Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 August	14 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Chen (activist)

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

Non-notable community activist that does not meet GNG. Page likely created in anticipation of upcoming run for office; as per WP:POLOUTCOMES one qualifies for an article by winning an election, not just running in it. Madg2011 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject does not appear to have individual notability. Certainly, they're connected to organizations that do have notability; but notability isn't inherited that way. Most of the citations seem to be a passing reference; none actually focus on the subject primarily. The only other claim to fame is a run for political office, but simply running for office does not confer notability. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in political party nomination contests, but this is not demonstrating a strong case that she has preexisting notability that would have gotten her an article for other reasons — this is referenced to a mix of primary sources that are not support for notability at all and glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite in news articles about other people, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about her. If she wins the general election in October, then she will qualify for an article at that time — but nothing here is enough to already deem her internationally notable today. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of campaign brochures for as yet unelected political candidates. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence that she's even gotten the nomination, and even if she has she's still not (inherently) notable until she's actually won the riding. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer Above. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lozen Consulting

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG as there is no reliable source indicating why this company would be significant. William2001^(talk) 23:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. All I can find is the coverage in the Nashville Business Journal that is currently cited in the article. It dates back to the establishment of the company so it doesn't say much and I don't think it is sufficient to pass the WP:GNG bar. Pichpich (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG ,started in 2018 upcoming not notabla at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 04:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon Park, Florida

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

Article is about a non-notable unincorporated neighborhood with no references. Should become a redirect to Orange County, like Tuskawilla redirects to Winter Springs. Rockstonetalk to me! 23:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rockstonetalk to me! 23:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BEFORE, I added a reference for this large self-contained planned community, which has been in existence for 15 years. It is situated in a remote area away from other Orange County towns, complete with its own downtown, schools and eponymous access road Avalon Park South Blvd. These details demonstrate that this is a notable location on the map. StonyBrook (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable neighbourhood with significant coverage in reliable sources. Satisifes WP:GEOLAND. ----Pontificalibus 07:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has shown a substantial topic. Barca (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a coherent community, a populated place. We just keep these. --Doncram (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Player has received some coverage, but there is no consensus as to whether this is sufficient for GNG. The weeks extension to the debate led to no new arguments being put forward. Fenix down (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Tanko

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

A quick search on Google is the fact that the players fail WP:GNG as the only references are transfer based articles that this player was involved in. HawkAussie (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see the point of any article that doesn't meet the GNG as it is bound to be no more than a sentence or two, usually transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure why this was nominated, even though his appearance in Spain was minimal the Ghana Premier League is a fully professional league and there's lots of coverage of his goalscoring in Ghanaian press, four goals in the first half of the 2017 season for Aduana Stars - what I couldn't find is an article specifically on him with the exception of [1], but this is a perfectly valid stub which passes WP:NFOOTY. A "quick search on Google" isn't enough of a WP:BEFORE search either, sorry - he was difficult to search for since he shares a fairly common name with an Nigerian judge who also has a Wikipedia article, but once I searched in Spanish and found the right search term, found a lot of mentions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL, and enough out there to likely satisfy GNG. Giant Snowman 07:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Your !vote doesn't seem match your comment, just confirming it's a delete. SportingFlyer T·C 07:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer:, sorry, too early for me! Giant Snowman 07:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing, such as [2], clearly falls short of significant coverage. No Great Shaker explains well why the requirement of significant coverage is important. The absence of coverage here rebuts any presumption of notability conferred by the subject playing at a professional level. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Article is about a footballer who has played several seasons in the Ghanaian Premier League, and one source indicates he was the league's leading scorer early in his career at Heart of Lions. His brief stint as a professional in Spain appears to have generated no significant coverage, and his exploits in Ghana have primarily generated routine coverage (transfer announcements and match reports), but my sense from my brief online research is that he did receive significant coverage in the Ghanaian press prior to or around the time of his move to Spain - it's just difficult to locate years old Ghanaian sources online. As his career winds down, I expect there will be some additional sourcing commemorating his exploits which will better justify the article's existence. Jogurney (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not significant coverage. The current notability guidelines for footballers are clearly flawed and should be scapped if they are broad enough to cover this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NFOOTY passed fairly convincingly with multiple seasons in the Ghana Premier League, which is listed at WP:FPL. Also: As mentioned numerous times before, including just yesterday (8/8), an AfD isn't the place to share your, even if valid, disagreements with current guidelines. R96Skinner (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm not seeing sources tell us how many appearances this player has in a fully-professional league, so I can't tell "by how much" they pass NFOOTY. Regardless, there doesn't appear to be any sources to satisfy WP:GNG. I'm not convinced by the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument; the article can be recreated when those sources are found or written. – Levivich 21:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- He's been in the top scorers in 2017 [3] and he scored in a cup final in 2009 [4] [5], so "how much" isn't an issue. There's also Spanish transfer news on top of the ton of Ghanaian mentions [6], a mention of his faith here [7]. He's also known as Tanko Mohammed (not for GNG but see: [8]) and was called up to the Black Stars at least once. [9] [10] [11] There's lots out there, not a lot of specific coverage, but this isn't a "must be sources" situation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point taken about "there must be sources", but – and you knew I was going to say this – I just don't see WP:THREE from among the sources put forward here so far. – Levivich 17:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I obviously disagree with you, there are plenty of sources out there with which an article can be created, including the articles already in the entry, and the Ghanaian press frequently does not profile players in the same way as western press might. SportingFlyer T·C 01:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. That being said, I completely agree that that SNG is flawed, but as another editor has pointed out, we can attempt to change the guideline, but as long as the guideline is what it is, we should abide by it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that aspect of the guideline needs changing. WP:ATH already explicitly says that meeting an SNG doesn't mean an article's subject is automatically notable: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, FAQ Q2 at WT:ATH is directly on point: Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline ... – Levivich 17:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY as having played in the Ghana Premier League and at full international level for his country. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article dose not show notability for this player Alex-h (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the firm does not meet our notability standards. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kabateck LLP

