and Twenty20, who get freebie articles because they have official status. I voted keep based on principle which we are following from a long period of time. Störm (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - has anyone been able to find enough in-depth secondary sources to meet any standard notability criteria? My feeling is that at this level that's far more important than what matches someone has played. There was a fairly recent AfD for someone who had played for somewhere like Singapore way before matches like this were official but more whom there were such sources eventually. That's far more likely, in my view, to be a long-term viable article than someone about whom we only have statistics about. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep international athlete MaskedSinger (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But fails the notability requirement for someone playing in an Associate cricket team. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand the exclusion in WP:NCRICK #4 of women's Regional Finals. If it was a men's Regional Final of a Twenty20 International match, she would be presumed notable. Despite the fact that Women's Twenty20 International says "In April 2018, the ICC granted full Women's Twenty20 International (WT20I) status to all its members. Therefore, all Twenty20 matches played between two international sides after 1 July 2018 will be a full WT20I", WP:NCRICK has somehow decided that some women's Twenty20 matches played between two international sides do not meet Wikipedia standards??? RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all due respect NCRICK needs to go back to the drawing board if top international players are falling foul of their arbitrary inclusion criteria. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bring back Daz Sampson: I'm not sure that I would consider the German women's team full of "top international players" - with all due respect to them. Once you get to this level of "international" cricket it's amateur players at work. Which is an interesting question to deal with in itself - iirc WP:NSPORTS specifically mentions that it deals primarily with professionals doesn't it? I don't think Gough is classed in anyway as a professional or plays in anything that could be remotely termed a professional league. There is a strong argument that any player taking part in the Women's Cricket Super League, for example, would be much more likely to be considered notable in comparison to her. Not that I would question that WP:CRIN needs to be totally re-written - there are a number of areas where it is clearly, in my view, not fit for purpose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is there any way to save as a draft so that if Germany qualify for the Qualifiers, this can be quickly returned? Red Fiona (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Redfiona99: I'm happy for the article to be moved to draft-space, however it's likely to be another two years before a qualification tournament takes place with Germany playing in it to get a chance to progress. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: Ah, that I didn't know. I was wondering if there was a solution that would solve the not-notable-yet problem without requiring the article to be re-written. Red Fiona (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If she does become notable in the future, the article can always be brought back via WP:REFUND, or created from scratch. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blair McCreadie

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

BLP of a former president of a political party, not reliably sourced as notable. Being president of a political party's internal org chart, but not actually the party's electoral leader or a member of the legislature, is not an automatic notability freebie under WP:NPOL -- a person like this could clear the bar if he could be referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists. But of the seven footnotes here, two are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all; four are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not coverage about him for the purposes of establishing his notability; and the last is completely tangential verification of a stray fact about somebody else entirely, which fails to even mention McCreadie's name at all. All of which means that none of these are notability-supporting sources about McCreadie, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that being a party official is sufficient to meet any notability criteria. He's never held elected office and my search on his name didn't turn up the significant, independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
possible keep. It looks as though there is enough here to enable someone to build a solid article, a political inside baseball article. Also there is WP:RS coverage of his career as a attorney. Mostly, however, there are many sources along the lines of :

profile article: Experienced leader, strong record: Hudak: [Final Edition]Tayti, Mark. Tribune; Welland, Ont. [Welland, Ont]17 Sep 2003: 3.
Dedication will bring victory, Tory official says: [Final Edition], Aulakh, Raveena. The Record; Kitchener, Ont. [Kitchener, Ont]22 Feb 2008: B2: "McCreadie, who is to step down after five years as president of the party, was speaking at the Confederation Club's monthly speakers luncheon at the Delta Hotel. During three days of meetings, about 1,000 party delegates will review the Conservatives' last election campaign. They will also be asked to decide whether the party should have a leadership review. A leadership review would come on the heels of the party's resounding defeat in the Oct. 10 election."
McGuinty wins with ease; Religious school funding issue sank Tory cause: [Final Edition] Edmonton Journal; Edmonton, Alta. [Edmonton, Alta]11 Oct 2007: A5. "Conservative party president Blair McCreadie refused to acknowledge the role that Tory's contentious plan played in the campaign, saying the free vote the leader opted for last week actually won the party back votes. "Anecdotally, we'd been hearing from our candidates that many of the core supporters that might have had a reluctance got over that and were coming back, dropping off cheques and taking lawn signs," said McCreadie, who did give credit to the Liberals' "very tightly scripted campaign." McCreadie also dodged questions about Tory's future,..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't receive the amount of significant coverage outside routine local press coverage to meet the WP:GNG requirements for politicians. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete He didn't head the national party, only a provincial branch--and they lost a lot of seats during that time. He doesn't meet WP:NPOL. My search for coverage didn't find significant independent coverage of him. Mentions of him and his comments during press conferences are related solely to his position and are not enough to convince me he meets the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry W. Patience

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

Non-notable religious leader. Zero independent coverage found. Indeed, no significant coverage found beyond his bio on the church's website. schetm (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything either. Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources or notability. hard to take seriously when there's nothing to it. agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if the "Remnant" church is legitimate, and it seems to be, and this guy is the President of the Church, the denomination's highest office, then he is notable. It's like deleting a cardinal or a pope, albeit of a minor church. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Just because he's the leader of a church doesn't mean he's notable. If the Pope had no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then we wouldn't have an article on him either. schetm (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This !vote is a possible argument for merge, but not for keep. Narky Blert (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to avoid Schetm's view, but we cannot justify this article just because the church in question exists. For one thing, I can point out sub-church units with way more members than this church body whose leaders are deemed to be non-notable. Not every notable Church confers notability on its leaders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. We just don't have any reliable sources. The church itself hasn't released a news report. While they have an article about the death of Larsen, the previous President, there is nothing about Patience as his successor. The only indication is a change on the leadership page, and that was nearly a week later - which made adding the event to the related pages difficult. I would say merge, but what information we do have has already been incorporated on other pages - I just don't see what else could be merged due to the lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of live-action/animated films nominated for Academy Awards

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

List with very narrow criteria. Trivialist (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per this similar AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as arbitrary and trivial as this is not a classification used by the Academy itself, nor one that sources have commented on (WP:LISTN is probably most relevant here). The classification also stops making sense at a certain point in film history. postdlf (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessarily specific cross-categorization with no sources discussing substance of the topic. Reywas92^Talk 04:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Copy-paste nomination by User:Charmk in response to his article being deleted. WP:POINT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey X

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG Charmk (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Copy-paste nomination by User:Charmk in response to his article being deleted. WP:POINT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P4 (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG Charmk (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. With the nom blocked as a sock and no other "delete" !votes but several "keep" !votes from established editors I see no reason to keep this open any longer. Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kirin Narayan

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

Delete - the subject fails as per WP:GNG. Scholar911 (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Scholar911, can you please explain your comment re GNG? This article's subject is an author of multiple published works that have been discussed in the New York Times and the New Yorker, covered in at least three reference works on relevant authors, all of which appear to be reliable sources and cited in the article. What part of GNG do you think is not met here? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would only add that her work has been recognized by recognized organizations and publications independent of the author. GNG does not appear to be valid criteria for deletion here. --Big_iron (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log page. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Scholar911: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 14:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF#C2 because she was a Guggenheim Fellow. [22] IntoThinAir (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF as argued above and also WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article mentions two prizes for Narayan's work, including the first Victor Turner Prize in 1990. She was also a Guggenheim Fellow. Taken together, that's already enough to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many published book reviews; as XOR'easter states, she easily passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C2 via Turner Prise and Guggenheim Fellowship. Their work has been written about in RS: New York Times and New Yorker. Netherzone (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i was surprised seeing an article created by Big iron here at afd, even more surprised on looking at the created version (small but no notability alarms ringing), anyway, i am going to play in the snow with all the other editors above, saying keep as meeting WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR with the recent article improvements showing this even more. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dala7

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

No working references. Not obviously notable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Found these 2 sources but that's it ...., The Spanish article has no sources either, HighBeam is no longer a thing so don't really know where else to search, Anyway delete. –Davey2010^Talk 17:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Burnes

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

I don't see significant, in-depth coverage in secondary sources, outside ordinary levels of campaign coverage, which doesn't satisfy WP:NPOL. (Burnes is one of about a dozen candidates in a primary election in Colorado for U.S. Senate.) Neutrality^talk 13:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet non-winning candidates in political party primaries — to pass WP:NPOL, she will have to win the general election next November, and to get an article any earlier than that it would be necessary to demonstrate that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article on those grounds anyway. But there's literally nothing here that clears that bar at all: this is written like the bog-standard campaign brochure that even NPOL-passing officeholders are still not allowed to have, not like a properly written encyclopedia article, and it's referenced far too heavily to primary sources that are not support for notability and not nearly enough to the reliable kind. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NPOL. Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are other criteria in play than NPOL, but her citation record is not strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems no other claim to academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NPOL. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed_Ghanam

