Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 October	12 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplex Records

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

This article has a complex history. It was AfD'ed in 2008 here and duly deleted. Then it was re-created using the Content Translation Tool, within the time frame that would make it subject to CSD X2, but owing to slow progress through the X2 backlog, not checked for a couple of years (until I got to it just now). In the meantime it has been prodded, but the prod was declined by one of our wise sysops on the basis that there has been a historic AfD. Nobody ever seems to have got round to adding any independent third party sources and I wasn't able to find one I thought was acceptable either. —S Marshall T/C 22:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When an article is recreated, it's necessary to demonstrate the issues from the first AfD have been addressed. They have not been addressed here, and in fact we just have an unsourced company page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG for the lack of reliable secondary multiple WP:SIGCOV, could have been even G4ed speedy deleted as the article doesn't address the reason it was deleted in the first AfD. This seems like the only possibly decent source [1], but certainly not enough. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sofa painting

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

Survived AfD in 2006 but has not developed since then. The first sentence repeats the definition we already have at Wiktionary. The rest is promotional material for an exhibition organised by a gallery. Mccapra (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not find any significant coverage. This is perhaps due to the fact that it is not that important.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced WP:DICDEF/WP:NEO — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not seen here. Fails WP:GNG Catorce2016 (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article for an exhibition that lacks notability. Netherzone (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan. Due to lack of participation, there is no prejudice against reverting to a standalone article. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Elliot Secondary School

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

Unreferenced, non-notable school. Recommend delete or redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan. The infobox may or may not be worth merging, at least in part. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Mind matrix 02:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Palmer

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

I found no significant coverage for this person. The only two references are to his place of employment. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Notability failed here.Catorce2016 (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I tried to fix this page, but it relies on two primary sources. I also tried to find additional sources with several iterative searches but found nothing additionally that was not from his employer. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia J

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

Biography of a living person sourced since 2008 only to their own website. I’ve looked for reliable independent sources but can’t find any. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that an article so poorly sourced has survived the 11 years that this one has shows how wild west crazy the article creation process was back in 2008.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vishu Reddy

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

There are only mentions of his name on the internet and many entertainment sites. No significant coverage in reliable sources found as per my research. It is too soon to have this article included. Dial911 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Movies (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND. The article was prodded last year, but a confused history merge that was recently undone caused the article to be deprodded. Note that the UK band is not the same as the one deleted in the other AfD, which was about the American band. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, extensive searching of the band members + various key words turns up absolutely nothing. Americanradiohistory.com includes multiple British music publications (for instance, I found a review for Hawkwind, Friends and Relations which had been unsourced since 2006), but nothing on these guys even with the members'names thrown in. One source I thought was extensive turned out to be a web forum. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per addition of sources. Good work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Five studio albums, one of which was released on A&M and two on RCA, satisfies WP:NMUSIC. They also had a half-hour concert broadcast on the BBC Radio 1 show In Concert and appeared on The Old Grey Whistle Test. --Michig (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for any of this? I've said it before, WP:NMUSIC is not ironclad. I get just directory listings and false positives on Google Books, and no chart entries on the UK charts. American Radio History shows five hits for "Jon Cole" "The Movies", but two are false positives and one gives a 404, which leaves just two diminutive less-than-a-paragraph reviews that IMO aren't enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The album releases are easily verifiable. There's a BFI page showing three appearances on The Old Grey Whistle Test. --Michig (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The album releases are verifiable, but there is no additional content about them. The BFI listing is only a directory listing that mentions them in passing. Individual points may be verifiable, but where is the substantial third party coverage? None of what you've shown is substantial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC doesn't require us to find substantial third party coverage. As I've already mentioned to you, the era that the band were around, coverage is more likely to be in print sources. --Michig (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't mean that WP:NMUSIC should be abided to at all times. A musical act can pass WP:NMUSIC and not pass WP:GNG. General notability always surpasses topical. Nor should we give an article a pass because coverage might possibly maybe be in sources not currently accessible. It really sounds like you're just trying to dodge the question whenever I ask if you've been able to find any reliable sources, even after I've gone out of my way to prove an absence of such. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Read WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if...It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" - you know this already. 2. I have demonstrated that at least two criteria of WP:NMUSIC are satisfied. Now stop your disruptive wikilawyering. --Michig (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not debating whether or not it passes, because it does meet at least one criterion. What I am debating is the utter lack of reliable, third-party sources, which you seem to be going out of your way not to address. Have you found any sources that I've missed? Or do you think the article should stay barren and bereft of sources? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - passing NMUSIC, as that guideline says, indicates something "may be notable." It's a solid indication that sources should be available, but it's not a guarantee. ~~Regardless, there's nothing to keep here. Wikipedia is not a band directory, but an encyclopedia that needs material based on reliable sources.~~ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given sources have been added that look to be more than superficial, I'm striking my delete !vote until I can dig into it more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article now has sources. As I have stated before, the majority of coverage will likely be in music press sources from the late 1970s and early 1980s that will not be found from a Google search. In addition to the sources now cited, Rock's Back Pages has an album review and a live review from Sounds, but not being a subscriber I can't see enough to use them here. --Michig (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved with content referenced from multiple reliable sources so there is no longer a valid reason for deletion, also the band pass WP:NMUSIC with three album releases on major labels, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pinto

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

Non-notable businessman and actor. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Awards won are not notable and article looks like PR. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and is all about the person's awards and positions rather than about how he is notable and of encyclopedic interest. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 19:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CSD#A7 , awards are not notable at all, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO--Wakowako (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beg to differ, I see the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources and meets the notability requirements, also passes WP:GNG. Tushar.ghone (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I decided to write an article on Ryan Pinto only after finding him being featured in various reputable publications such as India Today, The Financial Express (India), Hindustan Times. He is the CEO of Ryan International Group of Institutions, one of the largest group of Educational Institutions. I have no clue why it was even nominated for deletion saying lack of notability. Google search result of him shows him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. I have added some additional content (Controversy section) with references to back it up and also removed non notable award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tushar.ghone (talk • contribs) 16:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to have inherited a collection of proprietary colleges from his father, who named them for him. The investigation into a student death seems to be a coat-rack. The sourcing is terrible. He might be notable, but even I can't fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan. Tone 21:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland Middle School

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

Unremarkable local middle school in a neighbourhood of a mid-sized British Columbia municipality. As written, fails WP:NOTE and Google searches for its name produce only trite, trivial news items on one-time school events or renovations, and directory listings. In short, no WP:SIG. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to School District 23 Central Okanagan. Nothing to merge when the article is unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SL93, True, but what's the policy on leaving behind redirects for non-notable schools (that is, having the redirect redirect to the school district)? Doug Mehus (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus I'm not aware of such a policy, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A S Matheson Elementary School was ultimately only redirected to School District 23 Central Okanagan. SL93 (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SL93, Thanks...Are you aware of an easy tool to remove the double redirect internal links on the SD23 page? I know Twinkle easily removes links to a certain page. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of one. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SL93, Okay, thanks. I'll try and do it some time later. Not a huge deal. Likely a low traffic page anyway. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, point 1. Mind matrix 02:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mindmatrix, Yes, but they're fundamentally not standalone notable, either. No need for a separate page. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus I'm not sure I understand your response. I answered the question "what's the policy on leaving behind redirects for non-notable schools", which per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is to redirect to the schoolboard (supporting the previous comment). I'm not at all advocating to retain this article. Mind matrix 02:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mindmatrix, Sorry then. I assumed incorrectly. My bad. I misunderstood the direction you were leaning. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect to School District 23 Central Okanagan per standard procedure and as outlined in policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guau!

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

Self-referenced, absolutely no claim of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there’s an article on this topic on es.wiki which wasn’t linked so I’ve connected it. It shows the show ran for ten years and it does have sources. Not sure if that gets it over the notability threshold but it’s less clear cut that I first thought. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Forrest Noell

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

Fails WP:GNG. Although I don't think it changes notability, I should point out that in 2015, Noell was charged with, among other things, the attempted murder of his then estranged wife. As far as I can tell, Noell has not yet been tried. The latest update I've found is from last year in this article. Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Barca (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely run of the mill investor of some sort. It's so poorly written and edited that it's incomprehensible. I suspect this is a cut and past of a resume. The crime of which he is accused runs the risk of becoming a coat-rack. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Stuart

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

As written, fails both basic and additional guidelines of WP:NOTE, WP:NBIO, and WP:POLITICIAN. Being major of a local government requires the subject to meet WP:NOTE, for which there'd have to be non-trivial press coverage (that is, on matters other than routine municipal business or election campaigning), a book-length biographical account published, and then they would have to meet "regional prominence" criteria, which may or may not be met but which is subject to the caveat that the article must state something more than John (or Jane) Doe was mayor of Cityville. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better. Unlike Colin Basran, whose depth of coverage I can easily vouch for because he's the current incumbent and thus his coverage Googles well, Stuart's term in office predates my ability to locate any suitable sources — even the databases I can dig into for older pregooglable media coverage don't include Kelowna papers prior to the early 2000s, so I can't establish whether or not it's possible to write or source anything of substance here. If somebody else with better access to the archives of the Kelowna Daily Courier is willing and able to tackle writing something much more substantial than "he existed and here's a primary source to prove it, the end", then that could change things — but we can only evaluate notability on the basis of sources that are shown to exist, not those that are merely presumed to exist, so he can't be exempted from having to clear NPOL #2 on the sourcing just because we assume there's probably other coverage we can't actually find. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Agree. If I ever get time, I'll try and use my Okanagan Regional Library access to look up sources, though recent Courier articles are problematic since the Courier stopped licensing their content to libraries.

Delete a mayor of a place that does not provide default notability and sourcing comes no where close to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the city of which he was mayor has a population of 127,380, which is borderline, pardon the pun. There are insufficient sources. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sowha

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

A supposed sect of monks. The book listed in the references is the only place I was able to find this group mentioned at all. I found zero other results discussing the groups existence. I tried a couple different spellings, just in case, and also turned up nothing. If the group does actually exist, I don't see them passing the WP:GNG due to only the one source describing them. Rorshacma (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator - Mccapra has demonstrated below that the absence of sources is due to the improper naming of the group in the article, and that sources do exist under their correct name. Rorshacma (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic dictionary, ‘sā’iḥ pl. -ūn سائح suwwāḥ traveler, tourist; itinerant dervish; anchorite (Chr.)‘ so they are real and definitely not a hoax. Search with the spelling ‘suwwah’ and there are plenty of refs.Mccapra (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current article title seems to be a unique usage so it’s possible that the author of ‘ Journey Back to Eden’ misheard or misreported the term. In any case the article can be updated to include the more normal form.
- Comment - And there's an alternate spelling I didn't check on. The article definitely needs some work, and should be moved to the actual correct spelling, but I will withdraw the nomination as this shows that there are actual sources on them under the proper name. Rorshacma (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great, in that case I’ll add some sourced content. Mccapra (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS 11 (Manhattan)

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

Article about an elementary school that fails WP:NSCHOOL.