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

Notability of this firm has not been established. Coverage seems routine. Serving as a bar association president is not notable. Suing someone is not notable considering PR newswire issues press releases and therefore the articles do not establish notability. Without that, all you get is a Law360 article.. non notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:CORP notability. It's also primarily supported by self-published resources, like a press release. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've recently worked on this article, after considering nominating it for deletion just last week, then doing a little research and changing its name (which seems to have prompted attention and this AfD... Any research ought seek information based on its former name, Kabateck Brown Kellner.) Anyway, having researched, I think there is a lot more to do on this article. I'm still a little on the fence about this one, overall, but tend to think that Kabateck's involvement in more than one class-action suit and his on-going Armenian Genocide reparations work might make him and/or his firm notable. Lindenfall (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but do you have sources to support any of your contentions? Right now, there are no reliable sources which establish the notability of the firm. The thing is, even firms which may seem significant in a certain region are generally not fit for inclusion on WP. If every firm of this size had an article (10 attorneys, ie a small firm; by LA terms a very small firm), this would turn into a business directory. If you have sources which establish notability, please provide them, because not a single one of the current sources does that. And even if the founder is notable, which I certainly do not see a basis for, that does not mean his firm is notable. Notability is not inherited. And your recent edits did draw my attention, as this has been on my watchlist since May, 2018, when I removed some aggressive business promoting for this firm. Even though the POV content is taken out, this article still does little aside from promote a business. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

el cid, el campeador, What contentions? "I think there is a lot more to do on this article" is about it for that. As mentioned, a further time investment into research would be required to know whether the subject is truly notable. Without further research, as also stated, I'm a little on the fence: undecided. I'm not yet sure as to whether the subject or, alternatively, the founder, is notable. What I did do was look into it, and add some WP:RS, which you seem to have overlooked before adding these remarks about the state of the article "right now", a day later. I have nominated law firms for deletion, as I came close to doing with Kabateck, until I got on that fence, as stated. Judging by the time I already put into it, it would take a lot more time to know whether it's worth expanding the page, or changing it to a WP:BLP, and then to do so... none of which I do on demand, despite your sudden need for sources. Have you looked yourself, beyond Wikipedia, to try and determine the subject's notability? Kabateck's term as president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and his on-going work for Armenian Genocide reparations are, so far, all that keep me from outright favoring deletion. There is quite a bit of media related to both. I have yet to decide whether I even want to weed through it further, so think a discussion regarding is an excellent idea. (A superfluous lecture, not so much, ie: "Notability is not inherited", et cetera. Might I remind you of those wise words from Ted Stevens: "[Wikipedia] is not a big truck, it is not something you just dump stuff on.") I'm not here, nor am I equipped, to defend the page's notability at this stage. While you state that you have had the page on your watchlist since May 2018, back when you "removed some aggressive business promoting for this firm", as you mention (you must have missed the WP:PEACOCKery and its dead-linked press release that I just deleted yesterday); since then, you, apparently, have not found time to do anything about your concerns until now, either, so you can see how time goes. If the page is no longer here when I, again, have time to research it further, I suppose that will save me the effort, and be one off your watchlist. Lindenfall (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever about an article on the main partner potentially meeting the criteria for notability, there does not seem to be any references about the company that meet the criteria for notability. As such, this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the references are to cases the firm has handled, not about the firm itself - the writeup in Los Angeles Magazine is in the "Special Advertising Section," so it is a paid ad and not independent coverage - does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peski Records

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

Article about a small record company venture, it was simply a list of bands and singers on its label (with a 'notability' template), until a COI editor wrote the entire article based on primary sources in 2015. I can find mentions online. such as "released on Cardiff-based Peski Records" but no other in-depth, independent and reliable sources (in English or Welsh) about this company. Considering it was set up and has been operating during the internet age, it would strongly suggest it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP (considering it went out of business in 2016 I'm wondering whether the company are using Wikipedia as an archive history) Sionk (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP .Now there are several record companies not clear how this particular one is notable.Further it got closed in 2016.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ORGCRIT: no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources" - while notability is not inherited from the acts they have recorded (WP:INHERITORG), it could be said that in recording these acts they have had a significant effect on culture and entertainment, per WP:ORGSIG, but without the "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization" required by WP:ORGDEPTH, the article fails notability; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Loverso

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

Article about footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league (he signed for a TT Pro League club, but socawarriors.net source indicate he never played in the league for the club - regardless, a recent discussion at WP:FPL concluded that the sourcing was insufficient to demonstrate the league's asserted full professionalism). Most of the online coverage appears to be routine (database entries, match reports or transfer announcements) with some superficial local coverage of his semi-pro play at Larne. PROD was removed with the explanation that the article was created before the TT Pro League's full professionalism was questioned - yet it appears he never played in the league so it's a moot point. Jogurney (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Cahill

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

He's been mayor for 28 years of New Brunswick, New Jersey (pop. 50K+), but hasn't generated anything more than routine local coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serving this long as a mayor of a city of this size is a potential claim of notability, but there is no evidence of reliable and verifiable coverage about him in the article, nor could I find any additional sourcing to support the claim in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contrary to what some editors believe, being mayor of a city this size is basicially default not notable unless there is something particularly important going on. There is a clear lack of sources showing notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city with a population of 56,000. No notable accomplishments. Fails WP:NPOL Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. routine coverage in local news for things like this: NB Performing Arts groundbreaking Surprising that a long term pol can manage to fly under the radar for this long. Wm335td (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My cut-off point for mayors is 50,000 inhabitants. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for mayors is not an arbitrary population-of-the-city cutoff. A mayor's notability lives or dies on the quality and depth and range of his sourcing, not on how many people he happens to govern — 56K is certainly large enough that an article could be kept if it were substantive and well-sourced, but 56K is not an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt a mayor's article from having to be substantive and well-sourced just because it's technically possible to verify that he exists. But the only sourcing shown here at all is the city's own self-published website about itself, not notability-supporting reliable source coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article should contain sufficient sourcing to write an article that is more than "they exist," as Bearcat describes. In this case, the existing sourcing is not nearly sufficient to keep the article. --Enos733 (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CurtNeiMeng (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Dodd

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

No appearances at a professional level, with 0 appearances recorded at Blackpool and all subsequent appearances made for clubs outside of Wikipedia's 'fully professional leagues' list. Therefore does not fit WP:NFOOTBALL. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - "outside of Wikipedia's 'fully professional leagues' list" - If you don't count the Scottish Championship, sure. 16apps 2gls for Ayr United. Very similar to this nominator's Articles for deletion/Connor Shields, which was withdrew - yet they still nominated this straight after? No BEFORE, again. R96Skinner (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CurtNeiMeng (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Coulson

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

No appearances at professional league level, breaching WP:NFOOTY CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note for the nominator, Coulson made 11 appearances in League Two, a fully professional league, during the 2016–17 season for Barnet. This is listed in the article and supported by his Soccerway profile in the external links. Kosack (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CurtNeiMeng (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Fowler (footballer)

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

No appearances at professional league level, breaching WP:NFOOTY CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CurtNeiMeng (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Shields