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

Non-notable character Charmk (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem notable enough to have an article. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is a translation for another wiki article and this person is known widely in the field check references

his accounts:

https://twitter.com/AhmedHGhanam

https://facebook.com/ahmedhghanam0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adham Hamam (talk • contribs) 17:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic article needs to be deleted too, Also there is a COI, He wrote a message on my talk page using two accounts (Adham Hamam) and (Ahmed Ghanam), It's not a good idea to create a Wikipedia account to write an article about yourself. Charmk (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article may exist on the Egyptian Arabic wiki but I'll note that (based on machine translation) a similar article appears to have been salted on the Arabic wiki for repeated recreation of non-notable content. --Finngall ^talk 15:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please note that the standards for verification on social media are generally much lower than Wikipedia's notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot source him in the Latin alphabet nor do I see any claims in article that would carry him past WP:JOURNALIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have Facebook and Twitter accounts, so the social media profiles listed above by Adham Hamam aren't relevant to whether this is keepable or not. A very large proportion of everybody who exists on the entire planet has one or both of those things now, so they aren't instant free passes to encyclopedic notability in the absence of reliable source coverage about the person's work. And no, the fact that an article exists on another language's Wikipedia is not an instant notability freebie either, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX. But when it comes to the sources present in the article, what I'm getting is not notability-supporting reliable source coverage about Ahmed Ghanam, but a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things — which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tuen Mun Park § Noise problem. If this type of protest is appropriately covered in reliable sources, it might be viable to create an article on that, but there is consensus that this specific event does not meet the criteria for inclusion. If more sources arise, the article can be recreated following the procedure for spinning out sub-articles. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Tuen Mun Park

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

Failing WP:EVENT. Also WP:NOTNEWS. Probably also a case of recentism, failing WP:10YT _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This event echos with the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests in Hong Kong that have raised numerous international attention which was even being discussed in the meeting between top governers of various countries. While the event is not an anti-extradition bill event, this Restoration of Tuen Mun Park action was organized with the same style as per the anti-extradition bill protests. The scale of this event is noticeable by itself and showed significant conflicts between police and the general public, as well as marked how democracy and law enforcement has eroded in Hong Kong. More detail shall be input as this is still an on-going event. Multiple people who might have violated the law were escorted by the police but might not have charges pressed against them. So I believe this page should remain in wikipedia. Dasostsu (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: Hi. There are quite a lot of people suggested protesting in other regions with this protest style (inherited from the reclaim protests years before). I am thinking it would be better if this page can be moved to a new page, maybe something like Reclaim Protests in Hong Kong 2019, that would summarise all the reclaim protest happened and those that very probably will happen in future. Please advise if this would work out and if yes, what should I do? Dasostsu (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dasostsu: From what I gather on local social media (which is of course not sufficient for Wikipedia articles}} there are a number of protests (this probably included) which are all along the line of "let's trouble the government", aligned to the extradition bill protests. If there is reliable, independent media coverage out there that confirms this, I would tend to a new article that generally talks about all those "secondary" protests - unless they can be merged into the main article about the extradition protests. The contents of this should then merge into those articles and a redirect placed. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tuen Mun Park Sufficient information located there already. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nova Crystallis: I feel like the secondary protests approach is more appropriate, the protest is organized to combat the various types of nuisance caused by visitors/new immigrants with different cultures, nuisance including noise, street blockage, and even local shops are replaced by pharmacies that mainly sell milk formula. There might be a series of similar protests in other regions with dancing aunties/milk formula, like Sheung Shui Station/Central, you name it. Would be better if we group these events in an article instead of one in Tuen Mun Park, one in SS station, and so on. Dasostsu (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to wait for one week later until the reclaim Sheung Shai Action and reclaim Shatin Action has ended.

@Dasostsu: sorry for jumping in. I feel really uneasy about effectively front-running future events, especially when they are in a politically charged environment. IMO there is indication of agenda-pushing and Wikipedia is not here to further a political cause or "tell the world" about certain activity. The Tuen Mun article as it is written has cause for concern about neutrality. This debate is supposed to run for 7 days. I suggest to let it run for that time and collect further community input. If in the meantime there are additions to the Tuen Mun Park article or other that are appropriate that's fine. If someone wants to start a fresh draft about a wider scope article, that's also fine as long as the topic and sources meet all the usual standards. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It looks like NEWS and one Event. Szzuk (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Szzuk:,@Nova Crystallis: agree in principle that it makes sense for some "hook" to be there to a section in an article, such as Tuen Mun Park, however "Restoration of Tuen Mun Park" does not appear to be commonname for anything or having ever been widely used. It strikes me as an arbitrary title. Possible rename to "2019 Tuen Mun Park protests" and redir. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tuen Mun Park or to redirect _pseudonym or Possible rename to "2019 Tuen Mun Park protests" which is Sufficient information exist there, also looks like is not an event. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tuen Mun Park (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. I have no objection to a rename to "2019 Tuen Mun Park protests" and then redirect. My main aim is to preserve the well-sourced article's history so that the content can be merged to either Tuen Mun Park or to a new article about secondary protests as suggested by Jake Brockman and supported by Dasostsu.
Cunard (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Is a World

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

Most sources are about Sue Rubin, not the movie. The movie doesn't have much notability. Ylevental (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Fails notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Ylevental has already attempted to get the German version of this article deleted - two times yesterday. Seems like some kind of personal vendetta against the movie / Sue Rubin. I'm not familiar with your criteria for movies, but in de:wp we consider an oscar-nomination as indicator for relevance. --Johannnes89 (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of nomination for the category Best Documentary (Short Subject) of the 77th Academy Awards in 2005. The film was released on DVD in 2005. --H do it again (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Johannnes89: @H do it again: On the English Wikipedia, a film must receive significant coverage in multiple articles for it to be notable. The articles must cover the actual film in detail. More details are at Wikipedia:Notability (films). I just assumed that the same criteria applied to all language Wikipedias, and was surprised when it was delisted from deletion because it didn't even have any sources. Simply being nominated without any coverage wouldn't count. I considered it for deletion after the Sue Rubin article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Rubin, since the sources it was based on claimed that Facilitated Communication is legitimate, when it has been scientifically debunked. Ylevental (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oscar nominee regular get significant coverage, in part automatic by the nomination alone. Here we have on top the controversy about the film. (But I agree, hat part belongs into the article.) The deletion of Sue Rubin is a completely different issue. A movie is not a person, even if the movie is about the person. Fano (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even though the article could be extended, the movie got significant media coverage therefore notability is given --Johannnes89 (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just found a third reliable source. It was hard to find, but I guess the article is staying, unless someone can prove otherwise. Ylevental (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oscar nomination, and above related discussion to that. matt91486 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel it has sufficient coverage, and the user proposing the deletion has a apparent bias around Autism related articles. - Nolan Perry ^{Yell at me!} 04:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the film has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The New York Times, LA Times and Washington Post here so it passes WP:GNG and should be kept particularly as there is enough criticism in rs to address fringe theory issues, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)
Comment Obviously, the article should be kept, but I removed all sources which were mostly about claiming that Sue Rubin is definitely communicating through facilitated communication, as FC is completely debunked. Ylevental (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure the removal of the sources based on facilitated communication as discussed above was appropriate or not, but it seems to me that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not the AFD. Regardless, though, between the Oscar nomination and the sources already cited on this page, plus the fact that it appears there are several other reliable sources out there that have yet to be added to the article, I believe this one is a clear Keep. — Hunter Ka hn 04:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Oscar nom on its own makes it a notable work. Care should be taken that Wikipedia's voice isn't used to validate the fringe pseudo-medicine narrative presented in the film and used to promote the film. ApLundell (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 09:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dysphoria (band)

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

There's absolutely no sources on the page except that god awful "Spirit of Metal" website (which is always cancerous due to how inaccurate and unreliable the information on it always is) and literally every other piece of info on the page is original research. I was unable to find any sources to back up why this band would be notable enough for a article. The band only has 10 thousand Facebook page likes and not a single google result brings up anything at all that comes close to passing Wikipedia:NBAND. Second Skin (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I tried looking up the band on a couple search engines but did not find any reliable third-party coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON at best. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON is a charitable way to put it. Per WP:SIGCOV the band has received no professional reviews or coverage from significant and reliable sources, and everything found is routine gig listings, a few blog reviews, and their own social media promotions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 11:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LittleRedBunny

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

No indication of notability, other than webcam industry awards which are themselves largely of questionable notability. Trivialist (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Literally just won a heap of little-known awards. If I entered a heap of local competitions and won them, would that make me eligible for an article? Likely not. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion of notability is a very low bar, which this article clears. The usual speedy deletion criteria (A7, G10, or G11) don't apply here. Actual notability should be assessed based on the quality and depth of RS coverage available. This debate needs to run its course. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm a bit confused what you are trying to say? Foxnpichu (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A number of the sources used in the article are journalistic pieces which give information about more than just award winning. The awards themselves are national, not local. The webcam industry is certainly niche but if webcam modelling is itself considered a notable subject it would seem reasonable that one of its highest-profile performers could be considered so too. Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough coverage to pass the GNG.[23][24][25][26] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Daily Beast piece and similar coverage cited by MT look to be enough RS coverage to support this BLP. However, I've cleaned the laundry list of NN award-oids out of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources in the article, Trivialist you may want to re-read WP:BEFORE. –Davey2010^Talk 17:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

State College of Florida Collegiate School

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

Well, I tried to redirect this article to its parent, a university, but was reverted by the article's creator. First off, non diploma granting schools have no presumption of notability. Second, it fails WP:NORG. In fact it has no secondary sources at all, and a BEFORE search found no detailed secondary sources. That being said, I'm fine with the redirect being restored. John from Idegon (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John,