The scant refs are malformed so I cannot check them, but one appears to be primary, one references a section about a charity fundraiser that namechecks a lot of people but essentially boils down to "celebrity parent of child at school organises fundraiser for school" and does not make the school itself notable, and the third references a section about a "special program" which was run in this school and many others.

Almost all of the article is WP:SPAM, in particular the section about the After School program, which costs "17.50" with "snack accommodations [whatever that means] included". Dorsetonian (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of the sources look both independent and significant. Possibly could be merged with New York City Department of Education, but there really isn't anything to merge there. Rockphed (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Basran

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

As written, fails both notability basic and additional guidelines for living persons, including WP:SIG. Also, fails WP:NPOL on two counts, chiefly that (a) the individual has never held state-wide office (or above), nor has he even ran for such offices, and (b) there have been no book-length published, print or digital, works on this individual's life. As well, Google quotation mark-enclosed for "Colin Basran" (the subject) produces only trite and trivial coverage related to routine municipal business, his municipal election campaigns, and his work as a real estate agent. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NPOL states that mayors of cities with "regional prominence" usually meet notability criteria. Kelowna is the largest city in BC's interior, so I would certainly say that it is a city of regional prominence.-- Earl Andrew - talk 17:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Andrew, The problem is, he fails the basic criteria. I would note, too, that most, if not all, Kelowna mayors do not have biographies because they fail the basic criteria. That's paramount. Similarly, just being a journalist doesn't meet the test for notability (no other CHBC-TV personality has a Wikipedia biography, many of whom had higher profile anchor positions than Basran as a junior reporter). He simply fails WP:SIG, a critical test. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Andrew, Further to your comment, I note, too, that "regional prominence," which is additional criteria I'd point out, is also subject to the following caveat, which is that, "although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville." In this case, that's exactly what this article is. Fundamentally, though, I go back to his failing WP:SIG (that is, press coverage that is more than passing mentions, routine municipal business, his election campaign(s), and the like), and to basic WP:NOTE guidelines. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll grant that this is one of the last articles about a mayor that I created before our notability standard for mayors was tightened up from "a certain arbitrary population figure confers automatic inclusion rights, so all you have to do is show verification that they've been elected as a mayor" to "you need to write a substantive and well-sourced article that actually delves into detail about his political impact" — so it certainly does need significant improvement, and is not an accurate reflection of the amount of effort I would have put into the article if I were creating it today (Doug Craig (politician) is a more representative sample of that). But notability is ultimately based much more on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current quality of the article, and Basran most certainly does have the kind of sourcing needed to improve the article with. Nominator is incorrect that statewide/provincewide office is always a base requirement for passing WP:NPOL — while that is the lowest level of political office at which we automatically accept all MLAs as being permanently notable without having to achieve anything more than serving in the legislature, mayors of significant cities most certainly are also considered notable if we have the sources with which to write a substantive article. Nominator is also incorrect that mayoral notability always requires book-length works about his life — book-length biographies certainly count as bolsterers of notability if they do exist, but the existence of book-length biographies is not a mandatory condition that a mayor always has to have before he can ever be deemed notable. If there are enough other kinds of sources (like newspaper journalism) to establish a pass of NPOL #2, then NPOL #2 is still passed. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Yes, this is definitely not reflective of the typical high calibre articles you create and substantially modify. Would it be fair to say, then, your vote might be a weak keep on the basis of it being created prior to tightening up of local politician notability standards? And where articles created prior to this policy change grandfathered? As for significant press coverage, I would disagree there as none of the press coverage relates to this author's life. All of it mentions municipal business, council proceedings, his campaign, and the like, so there is not the existence of enough independent information on which to write a detailed biographical account, no?

I'm not asserting that he gets "grandfathered" because he was created before our notability standards were tightened up — I'm asserting that he can be kept because enough sources exist that the article can be improved to get him back up to the current stricter standards. And what we're looking for, when it comes to making a mayor notable enough for inclusion, is not biographical detail about his personal life — sure, we can include that kind of information if we can find it, but the presence or lack of that kind of biographical detail is actually orthogonal to whether the mayor is notable or not. What we're looking for is the ability to write and source some genuine substance about his political impact: themes he campaigned on, municipal projects he spearheaded, and other content about his political career. So the kind of sources you're talking about aren't as removed from being able to support his notability as you seem to think they are — they're actually much more important than the ability to find out where he went to high school or the names of his parents and wife and kids. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Okay, thanks, so in that way, it's a little less stringent than the notability in terms of significant coverage requirements for corporations and organizations? I did look at the Doug Craig article you linked to, so perhaps, if you get time over the next 6 months or so and this survives AfD, maybe you might put this on your 'to-do' list to improve? Doug Mehus (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL as it stands. I have no issues, however, if someone wants to improve the article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, Thanks. I'm of the same view and favour a swift delete as well, without prejudice, of course, providing they can provide significant coverage (not just coverage relating to municipal business, actions or inactions, political campaigning, and the like). Doug Mehus (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, since you nominated the article, that already counts as your bolded !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, Yeah, for sure. As it stands now, it's 2 votes delete and 2 votes to keep. I just wanted to clarify that the nominator's nomination does, itself, count as a vote. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a major metropolitan city. Mayors are not default notable, and we lack sufficient sources otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Earl Andrew. 2001:569:7C07:2600:A889:9836:60BD:3298 (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - at a population of 127,380, it's a borderline case. The publicity about this mayor seems to more significant than others, but I'd still like to see more sources. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, Most, if not all of the press coverage, related to Colin Basran relates to his business as mayor of the municipality or his election campaign (which does not qualify). Also, biographical depth needs to be considered as I can find no works, print or digital, that are biographical in nature and would allow us to write more than a stub-class article. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, Note also that while at CHBC-TV, long-time anchor and media personality, Rick Webber, who is more well known in these parts than Colin Basran, does not have a Wikipedia biography as there, too, are insufficient sources to write a biographical article. Similar story with Kelowna's first woman mayor, Sharon Shepherd, who also does not have a biography due to insufficient sources. Just being the first Indo-Canadian mayor of Kelowna does not make him notable. There has to be significant sources to write an article of sufficient depth. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dmehus - just looking at news sources linked above, he seems to get into the news a lot. Let's call it shallow coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Bearian, Yes, very shallow indeed. In the news, yes, but it's usually pretty trivial stuff (like whether Costco is going to relocate to West Kelowna - note: they're not; just moving down the street a few blocks) Doug Mehus (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Bearcat. There's sufficient sourcing out there for at least a short bio (Province, CBC, even puffy pieces on his dress have some usable biographical detail: Nelson Star). The Interior (Talk) 22:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Interior, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about just doing short bios, though. Just like companies, we need to consider biographical depth. We should be looking past "oh, he got elected, so he passes." The CBC and Nelson Star pieces don't pass muster and we'd be lucky if we could write more than a paragraph and an Infobox with the Province article. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reprographics (webcomic)

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

The article provides no evidence of notability - all but one of the embedded external links are to pages on the subject website, and the other, in the "Politics" section, is merely something the website creator read. {{find sources}} doesn't throw up anything obvious. The article was deleted by WP:PROD in 2007, but restored after the website creator objected. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, no 3rd-party sources.(I don't mind a lot of 1st party sources in an article about web-content, but strong 3rd party sources have to be there too.) Granted, the comic has a difficult-to-google name, but I can't find any likely sources that would help establish notability. ApLundell (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, might be an A7 but the article's been around forever. I thought for sure we'd purged the webcomic-cruft ages ago. Only 17 results for author name + reprographics, nothing of note whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captured! by Robots

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

Aside from some minor coverage, the group does not pass WP:NBAND. Also, since the band has recently got added to Metal Archives it makes the need for a Wikipedia page even less nessesary. All the info is better / more neatly detailed over there (although I dont know if this carries any extra weight). I wasn't able to find any sources that make this page passable. Second Skin (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI've had my concerns about this novelty act article for a long time, and nothing substantial has changed since I tagged much if it as failing verification two years ago. I'll see what I can dig up on it but I seem to remember that I did not find much when I looked last time. Note that the existence of coverage of the group elsewhere is certainly not grounds for deletion of the article. If we followed that reasoning Wikipedia would have no articles at all. Wikipedia does not generate material, we simply report what other sources say about subjects. Meters (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And the Metal Archives appears to be a user-generated site, and so is not a reliable source. Meters (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Found one good, recent ref https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/captured-by-robots-emerges-as-a-political-grindcore-band/Content?oid=19153637 Not sufficient in itself but contributes towards NBAND criterion 1. Only likely other criterion group could pass is 5, but all albums except most recent are self-released so does not pass. Meters (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And another ref covering the recent change from pure novelty act to grind core ~~https://www.dallasobserver.com/music/jack-white-may-retreat-with-the-raconteurs-but-hes-still-a-standout-performer-11775551~~ https://www.dallasobserver.com/music/jay-vance-frontman-of-captured-by-robots-on-how-he-turned-his-novelty-robot-band-into-a-serious-one-10081744 Meters (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC) URL corrected 19:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say metal archives is a "reliable source"? All I said was it's essentially the same thing Wikipedia is, and as such, makes a article on here less necessary Second Skin (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment that it was not reliable was simply to point out that we cannot use that site as a ref for anything. I'm leaning towards deletion (if no-one comes up with better refs and a good argument for keeping it) but your contention that the existence of another website (and a non-reliable one at that) with similar information is something that should be considered in the AFD is completely wrong. If you don't understand why you should probably not be opening AFDs. Meters (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Strangely, WP:TOOSOON is relevant here even though the act was formed in the 1990s. It received no reliable notice during its years as a novelty act. The guy seems to have revamped the name as a serious political grindcore act in 2018, and this got some coverage in the East Bay Express and Dallas Observer articles listed in the above discussion. So there is a little bit of media notice now but I don't think it's quite enough to merit a Wikipedia article, and I can find nothing else beyond the usual concert announcements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doomsdayer520 conclusions jibe with mine. I'm open to reconsidering if anyone finds better sourcing then I did. Meters (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anaya Music