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

No appearances at professional league level, breaching WP:NFOOTY CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep In the mess of incorrect nominations from this nominator, this is arguably the strangest - Shields has 30apps in the (FPL-listed) Scottish Championship for Alloa Athletic, plus four cup appearances. Career ongoing too. As with the other 7 (!), the nominator hasn't done a BEFORE check. R96Skinner (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CurtNeiMeng (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Rance

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

No appearances at professional league level, breaching WP:NFOOTY CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL criterion two, having played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues. The subject made an appearance for Gillingham in the 2011–12 FA Cup against AFC Bournemouth. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CurtNeiMeng (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Croasdale

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

No appearances at professional league level, breaching WP:NFOOTY CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL criterion two, having played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues. The subject made an appearance for Preston North End in the 2013–14 Football League Trophy against Oldham Athletic. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CurtNeiMeng (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Montgomery (footballer, born 1994)

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

No appearances at professional league level, breaching WP:NFOOTY CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 18 appearances in the starting eleven for Forest Green Rovers in EFL League Two, listed as fully professional at WP:FPL. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CurtNeiMeng (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Blakeman (footballer)

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

No appearances at professional league level, breaching WP:NFOOTY CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL criterion two, having played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues. Blakeman made an appearance for Bolton Wanderers in the 2011–12 Football League Cup against Macclesfield Town. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CurtNeiMeng (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Urwin

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

No appearances at professional league level, breaching WP:NFOOTY CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - made one appearance for Bradford in the EFL Cup, as of both Soccerway and BBC Sport, both of which are referenced in the article. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. This appearance means that the subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL criterion two. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Fleisch

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

Non-notable mayor of small town (35,000 people) with only local coverage. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors of places with under 50,000 people are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Position does not render her notable per se and there is no other credible claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with only local coverage, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mayor of run of the mill municipality, "re-elected in 2017 with 2,360 votes." Lacking significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors of places with a population of just 35K are not handed an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors, but she isn't sourced anywhere near well enough to make her a special case of significantly greater notability than most other smalltown mayors. As always, the notability test for smalltown mayors is a higher bar than just the existence of some purely local coverage in her hometown media market, because every mayor always has that — a smalltown mayor is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article unless and until her coverage substantively nationalizes well beyond just her local media market. But the only sources here that are more than local are a YouTube video and an Expedia listicle which are not reliable or notability-suporting sources at all, and a news article that happens to glancingly mention Fleisch soundbiting her thoughts and prayers in an article whose core subject is somebody else, which is not the kind of coverage that makes a difference. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Emma Jedi

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

Article relies solely upon two unreliable sources, one of which is the bands soundcloud, thus is in breach of WP:NM. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NBAND. This is the work of fans. Heart warming but, here, unacceptable. -The Gnome (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:BAND criteria - their singles were playlisted, but not charted. The article says their singles receive airplay "on the Norwegian radio channel NRK P3", but NRK P3 is a digital platform, not a radio station. So the group does not meet any of the 12 criteria of WP:BAND. Also, the article says Eye Emma Jedi has been replaced by a new band, which makes this an article about a non-notable, non-existent band. Therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected or Delinquent Technical Assistance Center

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

No significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject lacks verifiable notability per WP:ORG. The text is a kamikaze account's unsourced, personal work promoting the organization. -The Gnome (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unsourced. Possibly worthy of WP:G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Technically the other article has not been nominated for deletion or merging and there has been no notice provided to interested editors who might watch that page but not this one. Therefore, I will not impose merger or redirection of the other article as a result of this discussion. However, it seems clear which way the wind is blowing in this discussion, so I would hope editors could move forward on a merge in good faith. RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canned Heat members

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

Duplicates List of Canned Heat band members Jax 0677 (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As above. The 'other' article is better presented and referenced. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge, as a reasonable search term. Chris857 (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I was going to suggest redirect to the bands page until I saw how surprisingly extensive the list is, so it does deserve to serve as a fork, but...yeah, this is a Dup. One has to go, and the other one is better. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

struck and changed to merge. Subsequent voters make good points. Consolidate best parts of the new page with the original one. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the other page which is the redundant fork as it's more recent. The nominated page has seniority and the better title and so the other page should be merged into it. Note also that the nominator created the newer page and so has a vested interest. Andrew D. (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The previous voter has a valid point. The nominator in this AfD either accidentally or purposefully created the new article List of Canned Heat band members which duplicated the older and more established List of Canned Heat members, and is now calling for the original to be deleted in favor of his own new article. This seems fishy to me. Why not improve the original? It is true that the older article needs better citations, but that is a reason to improve it. The two should be merged together in the Wikipedia spirit of collaboration and good faith, at least. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consolidate both articles' content into this one as it was created first and has a better title. Then redirect the other article here. --Michig (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this one with List of Canned Heat band members. There is only need for one article on the topic. Ajf773 (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge of List of Canned Heat band members into List of Canned Heat members and nothing more need be said, out of respect of editors's intelligence. -The Gnome (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as per Michig. Just redirect the other similar one to here (List of Canned Heat members) as this was created first. Karl Twist (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Arkenberg

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

Notability claim appears to be "being the contributing editor for Internet History Sourcebooks Project." No third party depth-of-coverage reliable sources, no evidence that subject meets any of the WP:PROF notability criteria. Prod tag was disputed by subject. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet History Sourcebooks Project. This appears to be within the scope of WP:ONEVENT It's the Project that is arguably notable, not its contributing editor Arkenberg.