I left a message on your talk page. Please feel free to contact me. Spaceboy900 (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, and will draftify for now. John from Idegon (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Florence International Boarding School

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article about non notable school. ~SS49~ {talk} 09:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 09:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 09:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 09:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 09:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No secondary sources, no inline citations, no attempt to demonstrate notability, promotional content. I can see that the previous AfD was Keep as per High school notability guidelines, merely as a precaution, rather than an establishment of notability. I don't think those rationales necessarily apply anymore. I would also note that the "boarding" in the name of the school is used indiscriminately in Nepal for "English medium private". Even very big private schools rarely have boarding, if ever. I couldn't find reliable sources to establish notability in my search. So, Delete. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and promotional. No proof of notability. fails WP:GNG/WP:ORGThe Banner talk 07:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The agreement around schools with blanket notability set at a particular level was a way to end a massive brouhaha that was exceedingly disruptive. Personally, I hold that the PNC gets us there as notable schools get to be well-documented by their very natures.
The problem here is, like several similar articles created in 2011–2012 (e.g. V.S. Niketan Higher Secondary School and Galaxy Public School) the article creators/principal writers only gave us hyperlinkage to now years-dormant Facebook accounts and each school's own WWW site, of which the ones for VSN and NFI are now defunct. Would that those people had pointed to properly recorded and trustworthy documentation, not ephemeral autobiographical WWW sites and defunct Facebook accounts! But then the article creator in the case of VSN was "writing" by copying the school's own, now inaccessible, advertising blurb. Compare it with some other blurb for the school that is still around. It is no wonder that these articles look promotional.
It looks like the same happened for this subject. However, I am unable to even find this school on edusanjal. I cannot find sources for a good stub, and the copy-and-paste-advertisements people have been singularly unhelpful in pointing to any.
Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a keep argument is already in 2017 crushed by a RFC. The Banner talk 17:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bucket crusher

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

There are not enough sources given to justify an article on the subject. The only source used is a patent and therefore not ideal (see WP:PATENTS). Apparently, there is no coverage of this very specific type of crusher in reliable sources. I fail to see a reason not to include the bucket crusher with the exisiting crusher article. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that there are no other sources? What have you done to find out? Notice that the article began as a translation of de:Backenbrecherlöffel, which gives "Brecherlöffel", "Brecherschaufel", "Kübelbrecher", "Löffelbrecher" as alternative names. Did you try looking up these names? What did you find? Your rationale shows none of this.
You need to provide thorough rationales upon which people can hang their hats. You need to explain, for example, why the article on page 57 of the April 2010 edition of Maschinen&Technik is not a good source; or why the entry for "Brecherlöffel" on page 71 of the 2012 study (Studie zur Eignungsfähigkeit und zum Entwicklungsbedarf von Gerätschaften) done by the Karlsruher Institut für Technologie for the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz is not adequate. But your haven't shown what effort you have put into determining any of this, so people still have such counterarguments. Always do a thorough job with rationales.
Uncle G (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In case you can provide good sources, go ahead and put them in the article. If it's in German, I might be able to help with that. In its current state, the bucket crusher article does not provide sufficient sources, and feeding Google books did not give me sufficient results. After all, things need to be verifiable. Currently, I do not see how verifiability could be achieved... Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well the German Wikipedia has revealed the German names. But a thorough nomination would also have to be proof against sources such as ISBN 9788860551221 p. 152 which explains that a benna frantumatrice is one of four types of machine frantumatrice. The good news is that this is the language of the country that makes most of these things. The bad news is that it turns up sources like an UNACEA publication which starts off by stating that "La benna frantumatrice è un’attrezzatura utilizzata nelle attività di riduzione volumetrica di materiali misti e di cemento armato.". Uncle G (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are indulging in some parody at this point. When we are at the point that a nominator is obliged to demonstrate absence of sources in every European language, then we are well on the way into Cloudcuckooland. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd not heard of these before but the video is quite convincing. On the technical side, Uncle G has done a good job of crushing the nomination. I'd just add that we also have a section about the topic at Crusher#Crusher_Bucket and so there's an obvious alternative to deletion per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If we have a section regarding the bucket crusher in an existing article, why do we need a poorly referenced article on it? --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While searches for the English term just seem to produce dozens of patents and sales pages, the German KTI study mentioned by Uncle G above does indeed provide a general function & application description that can be used as a basic source for the article. I'm inserting it. Whether it needs to be a separate article or should rather be merged to Crusher#Crusher_Bucket remains a question, IMO. (On a side note, "video looks convincing" is a feeble Keep argument even by this editor's standards.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough here to justify. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as improved. bd2412 T 03:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel (operator)

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

This doesn't seem to be in any sort of wide use as a term or a notation; all I could find were forums pointing back here, or to either of the two sources that seem to use it. This sort of fails the mathematical version of WP:NOTDICT, and I don't think it's even worth including as a note in the article on Resistor because of the extreme lack of adoption of this as a notation. On a side note, this is especially confusing because while it's appropriate for resistors, it's completely backwards for capacitors. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Series_and_parallel_circuits#Notation, where it is mentioned. This notation is used at times in electrical engineering, but is not common. The notation is verifiable and worth a mention. Redirect to the indicated target section places it in context with what I consider due weight. The parallel operator works fine for capacitors and inductors as well, as long as they are represented as complex impedances, as mentioned in this book. Per our policy WP:ATD, I think redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion for a verifiable, if uncommon, notation. This follows common practice in our math articles, where if an uncommon notation shows up in multiple RS, especially in textbooks, it is considered to have enough impact to be worth briefly documenting. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Niche application is not the same thing as non-notability. This is somewhat archaic, as we don't design passive filter networks as much as pre-war (read Blumlein's work), but where such networks are being described, there is a significant saving of verbosity by using it and so the operator's use was popular. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andy Dingley; I'd also note it is sometimes while coming across older offline resources that the definition of the like of this can be useful even if it doesn't get used much nowadays. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mark viking. It's a thing, it's worth mentioning, but it doesn't seem to be worth an article of its own. The target section both clarifies use and derivation, and places the reader in the midst of coverage of the application. All sorted. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since there seems some legitimate discussion on the scale of usage and whether it warrants either in-article mention or its own article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that ∥ currently redirects to an unrelated thing. Both ∥ and Parallel (operator) should redirect to Parallel (symbol) explaining that the character U+2225 is used not only for parallel flats in geometry, but for some obscure arithmetic shorthand as well. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a redlink? That doesn't seem particularly useful. Nor would it be to redirect to an article on the glyph alone, rather than its meaning as an operator. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel_(operator) should redirect to Parallel_(symbol), not “one has to overwrite the current revision of Parallel_(operator) with #REDIRECT [[Parallel_(symbol)]]”. How to make Parallel_(symbol) into existence? Hopefully en.Wikipedia has enough people capable to make some not-very-trivial inference. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This notation is widely used in electrical engineering, and thus quite notable. Can be found in many EE books. I see ways how to expand this stub into a full blown article. I for one would be interested to learn something about its historical background. There are also RPN scientific calculators implementing it as an actual operator on the keyboard (very handy!) - including the WP-34S and some further derivatives.

The operator is also used in computer sciences (process algebra) where it is known as "merge" operator (German: "Paralleloperator") [27].

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have now added various bits, links and refs to the article to make it worth an article of its own. To me this looks enough to let it pass WP:GNG, but, of course, more sources and contents are always welcome. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Matthiaspaul mentioned, it is widely used in Electronics engineering. It is taught in undergraduate courses for MIT and University of Utah, and used in datasheets for current electrical products ^[1]. Regarding the usefulness of this page vs. a redirect to Series_and_parallel_circuits#Notation, I think the redirect might be acceptable, but the parallel operator page contains a lot of useful mathematical information that would be inappropriate for the Series_and_parallel_circuits page. For instance the associativity and commutativity of the operator. And finally the parallel operator section on the Series_and_parallel_circuits may be incorrect regarding the use of the operator, and will need clarification or correction.Russetrob (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the additions by Matthiaspaul and the other sources mentioned by others, and in the interest of consensus, I think it is now reasonable to keep the article as an alternative to my redirect recommendation above. Thank you all for the education on this operator. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address how this document is notable in terms of Wikipedia policy, rather than just important for certain purposes. Sandstein 11:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NACA Report No. 106

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

no evidence of particular notability . I can't find in Google Scholar that it was ever referred to -- the coverage there isn't complete for something like this published back in 1921, but if it were widely used there should have been something. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No more notable than hundreds of other NACA papers or indeed thousands of scientific papers in general. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These NACA reports are at a historically significant point in the development of aerodynamics, and engineering generally. There are also only a few of them published as 'reports' in this sense. NACA researched and recorded a lot, only a few hundred ever went this far – and we have twelve left here. So this series represents the peak of their work.

I'm also disappointed that, once again, this deletion of clearly "delete all of NACA" is being done by trying to snipe them off one-by-one. (see User talk:Raymondwinn, where eight have been prodded) If the goal is, "The published work of NACA has no place in an encyclopedia", then come out and say that.