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

Autobio of non notable individual. Awards are not major. Lacks citations for WP:PROF. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Search found nothing good for gng. Blogs, self published. Prod removed amongst multiple edits that claimed to be adding references but never did. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Weak Delete and Blow It Up - After some rather extensive searching it appears that she may have enough for a stub article on her music, thanks to some notice in the Brazilian press and various publications in the religious/new age fields. Here are some possibilities: [2], [3], [4], [5]. But note that her other endeavors, particularly books, seem to have gone unnoticed and do not deserve to be discussed here. Overall, the article is in hideous shape and needs to be cleaned up severely, TNT'ed even, and reduced to a much shorter and more focused description of her scattered musical achievements over the years. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doomsdayer520. Contemporary Fusion Reviews is a self published site of Dick Metcalf who takes money for reviews [6]. The JW Vibe is a self published site of Johathan Widran, a PR writer [7] who takes money for reviews [8]. Mainly Piano a self published site of Kathy Parson. Last is mostly by her, not independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't the only things I found, just some examples. She comes up in lists of new age/religious musicians in various books from those fields, but you are correct that most online sources aren't too reliable. I changed my vote to "Weak Delete" due to the scant nature of the sources, and if the article happens to survive I will fix it myself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 08:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Henry (actress)

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

Non notable local presenter. Lacks multiple significant roles. Emmy is regional. BRIO is minor local award. She lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Search found nothing good for gng. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's not just a presenter - she has acted on stage as well as on screen. Not an easy name to search for, though! RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Knowles

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

WP:BIO and its subset WP:JOURNALIST require for a journalist's minimum notability threshold that they are "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" as backed by sufficient third party source reporting as required by WP:NRV. While Knowles has scattered mentions through various news events he has been through over the years it isn't clear that he, in fact it doesn't seem like he, meets the third-party sourced notability requirements that were not "not a mere short-term interest" as described in WP:NRV and WP:NTEMP. - 2601:5C2:4380:6380:FDCD:863B:69D2:EBF1 (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion on the nomination at this time. --Finngall ^talk 16:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Much coverage in multiple WP:RSs, some of which are already cited in the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of varied 3rd party refs for a political commentator who seems to be notable and controversial, controversial implies notability of itself. This doesn't seem to be a suitable article for deletion. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently he's been doing "The Michael Knowles Show" for The Daily Wire for several years now. He wrote a best-selling book reported on by the BBC. (Well, he got a satirically empty book published.) The Wapo also did a story on it, and the POTUS commented on it favorably. Knowles is young. I doubt he's going away; I imagine he will continue to grow like the other conservative wunderkind did. YoPienso (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decent amount of RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Nowrouzzadeh

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

It's unclear what her particular notability is besides as a career government servant and whether that rises to the level of a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:6000:75C:7DCF:99CC:9402:4095 (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion on the nomination at this time. --Finngall ^talk 16:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a funtionary who is not at a level to make her notable. Her academic career has also not yet risen to the level of notability. Maybe at some point, but not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dual-role transvestism

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

Fails WP:N. We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. This article has always been a poor-quality stub with poor sourcing, and in addition, this diagnosis is being phased out of the ICD. I've created a new section in the Crossdressing article that covers the topic: Cross-dressing#Medical_views. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – plugging this term into Google scholar returns just shy of two-hundred hits. A lot of them are passing mentions, but I'd be shocked if there wasn't enough content in there to add up to GNG. That having been said, I don't really have an opinion on redirecting to the above section on WP:NOPAGE grounds. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator has been edit-warring this matter; was reverted by multiple editors and now is forum-shopping by bringing the matter here. As the topic was a formal medical diagnosis, referenced in numerous sources, the suggestion that it should be deleted seems absurd. Andrew D. (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an illness formally diagnosed by the nationally-recognised American Psychiatric Association, and supported by eminent WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is still a medical diagnosis, and to not have an article on a diagnosis would be unprecedented as far as I know; and also because diagnoses meet WP:GNG by their very nature. Any diagnosis, after all, must have medical peer-reviewed literature describing it. I don't think NOPAGE should apply in this case, as medical conditions are best served by having their own articles, rather than being buried in an article mainly about a societal topic. All that said, though this is not a reason for deletion, the article does have room for improvement. It's not a problem if it remains short however. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon McKennedy

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

One directory-type source that backs up basic bio. Page is written like an ad. The NASCAR Whelen Modified Tour and NASCAR Whelen Southern Modified Tour aren't considered fully professional by WikiProject Motorsport, so the page doesn't meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been on Wikipedia for 12 years and he is notable because of that. 99721829Max (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The length of the article being here is not at all a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close: an error has occurred because of sockpuppet edit warring. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galois axis

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

Not a prominent concept, measured by WP:GNG or citations. Salt is probably warranted given the IP/SPA edit-warring. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: the nominated page was before and is now a redirect to MacCullagh ellipsoid, that's why your AfD notice went on that article instead of this page. This AfD needs to be closed; you can either renominate MacCullagh ellipsoid at AfD if that's what you intended, or if you want to discuss the Galois axis redirect you should nominate it at redirects for discussion. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Default keep as the consensus is not a delete. Could be a merge or similar, but that can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 16:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Brewing Company

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

Promotion for non notable business. The original Nashville Brewing Company is covered at Gerst Brewing Company and is not this new brewing business that doesn't brew. Outside of local the new one lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. This article is bombarded with sources they are largely about the old brewery. Otherwise it's local, listings passing mention, primary. This article, created by Smertie is about a business owned by a similarly named S Mertie and largely draws on a book written by S Mertie and promotes that book and the actions of S Mertie. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article does appear to be promotional (listing a dozen minor brewing awards does not impart notability). Rockphed (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RS. A quick WP:BEFORE search turns up multiple sources which denote notability. If the article has a promotional tone, it can be reqworked however WP:NOTCLEANUP. Wm335td (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi Wm335td, can you link to a couple of sources that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to William Gerst Brewing Company - The issue here appears to be that the article is both about the old Nashville Brewing Company, known as the Gerst Brewery or William Gerst Brewing Company (which appears notable based on the following references: 1 2 3), and about the new one which does not appear to be so (all I see are drive-by references). The common name for the old brewery seems to have been "William Gerst Brewing Company" based on the above sources. The promo stuff about the new brewery can be dealt with through a simple copy-edit. FOARP (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP. The old one is already covered at Gerst Brewing Company. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks duffbeerforme, not sure how I failed to read that you had already covered that point but am happy to switch to Redirect to Gerst Brewing Company on that basis. FOARP (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ because the newest company doesn't seem to pass corpdepth. I removed the mirrored content that should have just stayed at Gerst Brewing Company to start since it isn't much, also moved the photographs that weren't already there. Only thing left to check before a redirect or creation of a disambiguation page is the bolded names in the introduction, which could be useful moved over to the introduction of the Gerst page. Also am hesitant about the copyright of the photography for Nashville Brewery. It claims the trademark of the old one, and yet the new company is claiming ownership as well, on the Wikipedia page. New logo, or false copyright claim? Unsure. 198.255.228.27 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and create disambiguation page, despite the residual scent of advertising. I tried to separate the articles so the page is now focused just on the new one, and with fresh eyes, it looks like there is some nice press from quasi-statewide/national publications, enough to not make me hesitate at throwing it in the incinerator too quickly at least. From a forgiving standpoint, I think corpdepth might be met. 198.255.228.27 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you think are good for GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect or Merge to Gerst Brewing Company per above comments and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:Notability. If redirect is selected, closer must ensure that prose in this article that is useful is copied to the assuming article (Gerst). Doug Mehus (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gerst Brewing Company. All non-local sources cited refer to the old brewing company; the new one does not meet GNG/CORPDEPTH for a standalone article. Probably worth a short paragraph on the old brewery's article, though. -- Scott Burley (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 21:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's Thriller jacket

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

Although this subject has been covered by numerous reliable sources (particularly after it was sold at auction a few years ago), I don't think it has been covered in sufficient detail that it requires its own article.

The jacket was created for the music video for Thriller. The description of the jacket’s design and the intent behind the design is already covered in the Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video) article. Information about legacy and impact on fashion can also be covered there.

Some of the claims in the article are less notable than they appear - for example The buyer, Milton Verret, described the jacket as "the greatest piece of rock and roll memorabilia in history”. Verret is the private citizen who bought the jacket so of course he feels that way. The quote about Jackson’s style in the video mentions the jacket only in passing: "In 'Thriller', Michael's outfit and its stylistic features – the wet-look hairstyle, the ankle-cut jeans and the letter 'M' emblazoned on his jacket – reinforce this meta-textual superimposition of role. If Michael, as the male protagonist, is both boyfriend and star, his female counterpart in the equation of 'romance' is both the girlfriend and at this meta-textual level, the fans.” Etc.