I could be argued into a "keep" by a persuasive argument that any of the awards listed in the last paragraph of the "Career" section confer notability; but they do not seem to. TJRC (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the apparent subject's own argument to keep the article can be found on the article's talk page, Talk:Jerome Arkenberg#Notability. TJRC (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per TJRC. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although redirects are WP:CHEAP, it is not clear to me that this subject is notable enough to warrant such a redirect. The scant article does not have the type of content that I think warrants such a redirect. The article should mention a contribution that is of permenant relevance to the article for such a redirect. Every reputable website has an editor and other lesser editors. These titles are fleeting. In the future there will be different editors if this website has lasting importance. Unless the article has content about his founding of the website, we should not point readers there via a redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point; but the only reason I prefer "Redirect" to "Delete" is that the article has been around for more than twelve years. There may be sites outside Wikipedia that link to it. Wikipedia is better served by redirecting them to the related article than by sending them to a blank page with, among other things, an invitation to create the article; WP:EXTERNALROT. 21:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Article longevity is not a source of notability. Especially since prior to 2010 or maybe even a bit later we lacked many of the policies that make article creation a little harder now. We did not have the procedural deleation for unreferenced biography of living person articles, we did not have the still not comprehensvie enough article creation process, if you go back far enough we did not limit article creation to autoconfirmed users (we started that because of someone creating an attack article), we have much looser and almost non-existent inclusion criteria. Having existed longer in Wikipedia means the article was created at a time when our creation and inclusion policies allowed things that are less likely to pass today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, no, no, you misunderstand me. I am not claiming notability based on longevity. I am not claiming notability at all. I say quite clearly above that the subject is non-notable. The basis for maintaining a redirect is so that external sites that may already link to his deleted article will be sent to the article that deals with him, rather than to an empty page that invites them to create the deleted article. See WP:EXTERNALROT and (the same argument in a different context) WP:RFD#KEEP no. 4. TJRC (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being prolific and being notable are not the same thing. Says the guy with over 354,000 Wikipedia edits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert from a guy with only 70,000 edits. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This probably stands or falls according to the significance of Internet History Sourcebooks Project. If this is as widely used in schools as it claims, the guy is probably notable. However the place I would expect to find a profile of the editors is somewhere on the Project's own website, not necessarily in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) Subject is contributing editor, not the creator. (2) Project in question seems to be linked to frequently, but then again I would expect that any free resource would be used frequently. The project's notability beyond the frequent inbound links is tenuous; I couldn't find any non-trivial 3rd party source coverage of it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also disagree that notability is somehow contagious, and that an otherwise-unnotable editor can contract it by being an editor on a purportedly notable project. See WP:NOTINHERITED. TJRC (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:NACADEMIC. A cursory examination of the contested article's sourcing makes the point evident. -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a "contributing editor" or editing other people's work doesn't show notability. Don't see that he meets WP:NPROF or the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Pun Residents Association

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 16:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Barca (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Kdm852 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like your average home owner's association with no notability. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 04:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars spacecraft

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from the same problem:

This list of spacecraft is entirely referenced to WP:PRIMARY sources, violating the rule "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." They have been this way since circa 2006 without improvement. The majority of craft fail any standards for Wikipedia inclusion and are better off in Wikia. Note that this is not saying that a list of Star Wars spacecraft can never be notable, but WP:TNT clearly applies here. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of Star Wars spacecraft Six things listed have their own article making it a valid list article. There are currently two additional blue links that just link back here. A lot of the things listed formerly had their own articles but that information was merged here. Dream Focus 21:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of Star Wars starfighters had four links to other articles. Perhaps that could be merged with the spacecraft list.
List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles has four articles linked to: Landspeeder, Sandcrawler, Walker (Star Wars), Speeder bike. How much coverage do these vehicles get in reliable sources? No comment on this one yet. Dream Focus 21:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we go by properly referenced, obviously notable articles and not just anything someone saw fit to make an article of, there are only three, Death Star, Millennium Falcon and TIE Fighter. Death Star is a space station, not a ship, so it shouldn't even be on the list at all. Two valid articles does not an entire list make._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for the ground vehicles list, I'd say that notability is satisfied for only Sandcrawler and possibly Walker, though it may have to be renamed and pared down to focus on the AT-AT, which is by far the most well-known._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If six Wikipedia articles exist that it links to, its a valid list article no matter what you think of those articles. And the Death Star is a spaceship, it moving through space, hyperdrive to various solar systems. It was never designed to be a stationary object as a space station is, but instead to move through space as a spaceship. Dream Focus 23:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... this seems pretty definitive if you ask me. And that's 4 articles spread throughout 3 lists. I think that you could probably recreate List of Star Wars vehicles if you believe you can make a properly referenced list, although my stance has not changed on the over-specific ones nominated._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can be both. And its 14 links to articles across three list unless you manage to get all of them deleted. Dream Focus 04:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are inter-article links. Anyway, I don't see how having some valid entries proves anything. My argument is that the article is unsalvageable - any attempt to trim or prune to only the notable entries will likely be met by a revert, as evidenced by the debate on what ship is notable or not on this very page. Anyone can see that the article has a dearth of secondary sources (no pun intended)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 21:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Star Wars machines and spacecraft are a major part of pop culture. The fact that the NY Times does not write about individual spacecraft of a Science fiction franchise should not trouble us. Many fandom sites, and some WP:RS write about these crafts. Red Bull Title Max The Mirror The Telegraph There are even books devoted to the subject like: Incredible Cross-Sections of Star Wars: The Ultimate Guide to Star Wars Vehicles and Spacecraft. The list is here to serve our readers and it is relevant. If the nominator is troubled by the fact that there are not more articles on the individual craft, they should be created. Lightburst (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redbull.com is a reliable source now? It seems like you are throwing out whatever random thing you can find without checking for accuracy or reliablilty. The cross-section book is officially licensed and is a primary source._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did not claim that Redbull was a reliable source. Apologies if you read it that way. I stated: Many fandom sites, and some WP:RS write about these crafts.

Keep per Lightburst. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think all three of these lists could be and should be improved upon and expanded, with added citations from reliable sources. But just because the articles need work doesn't mean they should be deleted; there is no deadline for such improvements. Some individual items on each of these lists may not be notable or worthy of inclusion, but if that's the case, they should be discussed on a case-by-case basis on the list's talk page, rather than just throwing away the entire lists. Some of these are extremely obviously notable (X-Wing, TIE fighter, Trade Federation battleship, snowspeeder, etc.) and others that some would assume are non-notable I suspect reliable sources could be easily found for if effort were put into it. As an experiment, I picked one at random that didn't necessarily seem immediately notable -- the ARC-170 -- and with minimal effort I found on the Newsbank database such sources as The Daily Telegraph, BusinessWire, The Straits Times, The Courier Mail, the Herald Sun, The Courier Mail, The Sudbury Star, The Tribune (Welland, Ontario), etc. (I can't share Newsbank stories online but could provide them upon request if necessary.) I imagine efforts to source, clean up, and expand most of these list entries would be successful. And last but not least, lists like this are useful because it prevents people from making separate standalone Wikipedia articles for every single spacecraft or vehicle in Star Wars; often when such articles surface, the suggestion is to merge them to a list like this. There are numerous reasons these lists should be kept. — Hunter Ka hn 18:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are willing to draftify/userfy the lists until they are fixed then? While there is no deadline on Wikipedia, saying that an article might eventually be fixed at some unspecified point in the future, by some person yet to exist, is not really an argument._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your vague threat that these lists should be deleted unless I personally am willing to improve them is pretty much exactly the behavior the WP:DEADLINE essay cautions against. — Hunter Ka hn 19:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, I don't see many problems really with the articles, they could do with being improved and not deleting. Govvy (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Yadav