These articles are not very good (and WP:JUNK still isn't policy). They do not explain the significance of the work, who carried it out, how the work was done in the context of a 1920s research lab with no electronics or data logging, nor do they explain the ongoing significance of these early studies in such fields. But that's a question of writing, not the article scope. We could, and should, produce some very good educational articles around these reports. But that's, as always, finding time for decent and knowledgeable editors, rather than wasting their time at AfDs to defend the basic concept. WP, if it still retains any encyclopedic goal, is not served by deleting these in the meantime, even if they're pretty dry reading as is. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the sound of it, all of such reports could be covered in the NACA article, or maybe in a dedicated List of NACA reports. Readers interested in the details might as well read the report directly, rather than reading a (poorly written) article about it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If these are deemed to be not independently notable then we should have a list article or merge or redirect to NACA. There is not a reason to delete these titles. AfD involvement is not required to resolve this. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/maybe merge Where is the independent coverage about these reports? Without such sourcing these are not notable, even if scientifically relevant. The above assertions appear based on NACA reports generally, so if sources exist about them, they could be covered in the main or a list article but certainly not as this stands. Reywas92^Talk 06:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly merge, as there are 12 reports/technical notes here. These reports are part of the history of the growing understanding of manned flight, and they publicized knowledge that is still relevant today. For example, Information Sources in Engineering, edited by Roderick A. Macleod, Jim Corlett, page 274, says "The main product of NACA's research was its multi-tiered report series. Although the exact number of NACA reports published is unknown, most estimates place this number between 20,000 and 30,000. This collection of work remains in high demand even today, especially for the basic fundamentals of flight." That was published as recently as 2012. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 15:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything which covers this specific report independently and secondarily. I don't think it's able to be referenced at all. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The first sentence of the summary is all but a direct quote from the first sentence of the report, then the next paragraph is verbatim from the first paragraph of the report's introduction.[28]. The conclusion section just has a few words changed at the beginning and the rest (as far as I went before I got bored looking) is verbatim from Section VI of the report. [29] This is nothing if not a violation of Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, and as others have pointed out, it is unlikely there will be enough independent material out there addressing this report in isolation to make it a candidate for stubbification and rewriting. Agricolae (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope it's not WP:POINTY, but in case this is kept, I removed the conclusions section from the article on WP:NPS grounds, as it was nearly a direct copy and paste, long, and without attribution. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the Summary section is also mostly verbatim/close paraphrase from the same source:

Ours:NACA Report No. 106 describes an investigation of the flow characteristics in the air passages of aircraft radiators. This work was requested by NACA and was performed by the Bureau of Standards.

Source: This report describes an investigation of the characteristics of flow in the air passages of aircraft radiators, the work being done at the Bureau of Standards for the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.

Ours: The primary requirement of a cooling radiator is that it shall dissipate heat; and for cooliug the engines of aircraft it is essential that the head resistance shalI be low. But both heat transfer and head resistance are greatly affected not only by the speed of air past the cooling surfaces, but by the character of the flow-whether the air passes through the radiator in smooth streams, or with eddies and vortices. If the flow is turbulent, the questions arise whether the turbulence can be increased by changes in construction, and if so whether the result is beneficial or harmful to the general performance of the radiator.

Source: The primary requirement of a cooling radiator is evidently that it shall dissipate heat; and for cooling the engines of aircraft it is very important that the head resistance shall be low. But both heat transfer and head resistance are greatly affected not only by the speed of air past the cooling surfaces, but by the character of the flow—whether the air passes through the radiator in smooth streams, or with eddies and vortices. Furthermore, if the flow is turbulent, the questions arise whether the turbulence can be increased by changes in construction, and if so whether the result is beneficial or harmful to the general performance of the radiator.

Remove all that and we are left with an article that reads in its entirety:

NACA Report No. 106 - Turbulence in the Air Tubes of Radiators of Aircraft Engines was issued by the United States National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in 1921. This report presents experimental evidence bearing on the problem, and presents some conclusions based on that evidence.

That does not an article make. Agricolae (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. There would need to be significant coverage of the document itself, not just coverage of the findings, in order to meet notability guidelines. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus of non-sock puppets is that the author is not yet notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kajol Aikat

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

Non-notable author yet. 2 reliable sources found but coverage is not significant. Present references are bogus - Twitter, Goodreads, Amazon, Facebook etc. Dial911 (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a non-notable author. The author is found to be a bestselling author. Unwanted content and soures are now edited accordingly. The present references are from relaible sources including national media like Telegraph and Hindustan Times. Revalidate the article again and remove your nomination for deletion. Remove the article from AfD and close the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.30.156.42 (talk • contribs) — Example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not found to be a non-notable author unlike mentioned by Dial911. The author is a bestselling author. Unwanted content and sources are found to be edited accordingly. The present references are from relaible sources including national media like Telegraph and Hindustan Times. Revalidate the article again and remove your nomination for deletion. Remove the article from AfD and close the template. This article should stay in Wikipedia.— Example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. Nothing at all in a gNews search [30]. The sole hit in a Proquest newspapers search is about a schoolgirl who "said she got inspired from well known writer Kajol Aikat who was a student of her school." As Nom wrote, we need sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Check this out: https://m.telegraphindia.com/states/jharkhand/fighting-bullies-with-book/cid/1431280 E.M.GregoryPlease do your research throughly because it lacks efforts. Google news hits are not reliable enough to provide credible sources solely.— 47.30.227.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A color story in the local edition of a paper. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources all over the internet and in the article (mentioned in references) that establish enough credibility to keep this article on Wikipedia. Remove the AfD nomination and keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.30.227.5 (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC) — Example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

delete Sources don't meet WP:RS. Author isn't quite notable enough for a page. Ayepaolo (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep invalid argument with no proper citation. Kajol Aikat has also been nominated for Padma Shri 2020, the fourth highest civilian honor in India. Check this: https://padmaawards.gov.in/CARD.ASPX?NOMINEEUID=E1142263ABF099489A2BF24C15B5656EB66E54C918EF367CD94F4DEACEBF274A&RAND=288121 Other references in the article carry enough credibility to have a page for the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.30.186.220 (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC) username (talk)[reply]

Keep Agreed that Kajol Aikat is nominated for Padma Shri this year, ref: https://padmaawards.gov.in/CARD.ASPX?NOMINEEUID=E1142263ABF099489A2BF24C15B5656EB66E54C918EF367CD94F4DEACEBF274A&RAND=288121 Other references are also strong enough to provide credibility required. The page can be listed as of a lower importance on Wiki Biographies but is important enough to be here. Keep this page and withdraw the Afd.— Wikilog009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note that every keep opinion - all 5 - are by an SPA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked carefully at sources on page and searched diligently, and it is simply WP:TOOSOON for this young writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author is though young but not WP:TOOSOON The article was accepted on the main space years back and unnecessary editing happened in the course which is now corrected. Keep this article and mark it as a low priority biography. The author is nominated for Padma Shri so that is solely enough to establish his credibility at present. If not, then there are references from notable national media houses like Hindustan Times and Telegraph which demonstrate the relevance and credibility of this biography and establishes eligibility to be an encyclopaedic acceptance. Also, irrespective of the nature of the account, the comments are valid. The lack of credibility that is repeatedly raised as an issue is not cited most of the time. This article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilog007 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Are you Kajol Aikat himself? You see, being desperate isn't gonna help. We all want to include as many articles on Wikipedia for its expansion. But that doesn't mean anything and everything will be included. Have some patience, if the subject is really notable, they will get their article on Wikipedia sooner or later. And self nomination for Padma Shri won't even count as something notable. Come back when the subject earns it. Till then, I request you not to vandalize this page and waste your time here. If you need any guidance on how to improve Wikipedia feel free to ping me. Dial911 (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither I am Kajol Aikat nor I represent him in any way. I have been a Wiki editor since last 3+ years and I expect you to state your queries in a rather formal or appropriate tone from the next time. And it has nothing desperate to be honest. And, I am free to put my opinions in favour of an article that I find to be a wrong nomination as on this date. Because I don’t find it violating any biographic norms in the latest edit.

Note: The author has a decent public catering in India and if you are from any other end in the world maybe you should check with this fact first. Just because several comments go against your nomination doesn’t mean it vandalises Wikipedia. The article was accepted on the main space, so let’s keep this as a low priority bio, if required. Also, removing this can impact information that any user can use to learn about the author who has written one 01 TASS Bestseller in 2015. The citation is provided on the article itself. So, it’s not like anything and everything is included by keeping this article. Like you said, we all want relevant content to be there on Wiki.
Also: I have noticed that there has been major editing in this article. The excessive/ non-cited content that was there now seems streamlined, and every line is now referenced to one or many big Indian media house. So, I don’t find why notability and credibility of this author is questioned.
You primarily had issues with Facebook/ Youtube links to be there. I see that they are removed and only a valid amount of content is present in the current edit. You see, a personal/ biased sentiment against a low priority bio doesn’t make it entitled to be kept as an AfD.
I also checked the page stats and found it decent enough to be recorded as a Wiki inclusion.
And, by what authority or evidence do you mention that the Padma Shri nomination is self nominated? Do you have any citations for that? The nomination of Padma Shri can be made via various other public bodies. I recommend you to do your research first before putting on irrelevant/ non-cited statements.
Please remove this AfD as soon as possible as any violation to this page can majorly impact the information flow on Wikipedia which will only hamper it further. My vote is still to Keep it. Wikilog007

Speedy Keep I don’t see any prevailing issues with this article. The points raised by the nominator for AfD regarding bogus links this article seems corrected now. The rest of it looks fine.