So - definitely notable, but I think the actual notable stuff can be covered in sufficient depth in Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video). The article is already short and a lot of it is filler. (Cause this is filler, filler night…). Popcornduff (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like i said before please see WP:ASZ. Michael Jackson's Thriller Jacket has been subject of numerous books and articles. There is sufficient significant independent coverage in multiple sources to indicate the article pass WP:GNG. The current size of an article is utterly irrelevant when considering whether a subject is notable. Marrying this article and then expanding the section/article to cover all of it would lead to excessive focus on this topic.-- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Michael Jackson's Thriller Jacket has been subject of numerous books and articles"? As far as I know, no one has written a book about this jacket. It's been mentioned in brief in a few. Numerous articles have been written about the auction, but that can be covered in a sentence. No danger of bloating the Thriller article - everything notable about the jacket can be covered in a single paragraph. Popcornduff (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its notoriety speaks for itself. Israell (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Factions in Revelation Space

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

Non-notable, overly in-depth fictional topic better suited to Fandom TTN (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd like to say merge a summary to Revelation Space universe but it is completely unreferenced... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus leans more towards keep/improve than delete. Some major restructuring and sourcing is definitely in place here but deletion seems an overkill. Tone 21:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the near future

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

Wikipedia does not predict future events Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 12:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 12:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: By that rationale, every Wikipedia article on an upcoming year should be deleted. Serendi ^podous 12:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well-cited from reliable sources. This is an important article with about 200 views per day. We have an entire project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Futures studies, devoted to articles that should seemingly be deleted if we were to follow the nominator's apparent rationale. Examples include Ultimate fate of the universe. In any event, I'm not seeing what aspect of WP:CRYSTAL the nominator is seeking to base their argument on. Edwardx (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well cited? Less than 25% of the events listed have sources. The first event with a source is 3 years distant. Of the 6 events listed for 2020 (next year), the only one that doesn't really need a source is the US elections. Rockphed (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to hear some people talk, there is uncertainty that the US will have elections next year (though the same sort of people have been spreading those sorts of rumors as long as I can remember). After about 2040 most of the listed events are in the extreme WP:CRYSTAL realm. Aside from the future astronomical events, which should be put in a list of future astronomical events, I think this entire list is WP:NOT. Rockphed (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the majority of events covered in this article are pretty much certain to happen, this is not WP:CRYSTAL Seasider91 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet for the about 100 events listed in it, there are only 23 sources, 2 of which are used on the same item. The only things that are "pretty much certain" to happen are astronomical events (eclipses and such) and very near term political events (2020 US elections, 2020 Olympics). Even things like the voyager program ending next year are not certain until the program actually ends (albeit it is reaching the technological limit to continue them). Rockphed (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to the WP:CRYSTALBALL section itself, A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. While I do think that the article could benefit from more citations (such as for the claim that "all Bitcoins will be mined" by 2140, for instance), I also think that problem is easily fixable and thus the article does not warrant deletion. TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername 21:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is an intriguing article but why/how has the "near future" been defined as "from the present until the end of the 23rd century."? where are the sources that back this definition? why not "until the end of the 21st/22nd/take your pick century"? a couple of centuries from a geologic pov is not "near" try a couple of million years, while for a teenager it would be a couple of hours, for most individuals/countries/peoples even 50 years is not the "near future", so for me this is a delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia, while not a service that predicts the future, does keep these sorts of articles because, quite simply, there are some events that are guaranteed to be notable that will happen in the near future. There are many cases where Wikipedia articles should be deleted; this is not one of those times. 128.210.106.65 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the 33 items in the next decade, 23 do not have sources. At least 1 has been in this list, unaltered, for the last 8 years, and is probably out of date. Several have sources from further in the past than there is time until the event happens. People looking for information on a future event would be better served by going to a page that actually discusses the event. The only exception is, as I noted above, future astronomical events, which can be moved to a list of future astronomical events. Rockphed (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable and properly sourced items into the relevant subcat at Category:Future_timelines. Unlike Timeline of the far future this page is redundant. --mikeu ^talk 19:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, following up on the arbitrariness of what is the "near future" that i mentioned above: when this article was created in 22 june 2011 the near future was apparently until the end of the 21st cent, then, on 1 July 2011 it was changed to the end of the 22nd century, and then on 25 July 2011 changed to the end of the 23rd century, all of these with no sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sky High (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, there is a ton of Transformers... and almost none of them are notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Autobots. I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV of the character (s) in reliable indepedent sources, thus it fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudburst (Transformers)

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fictional description + there was a toy. Ok. This kind of stuff belongs at https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Cloudburst --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Autobots. Another one of these? I can't find much besides this [9] which isn't WP:SIGCOV, everything else seem to be toy listings, which doesn't contribute towards WP:GNG which requires multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Borremans

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

Unable to find WP:SIGCOV of the subject, making him fail WP:BASIC. References in the article include a passing mention in the biography of Joseph Borremans, and another passing mention in the list of the composers. WP:BEFORE search just brings passing mentions in books and results for a businessman of the same name. The article created by a sockpuppet apparently. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. According to this, Charles overshadowed his brother. Seems a historic figure we should know about even if little is known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Expand with what? Even the source you mentioned has only one sentence about the guy "from 1807 to 1820, he assisted his brother as ‘sous-chef’ when he was a conductor at the Théâtre Royal de la Monnaie in Brussels, and under the Dutch rule he was part of the ‘musique particulière’ of king William I as a pianist, while his brother was the Kapellmeister." This is also before going into depth of the source for fact-checking (not written by any staff etc.) Your argument fails per WP:ITSNOTABLE and hugely contradicts Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Other source: composition. - After edit conflict: how is a conductor at La Monnaie, one of the leading opera houses in the world, not notable? - After another edit conflict: how about less rhetoric? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that source is WP:SIGCOV that is required. Also WP:NOTINHERITED shuts down the conductor argument, as he can't inherit notability from a notable thing. Same like how CEOs of notable companies can't be automatically notable. I don't mind a redirect to Joseph Borremans/having a Borremans brothers article, but as standalone I don't see it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The source looks like a translation from Dutch which I don't speak. Drmies? - Out for now, I have work waiting. Long live formality ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha it's in Flemish--can't read that! ;) Drmies (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for being a hardworking source searcher, whether our opinions are the different or not. :) There is still a WP:SIGCOV issue, but it's a great source for any minor addition to something else. Also I am kinda confused: the bio is about Joseph, yet it's claiming Charles overshadowed him? Why not do a proper bio on him too? So odd. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Charles didn't so much "overshadow" his brother--rather, Joseph lived in his shadow for a while: "Zo assisteerde hij van 1807 tot 1820 als ‘sous-chef’ zijn broer toen die dirigent was van de Muntschouwburg in Brussel en maakte hij onder het Hollands Bewind als pianist deel uit van het ‘musique particulière’ van koning Willem I, waarvan zijn broer kapelmeester was". (He was "sous-chef" when his brother was director, he played piano in the joint that his brother ran.) After the 1816 performance of L’offrande à l’hymen, ou Rose et Hippolyte on the occasion of Willem II's wedding his career took off--that's what the source says. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This and this. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for translation help - and I was told Flemish doesn't even exist ;) - This and this look like twice the same to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, this seems like a good redirect/merge target for Joseph Borremans now, especially in his life context. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

The we'd have two categories birth year, etc, - I find it quite confusing, and would always prefer two individual articles, even if one is short. My excceptions so far: a piano duo and a couple of artists who published under their vcombined names.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge Not finding much to warrant an independent page. It might be better to include this information on a related and more notable subject's page as has been suggested. That being said, there are a few sources on Google Books that might push this one over the top in regard to WP:SIGCOV, but most of those sources are in French (which I don't read). Someone who can read French might want to take a look at those.Gargleafg (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Alain is French, and very helpful. Could you point out those books? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several sources say that Charles Borremans was "chef d'orchestre du Théâtre de la Monnaie" [10], [11]; "1r [=1st] chef d'orchestre à la Monnaie" [12] , "occupa définitivement le poste de chef d'orchestre" [13]. He was also a composer - I have added this source to the article [14]; Gerda has mentioned one above (which names Charles as the composer of a work that, on the webpage about the younger brother, Joseph is said to have composed???) [15]; in this one the snippet doesn't show the name of the work, just that Borremans was the composer [16]. Another work, Le Prix ou l'Embarras du Choix, apparently was thought to be his work, but an article in Revue belge de Musicologie / Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Muziekwetenschap in 1951 suggests it was actually composed by J. B. Radet. Whether Charles Borremans was actually the composer of these works or not, people have written about him - claiming that he was, claiming that he wasn't, etc. I do read French, but as Gerda has also said, there are sources in Dutch as well - not surprising when he was Belgian. This [17], for example, seems to be a "Forty years ago ..." article about a performance of an opera that Charles Borreman conducted. (I see that some of these sources have been provided above.) Snippet view on Google Books does not allow us to see the extent of the coverage, but this source [18] appears to have two pages about him (41 and 42). I think that in 19th century Belgium, he was definitely notable, so we should add these sources and look for more (are there digitised Belgian newspapers and periodicals from that era?) rather than delete the article about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Action Masters

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION. But I encourage the closing admin to see if anything can be copied to https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Action_Master before deleting this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Violence of Action (film)

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would have argued that this could also be WP:TOOSOON, but having carried out a search, there are multiple references discussing the film and its cast in major publications. Will add them now. TenderKing (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now contains enough decent sources for an unreleased film. Narky Blert (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Even though the film is unreleased there are many sources which discuss this upcoming movie and its cast. Andrew Base (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bene Tleilax. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Face Dancer

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. (Also my first Twinke AfD, hope there are no errors). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bene Tleilax, which already contains adequate coverage of this topic.— TAnthony^Talk 22:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bene Tleilax per TAnthony._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Joubert

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Coverage is limited to non-independent sources and trivial coverage of a video of the subject busking that went viral. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this appears to be WP:BLP1E. I'm willing to change my vote if more coverage in WP:RS can be found. feminist (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Feminist. I am trying to figure out what wrong-headed set of thoughts went from "see viral video" to "make wikipedia article on it". Rockphed (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not only based on video that went viral or got fame in short time, but Heidi Joubert is the one from very few people who speacialises in Cajón and this instrument is really important to introduce on Wikipedia and one's who play Cajón. She is also a Tedx speaker and also got mention in main article written on Cajón instrument. I've added some more references to the article and I think this should be remain on Wikipedia. dharampalsingh 06:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

TEDx conferences are independent from TED and the speakers are not paid, so I don't find the argument that they are an indicator of notability to be particularly persuasive. As for her relevance to Cajón, our article on Cajón doesn't mention her at all except to use her photo (it's a good photo, but that's not really an indicator of notability). If you can find an academic source saying that Joubert is particularly important to the Cajón musical tradition, I would be persuaded otherwise. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion is a last resort. In the case of the present article, its only the notability that has been doubted. The subject herself has not requested deletion or objected. The content is not visibly negative or tarnishing. Nothing therein demands the urgency to delete. Keeping the article will let the door open for further editing by more reliable resources and references. It may rather be suitably flagged for further editing and the relatively unreliable references. Comkanwal (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not meeting notability guidelines is a reason for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON #8. We do not generally take down articles at the subjects' request, and such deletions constitute a vanishingly small proportion of deleted articles. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a TEDx speaker doesn't make someone notable. Being the subject of a single viral video does not make someone notable. And it being important to introduce an instrument to Wikipedia definitely doesn't make someone notable. Significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources is what makes people notable and that is lacking here. Hug^syrup 09:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A close call by the headcount alone, but the weight of policy-based arguments is clearly in favour of deletion. If nobody can show that there's actually significant coverage, meeting one point of WP:MILNG (a WikiProject essay) does not trump the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel P. De Bow Jr.