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

Party spokespeople are not inherently notable unless they've done something to establish notability. There is no indication that the subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy general notability guideline. Please note as Pharaoh of the Wizards pointed out in the previous AfD, the subject is not a national spokesperson for his party only the media in-charge for the party in Haryana one of the 29 states of India. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spokepeople of any type are almost never notable. Spokesperson for a political party at the sub-national state level is clearly not a notable position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN and as noted above he is a spokesperson for a party at state or sub national level clearly not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete after going through previous AfDs, and online search; the subject still fails WP:GNG. The post held by subject is not inherently/de-facto notable. He is not an elected member by public like an MP, or MLA. Subject fails WP:NPOL. Also, the subject doesnt significant coverage. He gets mere mentions in reliable sources. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with salt. Political party spokespeople may sometimes clear WP:GNG on the basis of having enough reliable source coverage that is substantively about them, but they are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — and the sources here are not about him, but merely namecheck his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things or people, which is not the kind of "coverage" it takes to make a party spokesperson notable enough. But this has already had to be deleted three times in the past four years alone, so it's time for some seasoning. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I note that the only two editors arguing to keep both have extremely limited editing history and (more importantly) failed to give any policy-based reasons for keeping. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Singhal (banker)

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

This all seems to be pretty standard WP:MILL coverage and as notability isn't inherited, I don't see how this person is independently notable. I previously redirected Deepak Singhal (Reserve Bank of India) (now at Deepak Singhal, RBI) for this reason and as a result, this was created, so I'm suggesting deletion and a redirect as it seems a likely search term. Praxidicae (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd draftified it; MJL then accepted it so might have a view. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: [Thank you for the ping] Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, my impression is that regional director for the Reserve Bank of India would be considered a subnational cabinet position of sorts. As this was possibly an undisclosed WP:COI article, though; I won't shed a tear if it is deleted. I guess my personal preference is straight redirect over delete then redirect per the concerns nom has brought up. –MJL ‐Talk‐^🍰 15:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage seems to be the usual mandatory reporting for legal reasons and name drop without sufficient biographical depth to establish WP:ANYBIO and WP:BIO. Seems to be non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 20:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The additional references and citations as desired by other reviewers have been added. Further citations will be added in due course. This article should be kept open for other reviewers to provide their valuable inputs.Central Bankster (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central Bankster is the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Article is well written. I made some corrections.Sahasrara (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nomination on account of subject's lack of notability per WP:ANYBIO criteria. All that one can find on the web, and indeed this is all that has been added since the AfD process started, were routine announcements of appointment and news about the banks rather than the person, who's at best name dropped (e.g. here; here; here; here; etc). -The Gnome (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is not in depth enough and WP:ANYBIO is not established Taewangkorea (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruva software

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

Google News turns up only one hit, and that one appears to be something like a press release ("Yourstory.com"). Not enough evidence of notability. A loose necktie (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search on all available platforms has led to minimal results. The one source found does not assert notability and as a result, the article fails WP:NSOFT. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no sources and does not make any claims for the company's importance or significance apart from being "Recognised in Deloitte's technology fast 500 in three consecutive years." WP:ORGCRIT is very strong on requiring sources for companies. A Google search shows up lots of routine business announcements that do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, though I found this, a Sramana Mitra blog post about Dhruva. None of this is enough to build an article out of, but that is not to say that someone could do so in future if the company does something of note. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article fails WP:NSOFT and is not notable. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG of WP:NSOFT. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Asgard (comics). The Gnome makes a strong argument why a merge would be inappropriate. There's two different possible redirect targets mentioned here; List of Marvel Comics characters and Asgard (comics). The later is the more often mentioned one, so I'm going with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Idunn (comics)

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

Another minor character with no real world notability. Should be a redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters, but some editors insist on recreating. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: did you read the actual article, can you not see the notability of the character, if Gaea (Marvel Comics), Freyja (comics), In-Betweener, Hecate (Marvel Comics), Ex Nihilo (comics), Magni (Marvel Comics), Knull (comics) and Tyrant (Marvel Comics) exist then why not this article? Plus, shouldn't this be a merger discussion rather than a deletion one. Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 13:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Penguin7812: See WP:OSE. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 15:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: I. The article contains only in-universe plot information, and the only references being used are the comics she appeared in. I have been unable to find anything that would indicate any sort of real world notability. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment - @Rorshacma: If I fix those problems, then would it be fine? Penguin₇₈₁₂(Talk Page) 15:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Penguin7812: - please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG, Wikipedia criteria for inclusion is different than Marvel Wiki, where all of these characters already exist in far more fleshed out form. Trying to shoehorn those types of pages into Wikipedia will just result in failure, as most Marvel character pages are there simply because nobody wanted to expend the trouble of AfD nominating them all._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirecting it to a list that is only sourced to comic books will just ensure it gets deleted by G8 when that entire list is nominated for deletion as fancruft. So, delete for failing GNG and save the trouble._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Be sure to ping me when that nomination happens. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Asgard (comics). No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to any of the suggested targets due to the lack of any sourcing that is not in-universe. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asgard (comics). No reliable secondary sources so nothing worth merging, but valid search term. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asgard (comics), which provides sufficient information on the character. The character list mentioned in the nomination is not meant to be exhaustive and Idunn does not meet my criteria for an entry on that list (only linked inline by 13 articles when templates are discounted). Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asgard (comics) seems like the best option to me. It is a viable search term, though I do not think it has enough coverage for an independent article. The character is already covered in the redirect target so anyone interested in learning more would be good. I think a redirect would be a better option than deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question since the user who restored this article has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock, and all articles they created have been deleted, should this article be reverted to a redirect and the AFD speedy closed, since the user should never have created/recreated this article in the first place? BOZ (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm seeing consensus for a different target article. I'd let this play out. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Redirect, at best, since only self references are found when looking for sources. We are not supposed to dump elsewhere in Wikipedia unsourced material; we are supposed to throw it away. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bering Yachts