Keep I don’t see any WP:SIGCOV failure here. This article looks okay to me. Not suitable for an AfD nom anymore. Let this article stay.

Delete Setting aside the fact that this seems to be attracting more transparent meatpuppets than a see-through Punch and Judy show - the sourcing presented as evidence for notability is quite insufficient. It does not help that half the sources are dead links - they might as well be made up at this point. From what can be verified, the much-touted award nomination is worth exactly zip, as I could nominate myself and my grandmother right now on that site if I wanted. Sales numbers on Amazon and self-promotion on forums are not a replacement for independent coverage and reviews, which are sorely lacking. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of lines of miniatures. Sandstein 11:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards and Lizards

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

Non-notable miniatures. I'm not sure why the prod by another editor was removed when this has only one reference. I found no other significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many of these non-notable articles exist from the same editor over the years. I'm tempted to at least prod them, but I figure that someone or other would say that I'm harassing the editor or disrupting Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the fact that the one ref provided is a review recommending purchase makes this stub look like it’s intended to promote sales in the fan market. Ideally I’d like to see this merged into a list article of some kind but without any knowledge of the topic I’ve no idea what that might be. Mccapra (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage. Anne drew 14:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are a large number of these, create a List of lines of miniatures and merge them all there. bd2412 T 15:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: given the improvements to the article, I would be somewhat less inclined to oppose the article being kept. bd2412 T 20:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Credit where credit is due to User:Guinness323, who found more than I was expecting, especially with regards to the designer Ray Lamb (whose article was unsourced a week ago). BOZ (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect That single review being used as a source is not enough to pass the WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage, preferably from multiple sources. If some sort of master "List of lines of miniatures" is ever created, as proposed, I would not be opposed to this being re-created as a redirect, but until that is done, the subject does not meet the criteria needed to maintain an article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rorshacma: - challenge accepted. List of lines of miniatures. bd2412 T 18:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't be against a merge/redirect now that this exists. SL93 (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, a redirect to this list is more than acceptable at this point. Nice work! Rorshacma (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added reviews from four issues of Dragon, the foremost FRP magazine of the time, to show that this line of miniatures and its sculptor, Ray Lamb, were very highly regarded in the FRP world. It may take some time, but I'll be looking for more reviews from other notable FRP magazines to further the point. Guinness323 (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Redirect~~The LA Times reference is of the most incidental nature, while the Dragon reviews are WP:ROUTINE. A redirect per @Rorshacma: would be fine, I guess, as would a Merge. `Chetsford (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guinness323, otherwise merge to the new list page created by bd2412. BOZ (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guinness323.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of lines of miniatures. During this conversation another user has helpfully created the appropriate place for this content. Szzuk (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shireen Ahmed

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

WP:BLP of a writer and speaker, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced. Of the 15 footnotes here, three are brief namechecks of her existence in academic papers that aren't about her; two are her own contributor profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers; two are podcasts; one is a university student newspaper; one is a user-generated list of people and their contact information in a Google Docs file; one is an Instagram post; and one is a non-notable organization's own self-published listicle. None of these are notability-supporting sources at all. And of the four that are to some form of media coverage, one is a Q&A interview in which she's speaking about herself (as opposed to being spoken about in the third person by other people, which is what a source has to be before it counts as a data point toward notability), and the other three are all to webmedia startups whose status as reliable or notability-supporting sources is questionable at best -- so these sources would be fine for additional verification of details if the other 11 sources were better than they are, but they don't get her over WP:GNG all by themselves if they are the best sources on offer. As always, the notability test for people is not just that their work verifies its own existence: it requires journalism to be done about her in reliable publications, not social media posts or Google Docs files or podcasts or contributor/staff profiles on the websites of her own employers. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*On the fence The OZY reference is passing mention only. The academic reference at ref 8 might establish notability, but Ahmed isn't mentioned in the abstract and I don't have access to the full article. Most of the rest of the refs look like padding. I think a lot hinges on whether she got any sort of in-depth coverage at ref 8. Anyone able to confirm? Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Actually I went through the article again and there's the article from Sociology of Sport Journal, which does actually talk about her at length. In addition, the PRI article is not under her byline, which would make it an interview, which is in-depth coverage. The McGill Daily is a student newspaper, which wouldn't be enough to confer notability alone, but it does help to reinforce that she is notable that she popped up there too. So while the article needs work - I do think there's actually enough here to get her over the WP:GNG bar. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An interview is not WP:GNG-passing coverage: it represents her speaking about herself, not her being written about in the third person by other people, so it's subject to the exact same problems as any self-published source. Interviews are okay for supplementary verification of stray facts that they support, if notability has already been adequately covered off by enough third party journalism, but interviews don't count as data points toward passage of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps it is just WP:TOOSOON, but I have to second User:Bearcat here, the sourcing is just too thin pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree that the Sociology of Sport Journal reference has substantial discussion of Ahmed - and more information than is in the article, including the name of her blog (Footybedsheets), and where she has had articles published. I am unable to read the Griffith REVIEW or the Feminist Media Studies articles, so I can't see how much they have about her. An article in Canadian Journal of Women & the Law, 'Minimizing and Denying Racial Violence: Insights from the Québec Mosque Shooting', discusses a radio program on which Ahmed was a guest, and her contribution to it [31]. An article in USA TODAY, 'Headgear ban derails hoops dream', quotes Ahmed and describes her as "a former University of Toronto soccer player and sports activist who has written about headgear bans for Vice.com" [32]. An article in the Gazette, Montreal, about a panel discussion she was on, to be held at Concordia University, gives the other name for her blog, Tales from a Hijabi Footballer, and explains how she got interested in writing about sport [33]. This book on Women's Sports: What Everyone Needs to Know from Oxford University Press has a substantial paragraph summarising and quoting her views [34]. This New York Times article 'World Cup Reporters Find Huge Audiences and Familiar Challenges' has a para about her criticism of a global media company for "including a presenter with a history of sexist social media postings in its Women’s World Cup promotion video" and subsequent internet trolling of her [35] (it's also been published internationally, eg in the Irish Times [36]). I think there is just enough to meet WP:BASIC, so Weak Keep, at least until someone can describe what the two other journals say about her - if substantial, then it would be just Keep. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't help to get a person over WP:GNG by quoting her as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else — she has to be the subject of a source, not just a person who gets namechecked as an expressor of an opinion about the actual subject — so a lot of what you're describing fails to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I mentioned don't quote her - they talk about her contributions to debate. That's why I wrote "has a para about her criticism" and "has a substantial paragraph summarising and quoting her views" - they are not just sound bites. I also think it's significant that writing in the NYT and published by OUP discusses the work of a Canadian blogger - that is not just local coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology of Sport Journal is a study of the activity of several activists and bloggers on sport, it tells us that she blogs and publishes an occassional op-ed. She has a podcast and is quoted on the subject she blogs/podcasts about. I do not see that she passes WP:BASIC, WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. Article creator, a new editor whose first article this is, seems to have jumped the gun out of enthusiasm for an activist who may become notable at some future point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Feminist Media Studies is an examination of the fact that on "On April 25 2016, the sports podcast Just Not Sports posted a video on YouTube titled “#MoreThanMean,” which addressed online harassment directed at women sports journalists." This brief article mentions or briefly discusses and cites several dozen responses. Ahmed is mentioned here: ("In numerous interviews women journalists problematized the widespread “don’t feed the trolls” and “ignore it” advice, and emphasized that responses to harassment need to come via institutional and legal change (e.g., Ahmed 2016a Ahmed, Shireen. 2016a. “#MoreThanMean Video Highlights Daily Harassment Women in Sports Endure.”) and here: (Other women sports writers connected online harassment to gender discrimination in sport and media, citing the low percentage of women in the sports journalism industry and giving examples of sexism in international sport federations (Ahmed 2016a Ahmed, Shireen. 2016a.) This is NOT SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those supporting deleting have refuted the points raised by those supporting keeping the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anissa Kate

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

Single RS therefore fails GNG and ENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy keep. First of all, that's not true. Second, even if it were true, neither WP:ENT nor WP:GNG state this requirement; in fact, GNG explicity states: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." And multiple sources indeed exist (and if anyone tries to argue that some of the sources aren't independent because they're pornography-related, remember that pornography is a category, not the subject; Anissa Kate herself is the subject). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's won multiple AVN awards.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep per sources added by Eastmain and reasoning provided by Espert --DannyS712 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)~~ Delete per below --DannyS712 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has repeatedly won major awards in the industry. Westmanurbe (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why sourcing doesn't meet GNG? Westmanurbe (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The award wins and nominations (citations 7 thru 17) don't count as non-trivial coverage, and since PORNBIO has been deprecated, they are fluff. Interviews don't count as secondary sources. The only citation that plausibly looks like non-trivial secondary source coverage is Les Inrockuptibles. Not enough to establish notability by itself. Even here, if the Big Bad Wolfowitz challenges its reliability, I would defer their superior perception of churnalism and tabloid fluff. • Gene93k (talk)

Everyone talks about PORNBIO and its deprecation. What was about? I imagine it established that an adult performer who had won an award should be considered automatically relevant. However, I doubt that its deprecation automatically implies the irrelevance of all Awards and of all Awards winners Westmanurbe (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent, reliable, third-party sourcing. The above !votes which cite porn industry awards as a basis for notability are contrary to the established consensus that such awards fail the well-known/significant standard. The references (other than the award announcements, which are not independent third-party sources) are advertising pages and clickbait, without any shred of the reputation for accuracy and fact-checking needed to establish notability for a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