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

At Wikipedia:Help_desk#Request_page_deletion someone claiming to be the subject of the article asked that it be deleted. Though that is not a sufficient reason per policy, the fact is that the article is only sourced to NOAA (i.e. not an independent source), and I cannot find anything in the way of WP:GNG online.

Note that rear admiral is a flag officer rank which means WP:SOLDIER #2 is met, but (1) special notability criteria do not trump GNG, and (2) it might be dubious to apply the "flag officer" criteria to groups which are closer to research labs than to fighting units even if they use army ranks. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's an Admiral fgs. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SOLDIER. Although the USA has a separate organisation for this function, its personnel do hold naval ranks and in most countries they would be naval officers and therefore WP:SOLDIER would apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I think we shouldn't keep an article just because it passes a single part of a subject matter guideline while failing GNG, and what I am seeing about him in a cursory search does not look good for passing GNG, he shows up in a surprising number of places. Bush attempted to appoint him as a commissioner of the Mississippi river, he published at least one paper during his time at NOAA, and he seems to have given congressional testimony a couple times. I will keep looking for more sources in the hopes of finding at least 1 secondary, significant, independent source. Rockphed (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay, I am finding zero sources that aren't trivial mentions. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that somebody who seems to have spent their career running radar and hydrophones managed to evade the scrutiny of the press. Rockphed (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commander of one of the Uniformed services of the United States. Clearly meets #3 of WP:SOLDIER.Goldsztajn (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: I doubt WP:SOLDIER #3 was intended to apply to the commanding officer of a less than 400 people non-fighting unit, so the argument seems pretty weak to me. I am not sold to SOLDIER #2 but it makes more sense. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan:Seems that there is clear consensus and practice that all the commanders of all the branches of the Uniformed services of the United States have articles. Strictly defined, yes, this service does not come under US military departments, but the personnel can be militarised. The service itself is clearly notable, the size (or lack thereof) of the officer corps is therefore not relevant to determine notability of the subject of the article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the size of the corps is not relevant to the notability of the commanding officer, but it is relevant to evaluate the validity of arguments by association. "The CSA has an article hence the director of the NOAACOC should have one too because they are at parallel spots in the organigram" is not a sane argument because of the large discrepancy between the two roles. That's not exactly the argument you are making, but adherence to WP:SOLDIER#3 in the case of the latter case seems misguided when the practice was (in all likelihood) established while thinking of the former.

Also, the size of NOAACOC is not relevant, but neither is its notability when evaluating the notability of its commander. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This roles is not such that it creates an actual pass of GNG, so we should respect this person's desire for privacy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that we have no proof that the request came from the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking at the history of the article, and the discussion above, it's clear that the subject of the article, or someone close to him, has actually requested deletion. Since there's lack of significant coverage, I'm going with deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Flynn (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable entrepreneur, lacks significant WP:RS, clearly fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the sources in the article look like quality independent sources. But if you click on them, it turns out to be all blogs, puff pieces and churnalism, without the requisite in-depth independent coverage needed to establish notability. Zerach (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of any significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman and blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Altamash Faridi

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

It is very clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON, current contributions are not enough to get a page. Meeanaya (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails notability, most of the source are rather poor at best. Ravensfire (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and/or G5. The creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. GSS ^💬 04:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aa!

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

Group only released one single as seen in Oricon profile and has not been active since. Single did chart at 18 on Oricon Weekly but no activity other than that. No awards, very little press coverage. It would be more appropriate to create an article for their only song, "First Kiss", instead. lullabying (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article seems to indicate they did more than the nominator is claiming, but the history of the group is entirely unreferenced. I don't speak Japanese, so I hesitate to comment on this topic as any source for this group are most likely in that langauge. Anyone know any Japanese speakers that we can ping?4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I can read Japanese and I did a run-through of the article. Additional info I can find is that Aa! changed members in 2011 (seen in the music producer's blog post) and released a non-single song for an album that charted at #37 on Oricon (seen here). Other than that they do not have group activities together and mostly perform as subgroups in concerts only. lullabying (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lullabying: Are the Japanese language sources good enough to meet the requirements at WP:SIGCOV? That's really what we need to know.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: The ones I have listed are trusted; Oricon is a reliable secondary source. The JP article is mostly unsourced and the only two sources are primary sources. lullabying (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lullabying's input. Meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: The music producer's blog post is a primary source though, and he's closely affiliated with the group, part of their management, and founded them. Would it still count as WP:SIGCOV? Currently the only "secondary" source that qualifies is Oricon and I'm not sure if their non-album song meets WP:NMUSIC. lullabying (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The proposal isn't based on any Wikipedia rules or guidelines. A band that charted on Oricon clearly meets WP:NMUSIC. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Badoer

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

Fails WP:GNG, no WP:RS non notable outside of his company. Meeanaya (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,posible as A7.No evidence ofencyclopedic notability DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Glossary of Dune terminology#F. Tone 16:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Futar

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

No references, and tagged for no references since 2009. Notability of the topic is dubious as the book series is certainly notable but the described species has received little attention in the secondary literature. causa sui (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. causa sui (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION by a long shot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of Dune terminology#F, which already includes an entry for this topic.— TAnthony^Talk 15:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Miyamoto

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

No individual notability outside of activities with her group, Juice=Juice. lullabying (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable indepdent of musical group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non-notable artist. Barca (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that some of her solo video works have charted in Oricon (highest at 58), I'd say WP:ENT is met. Plus, I found a few sources solely about her [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]; this report on her concert absence [24], and an interview with Billboard Japan. ミラ P 20:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 with solo charting hits on a recognised official national chart together with reliable sources coverage, so the article can be expanded to show notability rather than deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Sarony

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

Procedural nomination, because this is a case where two different AFC reviewers evaluated the exact same sources differently. The sources here are entirely glancing namechecks of the subject's existence in coverage about other people, and none of them are substantively about him for the purposes of establishing that he would pass WP:NACTOR -- so on those grounds, the first reviewer rejected it in July. But then the creator just immediately resubmitted it to the approval queue without adding even one new source that wasn't in the article the first time, and the second reviewer approved it earlier today. As always, the notability test for an actor is not just the ability to verify that he existed because he gets glancingly namechecked a few times in coverage of other things -- it requires some evidence of reliable source coverage about him, and I agree with the first reviewer that the sources here aren't actually clearing that bar. But that's actually secondary to the issue that the second reviewer approved this even though there hadn't been a single new source added since the initial rejection, so this needs to be looked at by a much wider set of eyes regardless of whether it's kept or deleted. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass any notability guidelines. We need to better refine AfC process so that resubmissions need to be connected to better sources. We also should require all articles go through AfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable performer in theater and film. His work survives. I find this nomination strange and the coverage of him be quite substantial. Not all of the sources noted are easily available online but that doesn't make them illegitimate. Per an editing restriction I won't be able to respond to any follow up inquiries here but am happy to discuss further on my talk page. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every actor who's ever been in film or television at all can always say that "their work survives" — but the fact that the work exists is not a notability freebie in and of itself. There's also no rule that our sources have to be online – you are allowed to cite print-only coverage, like books or newspaper/magazine coverage that predates the googlability era — but we don't keep an article just because you say that other coverage exists that you haven't cited, because anybody can always say that about anything even if they're lying. Even outright hoaxes wouldn't be deletable anymore if all you had to do is say that other sources exist that aren't locatable online and didn't actually have to prove that you were telling the truth. So if you want print-only coverage to tip the scales, you do have to show some evidence of that rather than just asserting it. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG in my opinion based on the sources in the article. I too find this a strange nomination. This is an early performer from the very early years of film, and a historic entertainer in the history of drag and in the history of vaudeville.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please identify which three specific sources in the article offer the best WP:SIGCOV of him? Because all I'm seeing is glancing namechecks of his existence, not substantive coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Whether the sources currently in the article are sufficient to show significant coverage, or that he had multiple significant roles in multiple notable productions, I have not yet checked. What I do see immediately is that there is only one source from before 1990, and yet this person's career spanned c. 1875-1910. There are 949 results on Newspapers.com for "Gilbert Sarony" (and a few for "Gilbert Saroni"). Some are show listings, but there are also reviews. He also toured to Australia, England and France, and there is definitely coverage in digitised Australian and English newspapers and periodicals of that era. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Diva. Tone 16:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Diva Universe 2019

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

Fails WP:GNG. This isn't even actually a pageant. It's an article about an internal selection. Absolutely unnecessary. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant content to Miss Diva. No need to have an article on a canceled pageant. The cancelation/change could be mentioned in the history of the parent article instead.4meter4 (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MergeAs stated above.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Shades (band). (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Walker Williams

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

She doesn't seem notable on her own. I wouldn't be against a redirect, but the question is whether the article would be redirected to her husband Ray Allen or her former R&B group Shades (band). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band Shades as not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grinder (band)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Existing external links are not reliable sources. There is a passing mention in this book on Turkish metal and not much else anywhere. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a short bio in AllMusic here and a number of other references in the German wikipedia article here, including magazine article (Iron Pages magazine) so with book sources passes WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me that AllMusic is a reliable source, particularly since they do accept Product Submissions. I have not verified if the magazine article is WP:SIGCOV. So not a convincing WP:GNG case. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- AllMusic has gotten lots of debate in source reviews over the years, and it's nearly split down the middle among editors on the merits of its editorial independence. The database indeed encourages and accepts submissions. And they do have a staff that maintains adherence to editorial style, (e.g. copy editors) as well as staff writers and the use of professional freelancers for the larger, more obviously notable entries. However, their stated mission is to compile entries to account for any and all recorded music for sale. The result is the majority of content is by volunteer amateur stringers--usually fans of a particular genre--who are given access to submitted content and are free to write using as reference whatever they want, ranging from legitimate independent, third party sources (if they exist) or simply first-person user-submitted promotional materials. Editorial oversight for these contributors is little more than having their works subjected to in-house copy-editing. What this means is just because something is written about on AllMusic doesn't mean it meets the usual standards wikipedia uses to determine editorial independence of a source. Entries used as justification in AfD debates should be judged on a case-by-case basis. My general position is an AllMusic bio alone isn't enough. As for assessing the sources on the German wiki, I can't read the language so I won't weigh in on whether they are good or not. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All publications accept submissions even The New York Times, the majority of AFD band entries do not have an AllMusic bio so its not that inclusive and the particular reviewers credentials can be checked by a link on the site Atlantic306 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm inclined to accept AllMusic, but the other sources don't seem reliable, or fail to meet SigCov. I wasn't able to make a reliable interpretation of Iron Pages' reliability. It would be a Weak Keep if that is reliable. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Clemente