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

Previously tagged for CSD two years ago [12] but the CSD was declined. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and may be an advert masquerading as an article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak keep: There are two seemingly independent sources that discuss the company in some detail while reporting on the launch of a new product line. They are probably reliable sources, because they're trade publications with editorial oversight, and they seem to be basically independent, because they're not just parroting the same press release. --Slashme (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Slashme which two sources? If the articles are based on press releases, they still fail WP:ORGIND... HighKing⁺⁺ 18:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The SuperyachtNews article doesn't seem to be a simple regurgitation of a press release: it has some journalistic input and context. I thought at first that the YachtHarbour article was also independent, but I'm not quite sure any more. --Slashme (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I started editing the article only yesterday, background is my growing interest for various kinds of maritime transport. Bering seems to be one of the leading makers of serious ocean going yachts. My plan is to extend the article based on various sources of the relevant trade press.Sekundogenitur (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Delete I am unable to locate a single source that meets the criteria for establishing notability. None of the sources in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Update On a reread, the SuperyachtNews article mentioned by Slashme above might just about pass the requirements for establishing notability. Counting that as one reference the, we still need another reference in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability (minimim two required). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, the number of sources is not so important. It's the quality of the sources that counts. Two sources do not make a promotional piece a legitimate Wikipedia article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree (kinda). Just to clarify. NCORP states that "multiple" sources are required so we know the number > 1. Also, it isn't just the volume of sources (where any ol' source counts) but sources that "meet the criteria" for establishing notability. Therefore, in my opinion, if there are two sources available that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this meets the criteria for multiple sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11. It disappoints me when I see administrators fail to recognise promotional content for what it is, which occurred in this case when the first speedy deletion nomination was declined. This is unambiguous promotion. All the article does is present a brief history of the company and a one-sided explanation of the products it sells. Even if it were not for G11 I would doubt notability. Superyachtnews is clearly one of those trade magazines that derives revenue solely by attracting advertisers through writing uncritical articles about products in the relevant market. It is not a reliable source, and certainly not when we're trying to write neutral non-promotional articles. When wikipedia uses and relies on that PR stuff it simply become an extension of it. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I think trade magazines can occasionally be reliable and independent sources for determining notability, it looks like the sources from SuperyachtNews and YachtHarbour are primarily based on marketing materials, even if they were reliable and independent, I don't think their coverage is significant enough to confer notability alone. The other sources are primary. - Scio c (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is little more than promotional cruft. -The Gnome (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If somebody wants to recreate this as a WP:DAB page, feel free to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sailcraft

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

I'm not exactly sure what this article is, but I can't find "sailcraft" in the dictionary. WP:NOTMADEUP applies here. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is what we get when an editor writes an article about solar sails in 2005, another editor randomly sticks a disambiguation article on the front in 2007, and the whole thing has almost no attention paid to it for 14 years because it isn't our solar sail article. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The most prominent user of the word ″sailcraft″ from a quick look at some search engines is one Giovanni Vulpetti, including in a 2014 book on solar sails (ISBN 9780387685007) and a 2012 book on fast solar sailing (ISBN 9789400747777). This article and fast solar sailing were the 2005 creations of one Gvulpetti (talk · contribs).
Most of the literature seems to call these solar sail spacecraft. Moreover, there are people who use this name for sailing ships and windsurfing boards, despite the lack in Zxcvbnm's dictionary (e.g. ISBN 9781429655026). So it seems that the person in 2007 had the right idea. There are a few alternative titles that need a disambiguation here. We just do not need the rest of the article below that. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into disambiguation - to sailing ship, solar sail, and possibly sailing (although I can't find a lot of unambiguous uses of that last term, in the manner of woodcraft, handicraft etc.). (There's also a mobile game of that name for which an article may conceivably pop up.) Sailing ship is probably the primary topic, but the other two are sufficiently disparate that redirect + hatnotes would look a little odd. - In any case, main body of article does not look worth salvaging. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NEO would probably have been better to cite in the deletion rationale. The term does exist in Wiktionary, but has no sources for it. I'm still doubtful that this isn't a neologism that is too half-baked to use in Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguate To add on to the rationale above, all the sources "cited" (improperly) in this article are about solar sails, but the term is vague enough that a disambiguation page would probably be better. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDIC - Epinoia (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanarium Bournemouth

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

No evidence of any notability. Substantial COI editing with much puffery,. Sources are mostly own web-site plus a few very local which are probably press releases. Tagging for notability and inadequate sourcing has only encouraged more puffery and peacock text. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These seems to be reasonably independant, at least:[13][14][15]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have edited the page to remove a lot of the puffery but believe their is a COI here and not currently enough independent, quality sources to demonstrate notability Dexxtrall (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now decided to admit this article into the Diehard Article Hospital. I will add high-quality spurces and probably revamp it. I will replace/recreate the page when I consider the article ready for publishing. If you want to discuss this, please go to User talk:A diehard editor/Diehard Article Hospital/Oceanarium Bournemouth —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Draftify based on above. Currently I think the sourcing is just below the bar for notability. If the editor wants to have another go at finding better sources, then that's fine, but unless that happens within the next week, article should at least be moved out of mainspace. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Given the COI and the fact that the article needs lots of work done, either moving it to Draft:Oceanarium Bournemouth or "blowing it up and starting over" should be sufficient in solving the article's problems. a quick search turned up a few results, I think enough to pass GNG. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's WP:TOOSOON so far. RL0919 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITSOKTOCRY

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

WP:TOOSOON, the subject is an upcoming American rapper. Sources are not reliable sources. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is terrible and the subject is not notable. Trillfendi (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dreadfully written article full of irrelevant tiny details, the gist of which is: he released some music (first LP released in April this year). Looking through the publishers of the sources I see none that appear reliable. WP:TOOSOON. Delete without prejudice to someone writing a better article on the subject in the future. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rosland Capital. WP:ATD and multiple opinions to redirect to the company that the subject founded. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Aleksov

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

Not notable outside of company, fails to establish notability as an individual. All of his news coverage are primarily for the company. Meeanaya (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination (it can be a redirect to the company article).--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rosland Capital - Epinoia (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. My personal preference would be towards delete. Consensus is that the article mostly promotional, and the grammar somewhat indecipherable quality. However, having bad sources does not negate the GNG criteria of the good sources, and insufficient analysis of the sources 1-4 & 6 has taken place. It does not appear the topic meets NSINGER #5. Further discussion is merited, but a third relisting for a fourth go-round of discussion is not viable. I would recommend interested parties take some time to analyze the non-social-media references contained in the article, and perhaps try to find significantly better references, remove the breathless worship, and then bring the article here again if it is still found deficient. But not tomorrow. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Sandi