During a previous AFD you've wrote that my argument (about the relevance of some Awards like "best performer of the Year" according ANYBIO) has repeatedly been rejected by consensus. Niche or specialized awards like "Girl-Girl Performer of the Year" and "BBW Performer of the Year" or the equivalent have been found to fail the "well-known/significant" standard. I agree about the lack of relevance of awards like "BBW Performer of the Year", but what about an award like "Best performer of the Year" or "Best Foreign Performer of the Year" (not everyone is lucky enough to be born in the United States)? Westmanurbe (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC with insufficient coverage by independent secondary sources. Porn awards are not sufficient to satisfy WP:ENT. Also see my and Wolfowitz's comments above about the low quality of the references. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to two questions above - @Westmanurbe: WP:PORNBIO was deprecated by editor consensus here in March 2019. Winning a porn award without coverage by independent reliable sources is no longer considered a predictor of notability. The old rationale behind PORNBIO was that porn was of general interest despite being shunned by reliable sources. I used to subscribe that belief too. However editors realized that exempting porn from established reliable source requirements is bad policy. As for award categories, Best Performer and Best Foreign Performer (and even AVN Hall of Fame) suffer from the same problem as Girl-Girl Performer or Best BBW: winning the award generally does not attract non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. Even before PORNBIO was taken down, performers who met the letter of the SNG were deleted for lacking good sources (e.g. Janet Jacme). • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What he said.

Without disagreeing in any respect with Gene93k's comment, I'd add that adult industry awards generally are viewed as failing the "significant" standard in guidelines like ANYBIO, om mo small part because the awardgivers are not seen as sufficiently independent from the recipients. The AVN Awards and nominations are widely criticized, particularly within the industry, as payback to the magazine's advertisers. XBIZ Awards are given by a PR business, which actively touted the fact that nominations for its awards are controlled by its clients. An award often described as the most prominent porn industry award in the UK folded not long after giving awards to videos that were never released and guaranteeing award wins to nominees who spent enough money on VIP ticket packages to the award ceremony.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In short, what you say is: earning an award is not considered as proof of notability, because 1.Adult industry Awards don't attract coverage by independent and reliable sources; 2.Awards are organized by private companies, which assign them to their customers based on the amounts they are willing to spend on advertising, or in PR fees. Regarding the first point, I googled "Avn awards", and I've found (after Wikipedia articles about them) citations in Tgcom.24 (a major information site in Italy), Showtime, il Messaggero (the most important local newspaper in Rome) Pitchfork. After googling, in Italian, "Oscar del porno", I found a series of articles in which Avn were qualified (perhaps a little superficially) as the "Oscars of porn" ([37], [38], [39], [40]). About the second point, leaving aside the fact that it would be better to provide certain elements for these accusations, it should not be forgotten that the article relates to a performer who does not pay advertisements or PR. Even assuming that the accusations are true, I would understand if the organizers favored one company's movies instead of those of another, not individual performers, who can also work for different productions and (personal opinion) don't have so much money to buy awards. Westmanurbe (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I typed "Anissa Kate" on google news, and I found an article on GQ France [41] In which it is reported that Anissa Kate was the third actress most sought-after by French on a well-known site of pornographic subject (proof of a certain notoriety at least in the country of origin). Some sites list her among the adult actresses for adults of Arab origini [42]. Plus at least two articles in Spanish about Avn Awards winners for 2019 [43] [44] in which Kate is obviously mentioned. I left out photo galleries and news that could be classified as gossip Westmanurbe (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources do not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. For example, refs added here: diff are tabloid trivia. GQ France is a passing mention. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources in the article are extremely poor and those online are even worse - The majority are mentions or are "So and so thinks Anissa is cute" .... If we rated notability on looks this would be an easy keep ... but unfortunately we don't. –Davey2010^Talk 20:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure why the discussion is still open. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Copy-paste nomination by User:Charmk in response to his article being deleted. WP:POINT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raptor (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG. The notability tag was removed before after adding a reference, but this paper is written by the language author (Martin Carlisle) Charmk (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book about the language is published using (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) - No notable publisher, and can't be used for notability. Charmk (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry? Now not only topics have to be notable, but so do the publishers of any references? When did that happen? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a misapplication of the primary notability criterion. The criterion is whether there are multiple sources that are in-depth coverage by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that are independent of the subject. So how, exactly, is a 150-page book, written by Steve Hadfield et al., not in-depth coverage of the subject written by credentialled subject-matter experts that (at least according to the WWW site) are not the creators of the tool? Please explain. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Steve Hadfield works in US Air Force Academy, and RAPTOR is hosted and maintained by US Air Force Academy, this is a primary source, Also the book is distributed using (self publishing tools - no publisher) Charmk (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a tip for free: If you're arguing with Uncle G; he's right, you're wrong. In the whole of geological time, he's probably got a few goofs stashed away somewhere. But on the whole, if you're ever disagreeing with him, check yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect all of Wikipedia editors and administrators, and I'm happy to learn new things every day. Yes he is right with respect to (significant coverage in the book) but I added more information that prove that This is a Primary Source so we can't use it for notability according to my knowledge, if I'm wrong, tell me? Charmk (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Respect". Except when you stalk those who disagree with you at an AfD, to find articles they've created and then nominate those too. Classy. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep Nomination as "just not notable" still doesn't carry much weight, no matter how many articles you AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please list references for notability that are not (Primary Source) because these references doesn't exist and this article fail GNG Charmk (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Abubakar

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

no possible basis for notability. He's merely the son-in-law of a notable person, and most of the coverage is about that marriage DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources save two are unreliable. The two reliable ones are not about him, they're just wedding coverage. The wedding was only newsworthy, not because of either spouses but the father of the bride. So ideally those are non sources too, in regard to notability of this subject. This is non notable, no independent reliable sources about him at all, he's merely son-in-law of a notable person. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UpShow

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

does not seem to meet NCORP--ther references are either PR or notices about funding or not independent--the Forbes source was written by the company's president, though you cant tell this from the way the reference is displayed. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on sources for the next few days. Any other suggestions welcome. (T) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as paid-for spam about an unremarkable startup. Fails WP:CORP. MER-C 10:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks to be a WP:NCORP failure; the article cites sources, but all seem to be violations of what GNG and NCORP view to be reliable, in-depth sources—the citing of funding announcements and press releases (both of which do not establish notability per NCORP) is the main issue. WP:PRIMARY is another concern, as several sources incorporate interviews with company staff and the aforementioned press releases essentially parrot the company's announcements.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with tags May be noteable but needs work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B105:5182:9942:66F:D470:22B3 (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Murdoch Mysteries characters#Dr. Julia Ogden. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Ogden (character)

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

no substantial third party sources about this particularcharacter--ther entry in list of characters is sufficient DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Murdoch_Mysteries_characters#Dr._Julia_Ogden, which this article just copied and pasted from. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Murdoch_Mysteries_characters#Dr._Julia_Ogden per above. AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Integration competency center

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

Thisseems to be almost entirely based on a single book of that title--no real evidence for the specific phrase being in common use. The writing is a blend of OR and promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term seems to have been commonly used a decade or more ago, and a google search throws up lots of examples. Most of these however are blogs, in-house corporate pieces or suchlike so while they demonstrate ubiquity they don’t support notability. Among the sources I found which do look like RS are the following - this, this, this and this. Mccapra (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gaels. Sandstein 10:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaels of Scotland

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

This article has been tagged as having multiple issues since 30 October 2017. Despite some editing by users other than the originating editor, these problems remain: the article is very poorly referenced with low quality sources and does not even accurately represent what those sources say. The subject matter of the article overlaps with others: History of Scotland (and the more detailed articles linked from there) cover the historical aspects of this article much better; Scottish Gaelic similarly addresses the linguistic side. Even if well written and referenced, the existence of this article would be of questionable value, due to overlap with other articles. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletiondiscussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added missing closing tag. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The topic is superfluous, the content rambling and incoherent. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Over the coming days I will attempt to restructure the page and add in reliable references on this topic matter as I feel it is a page worth of retention as the Gaels provide a very interesting and worth part of Scotland’s history and modern culture. User:EosaphOScollain(talk) 19:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, tend to delete, in its current state it is not worthwhile to be kept as it deals with history and language rather than with the ethnic group, while both history and language are better dealt with in other articles. If this is supposed to be an article about an ethnic group, please compare with e.g. Aboriginal Australians to see how an ethnic group's article should look like. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have strong doubts that there are sufficient good quality sources to bring this article even close to the example suggested (Aboriginal Australians). I have looked at the content of courses at University of the Highlands and Islands and University of Aberdeen (both of which have schools of Gaelic studies) and can find nothing relevant to this article that would not fit into History of Scotland or Scottish Gaelic. Obviously difficult to prove a negative but, it seems there might not be the necessary good quality sources to support this article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The more relevant article is surely Gaels, which includes in its Bibliography a number of sources about Scots Gaels: Macleod, John (1997). Highlanders: A History of the Gaels. Sceptre. ISBN 978-0340639917; McLeod, Wilson (2004). Divided Gaels: Gaelic Cultural Identities in Scotland and Ireland C.1200-C.1650. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0199247226; Newton, Michael (2000). A Handbook of the Scottish Gaelic World. Four Courts Press. ISBN 978-1851825417; Newton, Michael (2009). Warriors of the Word: The World of the Scottish Highlanders. Birlinn. ISBN 978-1841588261; Richards, Eric (1999). Patrick Sellar and the Highland Clearances: Homicide, Eviction and the Price of Progress. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 9781902930138. Other relevant sources I have found include Devine, T.M. (1994;2017) Clanship to Crofters' War: The social transformation of the Scottish Highlands. Manchester University Press. ISBN 9781526130822; Macdonald, S. (1997) Reimagining culture: histories, identities, and the Gaelic renaissance (Issue 7 of Berg Ethnicity and Identity Series) ISBN 9781859739808; this article, which looks at the historic concept of the Gael as an ethnicity: Hammond, Matthew H. 'Ethnicity and the Writing of Medieval Scottish history', Scottish Historical Review. April 2006, Vol. 85, Issue 219, pp1-27. doi:10.1353; another article, Szasz, M.C. 'Rendezvous in Edinburgh: Highland Gael and Mohegan Indian in Auld Reekie in 1767', Northern Scotland, Edinburgh University Press, Vol 1, 2010, pp 54-75, doi:10.3366; plus there is a 14 volume Scottish Life and Society: A Compendium of Scottish ethnology from the European Ethnological Research Centre. And that is just scratching the surface. The topic of Scots Gaels as an ethnic group, with a culture as well as a language and history, is clearly notable, and there are multiple sources which could be used to improve and expand the article. The article as it is needs more inline citations, but as an overview, it does not seem to me anywhere near bad enough that it needs to be deleted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge to the points made by User:RebeccaGreen
(1) If Gaels is a more relevant article, why is that a case for keeping this one?