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

No sign of notability and the only reference is from YouTube. WikiSmartLife (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. Big lack of references, too much dubious and unverified content, and does not pass WP:N. WikiSmartLife (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources. Zerach (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this article is indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry and making personal attacks on other users. WikiSmartLife (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total lack of reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. "Written in language that is not English" is not a valid AFD reason as per WP:AFD is not cleanup moving to draftspace instead (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juri Tanaka

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

Written in language that is not english Hughesdarren (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ICBC. Tone 16:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Canada)

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

As written, fails WP:NCORP. Cited references are all primary sources. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Canada)" reveals little, if any, press coverage—all of it related to trivial matters such as new branch office openings, ordinary business dealings, routine operations, passing mentions, and directory listings. As such, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:SIGCOV. Since it lacks standalone notability, could either delete or merge with ICBC, consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICICI Bank Canada currently in progress. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of America Canada

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

As written, fails WP:NCORP. No references whatsoever. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "Bank of America Canada" reveals little, if any, press coverage—all of it related to trivial matters such as the sale of assets, business lines, and, a few years ago, the complete withdrawal from Canada. As such, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:SIGCOV. With their complete exit from Canada, there's no prospect of notability. Since this article arguably never should've been created in the first place or, even if it were, it was created with the wrong CommonName. Thus, I'd just recommend a full delete, as opposed to a delete and redirect. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons cited above. Whispering^(t) 23:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whispering, Thanks. Yeah, and the redirect would not be particularly helpful. There is nothing in this ultra-short stub-class article that someone couldn't easily add to Bank of America, if considered useful. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyan Swami

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

Fails WP:GNG ∯WBG^converse 05:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination. Kutyava (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. The article is very poor in shape and not salvageable. Kalyan Swami was a notable disciple of Samarth Ramdas and some references/mentions were found in Google Books search. For Example. The topic is notable IMO but restarting the article from scratch is needed. -Nizil (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Udiya Baba

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

Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO. Nothing in vernacular media, except about a couple. ∯WBG^converse 05:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 05:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 05:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giant troll

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

Another extremely minor D&D monster, with no non-primary sources indicating any kind of notability. This one has a particularly generic name, that prevents it from being useful as even a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Trolls are not minor... ok, ok, Delete, but you know, you walked right into that one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Hoffman

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable banker and political candidate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only way Hoffman could get keep votes is if sufficient local media coverage can be found, currently no where near passing "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" on WP:NPOL.TenderKing (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Local media coverage will not do it. Local media always cover elections, but we have decided this does not show notability. We would need signifacant coverage in non-local sources. There remains a break between me and some other editors, in that I think this needs to go beyond mere name checking but in some discussions other editors have accepted name checking, even when the candidate lacks a coherent platform and seems to have no real vitality in their campaign for office. However either way Hoffman totally lacks significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this makes no other claim that he had any preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about this person. Fails WP:NPOL per nominator and previous ivoters Wm335td (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the previous deltion discussion 12 years ago was tainted by the fact that we had not yet established the guideline that unelected candidates for office were not notable for such. At the time some still held that those who held major party nominees, especially in 2-party systems, were default notable. Another argument was "he is notable for criticing his own party". The problem with this argument is it exhibits confusion between political parties in the US and some other countries. In some countries political parties have restrictive membership. In the US, this has not been able to be the case since the Supreme Court Ruled against the practice of some Democract Parties of having "all-white" (only white voters allowed) primaries. Some states do not even make one declare party affiliation to vote in a primary, but even where such is required party affiliation can not be shown. The classic example of what this leads to is the 1996 congressional election where Donald Lobsinger was the general election Republican candidate against David Bonior, who I believe at the time was the number 2 highest Democrat in the US house. John Engler, the Republican governor of Michigan, stated he hoped Lobsinger got only two votes. Why, in large part because party leaders have less power to control who wins nominations than they would like. Lobsinger was generally considered racist, his activisms might actually make him notable, but I don't feel like digging through the sources to prove that. We do mention some of his activism in ways that many felt was advocating violence against African-Americans during the 1967 riots. In the final analysis the fact that Hoffman's campaign did not get any earmarking of funds from the national Republican campaign commitee shows that he was a total longshot. Short of creating articles on every candidate for congress who had a major party nomination, Hoffman is just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two-time candidate, each time gaining less than a third of the vote. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NPOL on failed candidates. Bkissin (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's Mandarin

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

This appears to be an unremarkable language school and the article makes no claims to notability, failing to meet WP:GNG. It is clearly a business, rather than a public educational establishment, and should therefore meet WP:NCORP, which it fails to do. Iamchinahand (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I request that the following article also be deleted:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - non-notable company. The article has already been deleted twice, most recently by Jimfbleak two months ago. -Zanhe (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted, I've speedied this spam twice, but a G11 has just been declined so let's nail this then saltJimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article makes no claims as to why this particular training business is notable over and above the many others which exist. Searches find promotional stuff and some run-of-the-mill mentions but nothing in-depth. Fails WP:NCORP. Neiltonks (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable school. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This is a re-creation of a deleted article with nothing in it indicating notability. Nothing was found in my WP:BEFORE indicating notability. Appears to be a purely WP:PROMO article and as such should have been speedied under WP:G11. Has already been recreated (and I speedied the recreation under G11) so there's lots of indicia that the editor creating this is not here to build an encyclopedia. FOARP (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I declined the speedy at Sidaorui and request that it be added to the AfD. @Iamchinahand: Feel free to undo if you think they shouldn't be considered together.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a re-creation of an already-WP:SNOW deletion should be a no-brainer for speedy deletion? At any rate, if we're AFD'ing them, can we make sure we put Salt on both to stop re-creations? FOARP (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FOARP. By re-creating the article under a new title during the AfD process, I think it warrants a speedy delete. I also agree to put salt on both after AfD to stop this bad behavior.(Iamchinahand (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Portrait of Barbara Lubomirska. Tone 16:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Lubomirska (17th century)

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

With all due respect to the recently retired User:Poeticbent, whom I respect a lot, and whose user page essay makes for a sad, if relevant, reading, and who deprodded this few years back, I don't think that being a subject of a portrait is enough. This is a WP:PERENNIAL stub, no source describes her life etc. in detail outside 'born, married, died, had a portrait painted that is now in museum'. The content can be safely copied to commons category/description. No article on highly inclusive pl Wikipedia. I like Polish history, but WP is not a genealogy tree database, and this bio fails WP:NBIO. PS. Just found out we have Portrait of Barbara Lubomirska, which is a perfect redirect candidate for soft deletion anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the portrait page per nom. The obvious course of action, as her husband doesn't have an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- He does on pl wiki: pl:Jan Zebrzydowski. He is not mentioned in the portrait article, so I think the best action is copypaste the two sentences from this article into the portrait one, starting a new section about her biography. TBH I am unsure if the portrait is notable on its own, but... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Other than the museum catalogue, I find no mention of the portrait. As Calrityfiend wrote, I'm not sure either are notable, but merging the articles would be a start.Fred (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the portrait article.--Darwinek (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure World Warsaw

AfDs for this article:

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

Cancelled theme park projects. Sources limited to announcements of of start and cancellation, effectively rewritten press releases. No article on highly inclusive pl wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N; it's a theme park that never actually came into existence, and has not received any significant coverage. Luke ^Talk 03:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Royal Imtech N.V., seems the project played a key role in Imtech's bankruptcy. Renata (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails our notability guidelines.--Darwinek (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW and nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Math (song)

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

~~Sits here without a single RS ref since Day One. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn , thx TPH. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources I added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Of the sources introduced, only two of them, the "New Math" book, and the article from The Hindu, discuss the song for more than a sentence or two, and only the latter of them really goes in-depth on its coverage. But that might just be enough to let it pass the WP:GNG. Even if others disagree, however, it should not be Deleted, as it would definitely serve as a valid Redirect to That Was the Year That Was. Rorshacma (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar has 150 hits for "tom lehrer" "new math". Most of these are reliably published sources. Some of them are one-line mentions. But I think enough of them have some in-depth coverage of the song to make notability clear. See also a previous attempt by the nominator to delete a different mathematical song by Tom Lehrer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lobachevsky (song). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into That Was the Year That Was. Although it is well known song mentioned in a lot of places, notability is somewhat borderline because depth is lacking in most of the sources. Zerach (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately sourced to establish notability. At worst, this could be merged, but there's no reason to trash the content. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Safronov

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

Trying to see if there were any news articles for this player that has played in the third tier of Russian football and after going through English and Russian results, I can't seem to find anything relating to this player. Possibly fails WP:GNG on that front. HawkAussie (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, unsure about WP:NFOOTBALL as Russian third-tier is debatable. No evidence of notability other than a handful of games in a low league. Giant Snowman 08:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semir Sadović

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

The player fails WP:GNG despite only playing for 15 minutes in the 2010-11 season for Borac Cacak while that team was in the SuperLiga. HawkAussie (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is far more important than one WP:NFOOTBALL appearance all those years ago. No evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Chukwulobelu

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

Subject fails WP:NBIO. Sub-stub, but prod added by User:Praxidicae was declined so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources, fails WP:GNG. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 20:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 21:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kahi railway station