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

Not too sure about this, some mentions in connection with joint projects. Even the stuff we have seems to be no more then a paragraph. VocalIndia (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't read some of the sources, but a large fraction are very obviously social media cruft. Likely fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the poorly written material was added by the sock puppet User:Nyeinchankoko1025 days after the article was created. (It looked like this before the mentioned additions.) That does probably not disprove your argument, but it is good to note. Geolodus (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NSINGER #5 as "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", she released her albums on a major record lebel Legacy Music. Thanks "KoKoChitChit" (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Ko Chit Chit is the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By what standards do you consider "Legacy Music" to be a "major recording label", Ko Ko Chit Chit? Legacy describes itself as a "digital content aggregator" (see here). -The Gnome (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Ko Ko Chit Chit and evidence towards GNG in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fourteen references to Facebook WP:FACEBOOK and one to Amazon.com is definitely WP:REFBOMBING - I couldn't check the other WP:NONENG references, but if the multiple Facebook refs are any indication, they are all trivial social media hype - if for any bizarre reason this article is kept, the English is so bad ("In 19 Jun 2018 Swar eternal city was justified by the Nursing Home Birthday") that it is in need of WP:TNT - my !vote is delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article does have lots of promotional cruft, yes. But the non-English references, currently 1-4 & 6, are the better references in the article and show some evidence of meeting GNG. It seems unwise to exclude them from one's assessment. Bondegezou (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE, WP:MUSICIAN, and even WP:ANYBIO. The quality of the attempts at sourcing are telling, as is the background of the main culprit. This is strictly promotional cruft. -The Gnome (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Channel 8 (Singapore) Chinese drama series (2014)

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

Spam and double with List of MediaCorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s). Fails WP:NOTVGUIDE The Banner talk 07:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This got escalated quickly, from my original tag to merge the content just hours ago. haha. But yes, delete, after merging if possible. robertsky (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I have gone ahead to merge the content (except for shows that are not shown yet, since WP:NOTTVGUIDE) into List of MediaCorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s) and List of programmes broadcast by Channel U (Singapore). robertsky (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Wikipedia isn't a history of television schedules. Ajf773 (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and catastrophic failure to meet WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Majesco

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

The present article is almost entirely based on press releases publicized by the subject itself through BusinessWire. Real-world sources appear to be scarce; there are some re-hashes of press releases on "business review" websites, and apparently it was on a CNBC infomercial once, but there is nothing substantial that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Lordtobi (✉) 06:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 06:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 06:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. No real coverage hence the reason to use businesswire.com which is non-RS I think. What is there fairly run of the mill business news, revenue reporting. scope_creep^Talk 20:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Business Wire is technically a reliable source but only because it is also a primary one: it acts primarily as a channel for press releases. Primary sources cannot demonstrate notability. Lordtobi (✉) 21:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Let's ask ourselves: What's significant about this company? What impact did it have on the planet or history? Founded in 1992. Acquired such-and-such companies in 2005, 2007, and 2015. Okay, but did it do anything unique or significant? Or is it just another company? Flowing dreams (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be just a run of the mill business that is not notable. Taewangkorea (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Madison Eagles. WP:ATD and no consensus to keep. Any wanted content merging can be done outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Women's Alliance

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

Contested prod. Claim to notability overblown. Not a notable promotion. No substantive independent sourcing that isn't subject to other problems such casual mentions only. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:39ED:AF0C:516:142E (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--comments above are copied from article's talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 04:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are some notable things that happened (such as the SHIMMER championship being defended in Australia), but the promotion itself isn't notable. How did the refs all end up with "Cagematch.netg"? Of the 29 sources indicated, only the GFW link really adds any notability, and my WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up much else. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not even meet WP:GNG. Severe case of WP:REFBOMBING. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to defend this on the basis of the claim "notability overblown" when it's a fact that it's the only women's promotion in Australia. But after reading the two previous comments, in particular the note about ref bombing I decided to agree with the nomination. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the founder's article Madison Eagles. This is still a likely search term as there is still some coverage in reliable sources, however they are only passing mentions. At this time coverage does not exist to meet WP:GNG for a standalone article. A merge of some information to Eagles article would also be appropriate. StaticVapor message me! 20:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On it's own that would be a good alternative, except that Pro Wrestling Australia/Alliance redirects to this article. Eagles has nothing to do with that. Just making the point. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The PWA redirect can be retargeted to the Professional wrestling in Australia article or some other article that mentions the promotion. No need to target that to Eagles, just the article we are discussing. StaticVapor message me! 07:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete & salt as advertising. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Island Pangkor

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

Article does not state why subject is notable; very dubious that there are reliable third-party sources; already stated in Pangkor Island?; very similar to several Marina Island articles used for advertisement AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Appears to be one of many similar advertisement articles such as the one to which this article is bundled. Also nominating with Marina island Pangkor; discuss there. AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i am so sorry because not explain it. i do it because i think the others people who created in explain it wrongly. they explain like it was a business/advertisement. i try to changed it to described what it is. it juz an island, artificial island like others island. it names is marina island. perhaps i maybe consider not to put the pangkor name. but let me describe it first. what it have. i will not put any adverdtisement on that. thank you

i have ask a user that created the page before to editing. and after that i will edit back on the proper way for encyclopedia. i believe the person not understanding encyclopedia works. thank you sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yop86w (talk • contribs) 04:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as this should not have been made at all. Creator made a page at this incorrect title after the creation at the correct title was listed for deletion. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marina island Pangkor

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

Article does not state why subject is notable; very dubious that there are reliable third-party sources; already stated in Pangkor Island?; very similar to several Marina Island articles used for advertisement AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating with Marina Island Pangkor. AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Links to these two articles are found in Artificial island and List of artificial islands, all under the same author appearing to be the same person as MIPRH, who was blocked for advertising of this kind. Furthermore, a similar draft is found at Draft:Marina Island Pangkor. AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands of Malaysia is also linked to this article. AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination of Marina Island Pangkor resulted in a speedy delete. AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Possibly a hoax, but regardless not notable. RL0919 (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Pean powerline span

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

Unsufficient evidence that this exists

As was noted on the talk page in 2012, there are sufficient reasons to doubt the existence of this power line.

The Ordnance Survey map[16] does not show a power line at these coordinates or over Glen Pean, although these maps normally shows major power lines.
No pylons are visible at these coordinates with Google Maps Satellite View, nor with Bing Maps Aerial View.
The specified coordinates are not in Glen Pean but are in Gleann an Obain Bhig, on the other side of a pass.
Its existence has been challenged in a blog posting.[Blacklisted link on talk page]
A Google search for "Glen Pean powerline span" appears to give no evidence that this exists, other than numerous Wikipedia-derived pages.