(2) It is not clear what content of the suggested sources would be persuasive in keeping this article. (a) For instance, Hammond, Matthew H. 'Ethnicity and the Writing of Medieval Scottish history', Scottish Historical Review. April 2006, Vol. 85, Issue 219, pp1-27 is an examination of the historiography of Scottish ethnic groups - surely this, if it has a home in Wikipedia, is/should be covered in a history article. (b) Clanship to Crofters' War does cover the demise of clanship, and this material is found, among other places, in Scottish clan - but its treatment both by T M Devine and by Scottish clan is essentially historical. (c) Eric Richard's book on Patrick Sellar does mention the concept of racial inferiority held by people like Sellar - there are better references to illustrate that (James Hunter has a powerful quote from a Lowland newspaper in Scottish Exodus: Travels Among a Worldwide Clan), but in total they do not amount to much material.

Given that we have a list of many sources provided, and those with which I am familiar or to which I have easy access do not seem to provide enough to make an article - certainly not one that does not simply duplicate material found in Scottish Gaelic and History of Scotland, I question what useful content is in the suggested sources that are less accessible to me.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) without a redirect to Gaels, no need to have a separate article for this given the manageable size of that article (i note that History of Scotland is over 18thousand words (over 30 "pagedowns"!), an eyeglazing size even for one of the diaspora - see WP:TOOBIG:)). ps. shouldn't the history of scotland article have a "see also" link to Gaels? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gaels: RebeccaGreen is correct that there are multiple reliable books on the subject; what is less clear is that another article is needed given Gaels (which is currently easily short enough for a merge to be sensible); Scottish Gaelic; and the enormous History of Scotland. And she didn't mention S. M. Foster, Picts, Gaels and Scots: Early Historic Scotland, 2014. This is evidently not a question of sourcing, but of article management, i.e. we need to decide what structure (which tree) of articles would serve Wikipedia best here. Personally I'd favour a merge to Gaels as the result will remain conveniently small and readable, and someone should probably split History of Scotland into a main and several subsidiary articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Not an ethnic group. More like history and language.Tamsier (talk)
Merge or rename - "Gaels" is the official word used by the Government of Nova Scotia (e.g. at Highland Village to refer to Highlanders who settled there, so the "of Scotland" bit muddies the waters. Gaels clearly exist as a separate topic, but not only (or mainly) in Scotland. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with merge if that's the way things are moving, though I think there is scant material within this article to augment the Gaels article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rujut Dahiya

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

Fails WP:GNG and also WP:NACTOR .His roles are mainly side roles none of them are significant roles in multiple notable films. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article has no references and only two external links. I can't see that the subject is notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is early to qualify for a page, fails WP:NACTOR. Created by a paid sock. Meeanaya (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mamta Saikia

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Citations provided include PR, mere mentions in RS, articles by the subject, an article that lists its "source" as "Internet", source #3 gave my browser a security warning, and I couldn't find anything better searching online. As for the awards won, the Karmaveer Puraskar appears to have itself been deleted by AfD and thus doesn't contribute toward WP:ANYBIO. I had previously nominated this at AfD, but literally no one responded with any votes, so I'm renominating in hopes of getting any actual response, be it keep or delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Mamta Saikia is CEO of Bharti Foundation, which barely qualifies for a page. She is non-notable executive with most of the links from paid PR with no RS.Meeanaya (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ABDO Publishing Company

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

I am unable to find evidence that this organization meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The creator is also a blocked sockpuppet. My PROD was contested on the grounds that there were many incoming links; however, those links are mostly from this page is linked within a reference. I therefore stand by my rationale. Delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I beleive links from references are valuable to readers and they will become red if this is deleted. Establishing notability of media companies is difficult because they are not so motivated to cover each other. I don't usually win these arguments but I still believe the resulting redlinks are an overall loss for our readers. ~Kvng (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:GNG. It was the main sponsor of a Guinness World Record breaking event as noted by The Chicago Tribune. The Mankato Free Press had some rather significant coverage of it and its facilities in an article where it said that ABDO publishing "may be familiar to many." Their series of presidential biographies was picked up and included in The New Yorker's analysis of how educational books are describing Donald Trump. Their decision to change the name of one series in response to a reader letter garnered a good deal of coverage in both Mercury News and The Guardian, both of which discuss the publisher itself to a significant extent. They have also published children's books on Black Lives Matter and #MeToo that have generated a fair bit of coverage both of the books and of the publisher in The Twin Cities Daily Planet, Pacific Standard, and the Minnesota Star Tribune. There are at least three and up to five sources that I'd say are significant, independent, reliable secondary sources. In my opinion the article passes the letter of the GNG, but I think it most obviously passes the spirit of WP:N: has the world outside Wikipedia taken notice of it? I think the answer is obviously yes, so keep. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The criteria for notability is not "coverage" or "mentions in the press". The coverage must be significant and the content itself must contain independent analysis/opinion/etc on the company. The Chicago Tribune reference is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Mankatofreepress is churnalism and based on an interview with the founder and fails WP:ORGIND. The New Yorker reference is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Mercury News and Guardian articles are also references-in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The rest are also mere mentions-in-passing with no information on the company itself and they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somewhat confusingly, the current subject of the article (ABDO Publishing Company) is just one of the several divisions of the ABDO company (listed here). Perhaps this should be moved to ABDO to reflect the name of the entire company rather than just one of its divisions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references in the article itself or provided above meet the criteria and nothing suitable could be found by searching. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An English Murder

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

Unremarkable book. Does not qualify under WP:GNG or any of the subject-specific guidelines. A loose necktie (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have you read it? Anyway, this is just your opinion. The political and social context of post-war Europe and in particularly Great Britain as shown in the novel, is quite nuanced. Mikus (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is just your opinion. Decisions about whether to have a Wikipedia article are made on the basis of coverage in independent reliable sources, not personal opinions of editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: there appears to be insufficient coverage of this subject in published reliable independent secondary sources to warrant a standalone Wikipedia article. A Google search shows the expected Amazon.com results as well as a number of reviews in blogs, and there are instances like this one which is a review on a more formal edited website, but even in this case the review was submitted by a freelance writer, not a trained book reviewer. This very brief review by Kirkus Reviews describes it as "satisfactory". Doesn't look like it meets any of the criteria outlined at WP:NBOOK. A loose necktie (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some sources to the article since you nominated it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the brief kirkus review was ~~probably~~ made when the book was originally published in 1951, a lot of reviews by kirkus and their contemporaries at that time were succinct. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It didn't seem worth keeping before, but it does now that the context has been fleshed out and the article much extended, I think. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, has more than two reviews, article now reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, and the current incarnation of the article now reflects this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here comes the WP:SNOW. meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the Drama

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

Only sources are Pittsburgh-related publications, fails WP:GNG and has been marked as such for 10 years Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 02:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 02:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 02:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It’s not a problem to have purely local coverage if the sources can prove the subject is/was a major part of the local music scene, but that’s not the case here. What does exist—detailed on their dormant website—are a few cases of minor music blog coverage, as well as the fore mentioned local coverage, which are mostly from the newspaper that ran the online vote contest that they won. That, in fact, seems to be the context to their only claim of local notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is both disagreement on the inclusion criteria for the list and about the reliability of the principal source, but the key argument offered here is that there is apparently little or no discussion of the "list topic", cities with the most high-rise buildings, which would imply that WP:NLIST is not met. The keep arguments have for the most part not addressed the point, or it's not clear from the arguments that it is actually addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities with the most high-rise buildings