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

I can find no record of a Kahi railway station on Google or on the cited website for Pakistan railways. It is not included in template {{Railway stations in Pakistan}} or at List of railway stations in Pakistan. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the link to Kahi, Pakistan is ambiguous and is now a redirect to a disambiguation page: all other links to that target now go to Kahi, Hangu district. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link of Official Web Site of Pakistan Railways's Archived Page, you can see this station in this. In the new site, the link is missing. The code of this railway station is KHY. I had created more than 1000 pages for all railway stations of Pakistan with the telephonic help of railway officials. You can see my working at User:امین اکبر/railway station in Pakistan. Unfortunately, I could not complete it due to personal reasons. I am also working on new {{Railway stations in Pakistan}}. The station is included in the complete list section of List of railway stations in Pakistan. The place in page i,e. Kahi, Pakistan needs to be changed. Maybe this is Kahi, Hangu district, I will change this after confirmation. I hope your reservations are now addressed. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, only mentions available online ie. from Dawn - "There were around four or five stations from Kohat to Thal including Ustarzai, Raisan, Hangu and Kahi before the railway trek passed through the 1909 Thal fort, currently the Brigade headquarters of the Pakistan Army.". Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this seems like a former station. I can find some small snippets here [25] The engine of a pilot wagon was partially damaged and three bogies were derailed when the wagon hit an anti-tank mine planted near Kahi railway station, Kohat. Frontier Post, 13 Feb. Some bloggers also mention this line (though not the station itself) [26], [27] which is the narrow gauge section of Khushalgarh–Kohat–Thal Railway and most likely was closed in 1991. I winder if someone has access to Pakistan's archives or old railway timetables.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a former railway station. We usually keep all railway stations, extant or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is a reasonable chance that this could be expanded if someone has access to Pakistani sources or colonial British collections. The current material indicates that the station has been there for about a century and is one of the lines which went up right to the frontier, a significant achievement in those days.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not enough significant coverage to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Workmans Club

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

Relatively small music venue (300 capacity/standing) and late-bar which doesn't appear to meet WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. Within the article itself, the main claims to notability seem to be that it is next-door to U2's hotel, once hosted a DJ-set by Cillian Murphy, has been used for gigs by a number of notable bands, and was previously the home of a long-standing workman's club. All of which is "notability by association". Problematic under WP:INHERITORG. Outside of the article itself, the potential claims to notability that I can find do not stack up. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, I can only find listicles of this usual variety, loosely related articles like this, or "gig reviews" like this. In each case, the venue is not the primary subject of the coverage. I'm just not seeing enough coverage to support a notability claim. Guliolopez (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some sources: one indicates it won some award, while the other is an overview from Conde Nast Travler. I'm not sure if these establish notability, but the Conde Nast one appears reliable. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 11:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. I had found the same sources as part of WP:BEFORE. In my view the awards piece didn't/doesn't contribute to notability. As the very definition of a trivial mention. (Where the bar is not the primary topic. And its name simply appears alongside the names of 25 other bars.) The Conde Nast piece is a 400 word review. Perhaps I'm overly harsh on these things, but I wouldn't typically expect reviews in Lonely Planet, Conde Nast, TripAdvisor, Nat Geo Traveler and similar review sites as being especially contributory to notability. (Not every bar or hotel, reviewed by such outlets, is worthy of its own article.) Would the Conde Nast article be useful as a source to support text in the article? Yes. Likely. Would the Conde Nast article be useful in confirming the notability of the subject? No. Not on its own anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteYeah, I'm inclined to agree; The Conde Nast source seems to be reliable, but I don't think notability is established. If there were a few more sources like it, but alas.... 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tend to agree, it would need an actual substantive mention, supported by, maybe, 1-2 reviews. The old actual working men’s club might have been notable, this modest venue has a thin case so far.77.245.4.67 (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus after extended time for discussion. I read the comment by User:Anthologetes that "the cumulative data presented still potentially warrants inclusion" as an opinion in favor of keeping based on coverage in a sufficiently large region. Doncram's suggestion of "merging coverage of this with wider community mental/behavioral health system coverage" is also a good direction to consider with respect to the future of this information. bd2412 T 05:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Behavioral Health

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

non-notable organization. Praxidicae (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Though I would point out that the organization is frequently covered in the local press, it is just that, local, which is apparently enough to fail notability here. An argument could perhaps be made that some sources that talk about it—specifically Pew Trusts—satisfy the criterion of being "regional" due to their influence, even while based in Philly (and Philadelphia is both a city and county, the latter of which might well suffice as a "region," depending on the definition you use). They were, as Medicaid payer and RTF-credentialer, involved in the Wordsworth death, which did receive national coverage, but they are not mentioned by name outside of court or city council proceedings. I would argue there isn't really dependent coverage in the article, if that's a concern: two of the citations to the org are for foundation year and CEO retirement, and the third just offers their most up-to-date figures. So tl;dr I understand the argument that it fails notability, but I think the cumulative data presented still potentially warrants inclusion. (n.b. I created the article) anthologetes ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are almost exclusively passing mentions, press releases and business announcements. There's little to no in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Editors interested in the topic should consider merging coverage of this with wider community mental/behavioral health system coverage, but actually there is plenty about this specific program on its own. And obviously this should be moved to "Community Behavioral Health (Philadelphia)" or similar, because the generic-type name is obviously too broad and readers would not expect the article to be just about Philadelphia (title change to be decided at its Talk page, perhaps by a wp:RM). This is not a minor local mental health organization, it is a big one in a big city, and there will exist a lot of coverage about it, whether or not much has been found and deemed major enough. One or more Philadelphia newspapers are major regional papers, and are not to be dismissed as merely local, by the way. There was a past AFD, ~~which I can't find right away~~ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visiting Nurse Service of New York, about a New York City health provider, where further digging turned up coverage of its long history, including published general medical research by its doctors and others, in part about its own clients/patients, and that AFD closed "Keep". More could be turned up specific to the Philadelphia program, too, I expect.

Hmm, yes, indeed that is true. There are 2,310 academic article hits in Google Scholar search on "Community Behavioral Health", mostly not about the Philadelphia program, but refining that to " "Community Behavioral Health" Philadelphia " indeed yields plenty of very relevant sources, including about history of being founded in 1997 and some major stuff in 2007. In collapsed section here, i copy/paste in some of that... look and see that this topic is obviously notable:

First few search results on "Community Behavioral Health" + Philadelphia

Public-academic partnerships: The Beck initiative: A partnership to implement cognitive therapy in a community behavioral health system SW Stirman, R Buchhofer, JB McLaulin… - Psychiatric …, 2009 - Am Psychiatric Assoc Sign In. Username. Forgot Username? Password. Forgot password? Keep me signed in …

 Cited by 48 Related articles All 8 versions

[HTML] nih.gov Implementation of transdiagnostic cognitive therapy in community behavioral health: The Beck Community Initiative. TA Creed, SA Frankel, RE German… - Journal of consulting …, 2016 - psycnet.apa.org … policymakers have issued mandates, provided incentives, and devoted billions of dollars to bring EBPs to community behavioral health (CBH) in … Beginning in 2007, the Philadelphia Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services (DBHIDS), a large publicly …

 Cited by 37 Related articles All 6 versions

[HTML] biomedcentral.com [HTML] Policy to implementation: evidence-based practice in community mental health–study protocol RS Beidas, G Aarons, F Barg… - …, 2013 - implementationscience … … and children. The behavioral health care of Medicaid-enrolled individuals with Philadelphia is managed through Community Behavioral Health (CBH), a quasi-governmental administrative service organization. Since 2007, DBHIDS …

 Cited by 65 Related articles All 19 versions

Recovery-focused behavioral health system transformation: A framework for change and lessons learned from Philadelphia I Achara-Abrahams, AC Evans, JK King - Addiction Recovery …, 2010 - Springer … Philadelphia's visionary leadership continued with the development of Community Behavioral Health (CBH) in 1997, which brought the formerly separate funding streams for mental health and addiction treatment together under one plan and set the stage for the integration of …

 Cited by 28 Related articles All 7 versions

[HTML] nih.gov Lessons learned while building a trauma-informed public behavioral health system in the City of Philadelphia RS Beidas, DR Adams, HE Kratz, K Jackson… - Evaluation and program …, 2016 - Elsevier … Public behavioral health services are managed by Community Behavioral Health (CBH), a non-profit managed care organization (ie, 'carve-out') established by the City of Philadelphia that functions as a component of the Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual …

 Cited by 24 Related articles All 11 versions

[PDF] williamwhitepapers.com [PDF] A recovery revolution in Philadelphia WL White - 2007 - t.williamwhitepapers.com … The 1997 creation of Community Behavioral Health (CBH), a private non-profit managed behavioral health care organization, gave the City of Philadelphia direct control over the majority of the funds it expends for behavioral health care services …

THERE IS LOTS MORE I AM NOT COPY-PASTING IN NOW --Doncram

More broadly, there should be more coordinated/consistent coverage in Wikipedia about the United States' mental/behavioral health systems. Including because it is timely as relating to some gun control controversy/proposals. I tend to think this is an important area though Wikipedia editorship skews towards Pokemon character coverage, etc. :) There exists articles Health departments in the United States and Local health departments in the United States, as well as corresponding Category:Health departments in the United States, which includes a couple mental health-specific ones (Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health and New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene), but I don't see categories and other organization about mental health stuff in particular yet. There certainly should be coverage about the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (currently a redlink) program for example (see here for some info), currently AFAICT only mentioned in passing in article about Nevada senator Jacky Rosen who is in favor of that program (but is not a sponsor of any related legistlation?). Apparently Pennsylvania (Philadelphia?) has one or more of the certified/demonstration clinics in that program.

In general there should be more general coverage, perhaps including a separate article for each of the biggest city or state programs, or perhaps covering many of those into a list-article. Leave these decisions for interested editors to work out at Talk pages. It looks to me that there should be a "WikiProject Mental Health" but there is not one yet (the main Mental health article has only "WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry" and "WikiProject Psychology" attached). I am willing to help open that and otherwise cooperate with any interested others, in this kind of development. Deleting this article, though, would be a backwards step, not helpful. There is plenty for an article about this alone. Keep, even if there is outside chance that ultimately it might be decided that it should be merged to a table row in a list-article about programs nation-wide, say.