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

There are several problems with this list. First and most importantly it relies on a single source, emporis.com which is not reliable and therefore fails WP:V, see WP:RSN#Emporis.com. Even if we were to find another source, how do we define a high-rise? The definition currently used comes from emporis.com. We also already have a List of cities with the most skyscrapers which uses a definition from a reliable source. Rusf10 (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First per WP:CFORK of List of cities with the most skyscrapers, secondly due to the level of sourcing... almost every source comes from a single source that appears unreliable therefore fails WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It list far more buildings than the skyscraper article. The source seems to be reliable. They are covered in mainstream media. Just look at the year by year listing of news articles about them [45] This seems quite encyclopedic to anyone studying information about cities or highrises. Dream Focus 23:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is mentioned in the press does not make it reliable. We've already established that emporis.com is WP:UGC and should not be used as a source.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only person in that discussion that said it was unreliable, all others who commented said it was. You stated in that discussion that thousands of Wikipedia articles reference it already, so a lot of editors believe its reliable. So do the major news sources that use it. They take data from government sources among others, it not just user generated. Dream Focus 03:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, high-rise and skyscraper are not synonyms so CFORK does not apply here. They are very different things – much smaller buildings qualify as high-rise than qualify as skyscraper. In principle, I am for keeping the page, but I have to agree that emporis.com is not reliable. They almost certainly have good information on major skyscrapers, but, for instance, they seem to think that there are 22 houses in Kualar Lumpar. This can only mean that users have only bothered to submit data on 22 houses, not that that's all the houses that there are there. That in turn can mean that the data is seriously skewed by the level of activity of their users in various countries, at least for categories other than major skyscrapers. So besides the reliability issue of a source with user generated content there are clearly going to be statistical biases that make a ranking list highly inaccurate. SpinningSpark 00:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please explain what the difference between "skyscraper" and "high rise" is. Ajf773 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A rule of thumb is that if a fire truck ladder can't reach a window and tap water needs to be repressurized and (I think) they can't ignore wind anymore when designing (at least in places where windstorms don't get as bad like Europe or Oakland) that's a high rise. Skyscrapers start much higher at 500 feet or 150 meters and wind is the primary structural difficulty. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be using the Emporis definition which can be found here. Various other definitions are given in our High-rise building article. The Emporis definition of "skyscraper" is here. SpinningSpark 12:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. –dlthewave ☎ 02:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:LISTN, could not find any independent sources that discuss cities with the most high-rise buildings. Even the Emporis list, which the article cites heavily, is about an entirely different topic: Instead of simply counting the number of high rises, each building is given a score based on its floor count. This means that we are combining and arranging multiple sources to create our own list, in violation of WP:SYN, and assigning ranks that are not published in any reliable source.

Even if the data were reliably sourced, combining multiple sources into one list introduces a large potential for error. Despite being factually correct, different sources (and different Emporis pages) have varying levels of completeness, inclusion criteria and up-to-dateness. An apples-to-apples comparison is not going to be possible unless a single reliable source performs and publishes the necessary rigorous research.

As an aside, the list is rife with factual errors. It seems that Sydney and Tyumen are tied for #67 with 872 and 1,078 high-rises respectively, just edging out Greater Noida and Bangalore which are tied for #68 at 850 and 1,067. –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced. WP:NEXIST. WP:Not paper. Nominator ignored Wp:BEFOREand WP:PRESERVE See comments of User:Dream Focus 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:7&6=thirteenHow can you possible say this is a well-sourced article? Even if emporis.com was reliable (its not), since when is any article that relies solely one one source considered "well sourced"? The policy you are ignoring is WP:V. WP:DON'T PRESERVE is part of our editing policy too and it says to delete unverifiable information.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, Emporis appears to be a user edited/self-published information site. Almost like a fanpage. Ajf773 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has references and passes GNG. The article is a good landing place/starting place for a researcher looking to research the subject. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources support your GNG assertion, and how do you reconcile Emporis's user-generated content with our reliable source policy? –dlthewave ☎ 14:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST: In assessing the subject one must assess whether reliable sources exist...and they do. A proper ivote accounts for the potential to reference the article with reliable non-trivial secondary sources. An ambitious editor can delve into this subject and improve the article. There are multiple sources which exist to improve this article. A quick search returns a large number of potential sources from reliable outlets like Business Insider, CNN, USA Today the Washington Post etc. (Each editor can do a search on their own: see WP:BEFORE). If one finds Emporis unreliable or incomplete - the information exists to verify. WP:IMPERFECT Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you've found sources that you believe should be considered, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide them. Don't tell us to find the sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Which specific articles from Business Insider, CNN and USA Today did you find? If you list them here, your "keep" !vote will carry more weight and perhaps someone can add them to the article. Simply saying that they exist, without sharing what you searched for and what you found, will not help improve the article. When I searched for cities with the most high rises, there were a number of mainstream media sources in the results (CNN, Forbes, Huffington Post, US News, Washington Post) but none of them were actually related to the topic of the article. I'm curious what sources you found that were on on-topic. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 You and I disagree as to the meaning and application of the policies. As the proposer of the AFD, you are supposed to go over all the hurdles before you get to the finish line. The burden of justifying the deletion is on you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is quite clear on this point. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I do not have prove that better sources don't exist (and if they do indeed exist, why can't you or anyone else come up with them?)--Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable - emporis is not a reliable source and all numbers are a false precision since we cannot trust emporis to accurately have every 12-story building in its user-generated database. Stop mindlessly citing WP:PAPER, just because we aren't physically printed doesn't mean we must eternally keep anything anyone writes – how about WP:EVERYTHING? Reywas92^Talk 04:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments put forth by Dlthewave. Emporis.com is not a reliable source, and despite the argument that other sources may exist, none appear to have been found that actually discuss cities with the most high-rise buildings as group, thus failing WP:NLIST. Rorshacma (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Poor referencing, redundant. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources have been shown. Candidly, I am surprised that the page hasn't been G11'd since if the promotional content is removed there would be nothing left. Tke 'Week keep' hasn't offered any basis for notability. Finally, I note that it doesn't merit a mention in the Franchising page. Just Chilling (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Franchise Magazine

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

Fails WP:NMAGAZINE. No reliable sources to substantiate any of the claims in this article. Rogermx (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Highly specialised magazine and certainly encyclopedic, but none to zero coverage as it is so specialised. Certainly notable, but I don't think it will have more than 1 or 2 sources, ultimately. Potential for redirect if target can be found. scope_creep^Talk 08:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trade mag. reads like an ADVERT. ORPHAN. Lacks SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I have been able to find 0 sources to add to this. The keep vote also admits that there is no coverage and uses the WP:ITSNOTABLE rationale. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information Assurance Advisory Council

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

Promotional page of an organization failing WP:GNG. Reads like a promotional pamphlet, especially sections on activities. All substantial content is sourced to their own website, with nods to various secondary sources that briefly mention (usually once) the organization. No significant, non-routine coverage of the organization in reliable, independent sources; the closest any sources get to counting are a couple of press releases. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The few sources that are not from the organisation itself are either routine coverage, press releases or churnalism of press releases. There is nothing that comes anywhere near meeting WP:NORG. SpinningSpark 23:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Systems

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

promotional with below borderline notability .The references do not meet WP:CORP--they are either repetitive press releases, notices of funding, material the company or its founders have themselves written, or placements of lists DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are a part of PR and not organic. As DGG has stated, the company is non-notable and really need RS.Meeanaya (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We have unanimity that the subject fails WP:NACTOR. Just Chilling (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob O'Connor (actor)

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

Interesting case here, while the films he has been in are very notable, not a single role he has been is a notable film. He does not come across as a character actor either given how only a couple of his roles are even credited. Unless if someone can find some sort of notability for this guy, it looks like delete for him. Wgolf (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he was a run of the mill|studio actor with many small roles; fails WP:NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NACTOR as unfortunately he did not get a big break, with his roles uncredited or very minor, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor. Only one of these cases does he appear in the cast list and that case it is clearly a non-notable roll. A good example of roles he had were the unnamed, and non-descript "bar patron" in It's a Wonderful Life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this rather confusing. The article Bob O'Connor (actor) states that he was born Robert Emmett O'Connor. There is also an article about an actor called Robert Emmett O'Connor. They have different dates of birth and death, so perhaps they are different people. Robert Emmett O'Connor was sometimes referred to as "Bob O'Connor", however - contemporary newspaper reviews of The Noose (film), in which Robert Emmett O'Connor played Jim Conley, say things like "Bob O'Connor portrays a gangster", "the support was cast was excellent, including ... Bob O'Connor". The IMDB bio of Robert Emmett O'Connor says that "He made his bones performing in circuses and in vaudeville", and there are many mentions in Variety, etc, of "Bob O'Connor and Co" appearing in vaudeville in the 1910s .... So, it does seem clear that Robert Emmett O'Connor was also known as Bob O'Connor. Was there another one? Quite possibly, it's a very common name - but when Bob O'Connor (actor) was mostly uncredited, and Robert Emmett O'Connor was sometimes uncredited, it seems a bit of a mess. It also makes it hard sorting out whether Bob O'Connor (actor) received any contemporary coverage that might contribute to notability! RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White Falcon Publishing Solutions

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

Absolutely fails as per WP:NCORP and created by a sock. Dial911 (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NCORP. Reads like an advert and created by an undisclosed paid editor and sock. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/sbos222d/sbos222d.pdf

[1] ttp://www.ti.com/lit/ds/sbos222d/sbos222d.pdf

[1]