So, actually this is now an obvious KEEP for now, even a SPEEDY KEEP, imho. --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually this should be SPEEDY KEEP closed because no deletion rationale is provided. "Not notable" pretty much just means "I don't like it". No evidence of wp:BEFORE and not even any assertion about it being performed. Praxidicae, this is not good. :( --Doncram (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources exist to indicate that it meets notability? I did a before, and in fact got little back in the way of in depth coverage. Your argument is that you like it and feel like Wikipedia should have more information about mental health services without basing it on any such policy. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered, well enough, that first question. Did you click on the collapsed box above, which shows stuff regarding about five articles in reliable sources? I don't want to be too sarcastic, but did you follow the detailed instruction to search"within Google Scholar on a suggested search term. I know you did not. Doing that would bring you to links to the articles, or at least to pages giving titles plus abstract and a bit more. To dole it out for you, how about the one titled "Recovery-Focused Behavioral Health System Transformation: A Framework for Change and Lessons Learned from Philadelphia", which is a 25 page chapter in a book, apparently all about the Philadelphia program (go read its abstract!) ? That's the one which includes the text string found in the search, and copy-pasted in above: "Philadelphia's visionary leadership continued with the development of Community Behavioral Health (CBH) in 1997, which brought the formerly separate funding streams for mental health and addiction treatment together under one plan and set the stage for the integration of … ".

You might think you performed wp:BEFORE, but apparently you did not do so using Google Scholar using an effective search. That's okay i guess, you can fail at searching effectively, then open an AFD, and then be told in a response by someone about how to find great sources. But then not to read or make the effort to understand the response, is not great, here. :)

It is irrelevant to the AFD decision that indeed I do think Wikipedia's coverage of the general topic area should be expanded. It would be great if anyone actually interested in contributing in this area would notice this and contact me, though. --Doncram (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, if "not notable" = "I don't like it", is not it conversely true that "notable" = "I like it"? Vermont (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that directed at me? Well, anyhow, the topic is proven notable already, IMHO. And I do happen to "like" the topic in terms of thinking it is important, and that definitely contributed to my choosing to open up this AFD out of many AFDs available to visit. And contributed to why I chose to demonstrate the notabiity of this topic. :) Thanks, cheers, --Doncram (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that you tried to walk around her argument for lack of nobility by saying she simply doesn't like it, which isn't very helpful. Vermont (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it proven notable? What sources have you or anyone else provided that establish this? Because afaict, my original assessment of passing mentions, business announcements and no coverage haven't changed. Praxidicae (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram has been making these IDLI arguments for a while or so .... ∯WBG^converse 13:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doncram. Fails WP:NCORP; I don't spot any significant coverage of the organisation. ∯WBG^converse 13:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice against a request to refund to draft if further information supporting notability develops. bd2412 T 05:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Connelly

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Currently had only one fight under top tier promotion and with a record of 6 losses. On average a fighter would fight only 1-2 fights in a year in UFC and it is WP:TOOSOON and subject fails WP:MMABIO which requires at least 3 fight under top promotion (UFC). Possibility of WP:COI here - see here 1 and here 2. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While i would agree it is a bit soon to make it he does have a 4 fight contract with the UFC so he will have more then 3 fights in the promotion. i think with how his debut went he deserves to be acknowldged ^[1] he has lost 6 but only because of rough start going 3-4 in his first 7 bouts, but hes significantly imporved winnning his last 9 out of 10 fights he also has one fight Deep (mixed martial arts) which was a subcontractor for PRIDE back in the day(second tier and also on the list of applicable organisations in here WP:MMABIO) he also fought several bouts in Armageddon FC(now known as World Series of Fighting: Canada) another second tier promotion that provides talent picks for the UFC. the UFC has confirmed that his career will continue^[2] Tsims23 (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ sportsnet.ca. "Tristan connelly impressive debut". sportsnet. Retrieved 2019-10-10.
^ ufc.com. "Tristan connelly after UFC debut". ufc. Retrieved 2019-10-10.

*comment. Regardless how you look at it, subject still fail WP:MMABIO. Those fights are not tier one fights. Secondly, it is no guarrantee of a fighters will sercure 3 fights in UFC. UFC is not a organisation like FIFA, it is a "promotion company" they do what they want abide by the contract signed with the fighters. Many fighters have good record and got released or traded off - we all remember Demetrious Johnson who defended his title consecutive title defenses with 11 times which is the UFC record got traded off and Jon Fitch was released then he was to 10 in his division and many more. You might have a WP:COI here as the subject asked you personally to create the page for him - see here 1 and here 2. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*comment rate now yes but when he makes his next appearance he will have 2 fights in UFC and one in Deep making up his 3 fights needed to pass WP:MMABIO, and i know what you are saying but those are different circumstances. Demetrious Johnson was traded in a co-promotional deal with One FC. we got Ben Askrin, they got him. he wanted to got tho and Jon Fitch started a massive lawsuit against the UFC for lack of compensation in terms of ppv an video games sales, he was joined by like 6 other athletes all of them have since been released(Not to mention Dana whites actual beef with jon fitch the 2 hate eachother, he could bascially kick fitch out whenever just how he talked to and about Dana violates his contract). 4 fight and 8 fight contracts are actually binding with the UFC(they will give the amount of fights signed upon)^[1] yes we do alot of releases but thats because the UFC can release fighters that have broken the contracts obligations(ex.losing 4 fights in a row, refusing to fight, or be involved with USADA failed tests, there is also other things basically anything that would get u fired from a normal job) i dont believe he will be released the (based on recent preformance and popularity) and the the fact he won Performance of the night on debut.. on 5 days notice the UFC is fond o that stuff(they even praised him for stepping up on such sort notice) so i can basically garentee he will atleast finish is 4 fight contract. and also what is a WP:COI when i click on it, it says page isnt made yet. i tweeted to him about how i was making canadian fighters page or id make him one, someone commented do it rn and then he commented Do it!!, hes since thanked me says it looks great thats why i dont want deleted Tsims23 (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ canadianmmalawblog.files.wordpress.com. "Eddie Alvreves UFC contract" (PDF). canadianmmalawblog. Retrieved 2019-10-11.

*comment I didnt rate the notability based on my own personal opinion but as per WP:MMA guidelines. Deep (mixed martial arts) is second tier promotion and has not been on top tier ever since their establishment. Pride Fighting Championships was top tier promotion from 1997 - 2007. So a contract of a promoter is not qualify as top tier and in additional Price no longer a top teir since 2007 where subject fought under Deep was 2010. The link between he fought in top tier as per you opinion is far stretch. In addition, it does not matter, Dana White (President of UFC) dislike Jon Fitch and think Johnson didnt like to trash talk to promote his fight, they are released from UFC as Wikipedia take what the source state - they were released. Your guarantee (your personal opinion) of subject will be in UFC in the future play no part in passing Wp:MMABIO which is the notability guidelines we are talking here. I have fixed WP:COI link as per above (my apologies for linking it incorrectly on my previous comment). Pls read WP:COI and WP:MMABIO. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fighter is in the same position as the recently deleted Vince Murdock. He has 1 top tier fight, a victory, but there's no guarantee he will get two more top tier fights. The UFC has signed many fighters to multiple fight contracts and let them go after a couple of fights. I like his chances of becoming notable, but it isn't guaranteed, and WP notability is an after-the-fact kind of thing--no WP:CRYSTALBALL allowed. The coverage is typical sports reporting and doesn't show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I think he's more likely to become notable than Murdock, but based on the comments I've seen at the past couple of MMA deletion discussions I think deleting (as opposed to putting this into draft space) is the right thing to do. He fails to meet WP:NMMA or the GNG. It will probably take close to a year for him to get two more top tier fights, if he ever does. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Sandals1 (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Barra da Tijuca. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teatro dos Grandes Atores

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was deprodded by User:SD0001 with rationale "there is likely to be Portuguese language coverage". But WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is insufficient as an AfD argument - one has to actually demonstrate such sources. I don't see anything, through I don't speak Portuguese, however I did look at the Portuguese article which is totally unreferenced. This theater is new, created in 1995, and is unlikely to have become historically significant in the 25 years, through if anyone can find proper in-depth sources in Portuguese, I'll be happy to withdraw this. PS. For non-notable theaters, a good place to save such content is Wikivoyage, which is where such entries can actually be useful and welcome. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed, but theaters are the kind of thing for which readers expect Wikipedia may have articles. There are various Portuguese language sources. Many of them are about shows, like [28], which do not really count towards notability, although they could be added to the article to give a sense of the kind of performance it stages. There are short directory-type descriptions at [29], [30], [31], [32] and [33]. I found one article about a partnership with Agência do Bem [34]. Technically these are probably enough to demonstrate notability. Various independent sources have noted and discussed the theater.

The theater is in Shopping Barra Square, a 16,898 square metres (181,890 sq ft) mall that opened in 1995 in Barra da Tijuca. When the mall was being planned and built, and when it opened, there would have been news stories about investors, permits, architecture, parking, the usual controversies. So the mall probably warrants an article, which could say a bit about the theater. Until that is written, a simple way to handle this theater would be to make a section in Barra da Tijuca for "culture", a paragraph for the theater, and change this entry to a redirect to that paragraph.

The Teatro dos Grandes Atores (Great Actors Theater) is located in the Shopping Barra Square mall. It has a small 35 square metres (380 sq ft) foyer, and two auditoriums, each with 396 seats, the Blue Room and the Red Room. Both have good acoustics, and balconies that give good views of the stage. The theater opened in 1995 with Aparecida Margarida, with Marília Pêra, in the Blue Room and A Era do Rádio directed by Sérgio Britto in the Red Room. Since 2009 the theater has partnered with Agência do Bem, and since 2011 has let the agency's Orquestra Nova Sinfonia, a youth orchestra, use its stage for rehearsals.

Aymatth2 (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I am fine with merge, I'll just note that the sources mentioned here do not seem sufficient to satisfy NORG, and neither does the plaza/mall seem to do so. Those are all examples of WP:ROUTINE (or rather, Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_trivial_coverage), business-as-usual coverage based on press releases and such, and articles which can't point out to anything better get routinely (pun intended) deleted. Theaters should have articles, if the pass NORG. Minor theaters that nobody has written about in depth belong only in the parent articles as short mentions, and on Wikivoyage, and not as stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barra da Tijuca Culture as per Aymatth2 and because "theaters are the kind of thing for which readers expect Wikipedia may have articles." XavierItzm (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] sportsnet.ca. "Tristan connelly impressive debut". sportsnet. Retrieved 2019-10-10.

[2] ufc.com. "Tristan connelly after UFC debut". ufc. Retrieved 2019-10-10.

[3] wblog.files.wordpress.com. "Eddie Alvreves UFC contract" (PDF). canadianmmalawblog. Retrieved 2019-10-11.

[1]

[2]

[1]