I have been unable to find the cited source online, but it is presumably something like this.[17]. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. There is a map on page 18 of this document which shows the only two lines in the area are from Fort Augustus to both Sky and Fort William, neither of which traverses the area in question. These lines are also viewble on Google satellite (e.g. here) and can be easily traced from their origin. ----Pontificalibus 06:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to verify this, and more importantly since such man made structures do not have presume notability - my inability to verify this convinced me that it does not pass GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the archived version from 2009[18]but nothing in the current version.[19] It could be something that did exist but doesn't now or more likely an error in the data. The list isn't evidence that the structure existed as there is also a building described as "Preston Mosque" in the 2009 list but I don't think there was ever a mosque or a building of that height at that location. Peter James (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (after ec). The cited source ENR5.4 AIR NAVIGATION OBSTACLES (you may need to login to see this, in which case you will need to supply a pilot license number) has only one section, "Mountains and Hills with Warning Lights", and none of them are in Scotland. So this is either a hoax, or the line once did exist, but was demolished and replaced with new lines to Skye. It would be unusual for a post-2012 major engineering project like this not to leave some kind of online footprint. SpinningSpark 15:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: the whole list of obstacles is now in a spreadsheet on the same site rather than the ENR document, but it is not listed there either. Thanks to Peter James for finding the archive copy which shows that if this is a hoax, it was a hoax on NATS or their sources, not one perpetrated by Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appar to satisfy WP:V, and notability is also doubtful. Edison (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that there seems to be doubt as to its existence is reason to question whether the article should be there in itself, but the lack of sources mentioning it would suggest that even if it did ever exist then there is absolutely no evidence of notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's a common consensus that she's only just over the mark, but there is still consensus that notability, mainly by WP:PROF (criterion 7) has been satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandana Seyfeddinipur

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

Article nominated on behalf of IP user. I am a neutral party but I believe the IP's nomination has some merit to it.

Reason provided: Certainly an accomplished academic/administator, but wikipedia can't have articles about all accomplished professionals. She doesn't meet WP:GNG: the only sources about her appear to be staff pages at the institutions she's worked at. And she doesn't meet WP:NPROF either: of the dozen or so papers she's published, the most cited has 66 citations; she has a somewhat stronger claim to notability as a head of the ELDP program: though an important funding body in this field, this is very far from the scale which would confer automatic notability to its head. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - her work on endangered languages is vitally important. I'm not sure that she is important as a scholar. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As the original AFD was opened for lack of sourcing, I added several more. I think the subject may pass GNG, at least based on the several book reviews of her work. Gilded Snail (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But these sources are not about her, they're about other things and mention her only in passing. And book reviews are ubiquitous in academia so wouldn't much help even towards establishing the notability of the books reviewed. 2A00:23C4:7C94:0:A99C:D9C0:F5D3:E8BD (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that the most important ref for her is this one on BBC, but I'm not sure that she is notable as an academic.Farhikht (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a clear pass of WP:NPROF but has an academic leadership position and nontrivial media mentions based on the newly added sources (and easily verified by just a Google search). —Kusma (t·c) 08:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you've found any further sources, would you mind sharing them? All the sources in the article (newly added or old) are the following: [20] [21] (both contain a few quotes from her about language endangerment, the only thing they tell us about her is her position in ELDP), [22] (a deadlink presumably to her dissertation), [23] (a review of her book), [24] (her staff page at Soas), [25] (a press release where she's just mentioned as the head of ELDP), [26] (again, only a mention of her as head of ELDP), [27] (a review of a volume she's co-edited). I really don't see how this could amount to non-trivial coverage. And to say "not a clear pass of WP:NPROF" is to put it mildly: for an academic administrator, NPROF generally requires something along the lines of a chancellor of a major university, not the head of a funding body with probably fewer than five employees. 2A00:23C4:7C94:0:A99C:D9C0:F5D3:E8BD (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that she seems to be a commonly consulted expert on endangered languages. Here is another interview (probably the same one mentioned here, but paywalled). If the article does not end up being kept outright, I would recommend redirecting to Endangered Languages Archive (with the history intact) so we can easily revisit this in the future. —Kusma (t·c) 06:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think there's just barely enough in the news-search results to qualify per WP:GNG/WP:PROF#C7/the general sense that when someone is quoted as an authority, it's in the public interest that we document who they are. XOR'easter (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that there is evidence that she meets WP:PROF#C7. That says "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." Seyfeddinipur has been quoted and interviewed in the US, Germany (as already mentioned) and here [28], India [29], and in the Guardian, Aljazeera, The Times and other major media. I would say that this meets WP:PROF#C7. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verithanam

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

First off, this article was created by a sockpuppet of Vijay-promoting user Bothiman, who appears to be here to bask in every mundane fart that Vijay squeezes out. On the sockpuppetry basis, this article should have been speedy deleted a while back. However, since many people have substantially edited this article, that's not an option. This article does not currently pass WP:NSONG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ every mundane fart not appreciated. Theres quite a lot of coverage, added sources, this meets WP:NSONG --[E.3][chat2][me] 06:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you were familiar with the years-long Vijay marketing campaign this editor has been on, you might have more appreciation for the fart comment, but ultimately, I don't care. The only thing your reference additions have demonstrated is that the song's leak has received some passing mentions, not that the song itself is notable. You appear to be hanging a lot on WP:RECENTISM. None of these references[30][31][32][33][34][35] speak about the song in any deep way. The crux of these sources say: A song from a Vijay film was leaked online. Vijay sang on the track. A. R. Rahman thinks Vijay did a good job. Since we require significant coverage, i.e. in-depth writing about a subject, the song still fails both the WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree it is multiple sources, it isn't trivial coverage (several of the articles it is the topic of the article, in mainstream Indian news sources). as per WP:NSONG This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews. In regard as to whether it is unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album - you don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL and neither do I. However it isn't WP:TOOSOON because it has been in the multiple non trivial sources. Reviewers of the song wont be able do speak about the song in any deep way until its official release for legal reasons. if it doesnt get further coverage in a few months after its official release and the release of Bigil (film) delete and redirect then. --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to disagree, but your argument suggests an overall lack of understanding of fundamental principles like "significant coverage", which, again, requires that the sources speak about the subject in detail, which has not been done here. You've highlighted "published works in all forms", but that's a red herring, as nobody has questioned whether the websites are valid. You also don't seem to have a grasp of what WP:CRYSTAL is about, since you seem to be invoking it to say "we don't know what the future will say about this song, so we should keep it". Your comment about reviewers not being able to talk about it "for legal reasons" is hilarious, considering we're talking about Indian entertainment, a world where one of the biggest companies, T-Series, was started by music pirate, and where countless films like Drishyam and Ghajini were copied from other films. But anyway, that's another faulty argument, because you're using a fabricated legal supposition to explain away the glaring lack of significant coverage. Cute move, but transparent. Redirect or delete if it doesn't get more coverage? That is the complete opposite of how our notability criteria works. Why are you participating in deletion discussions if you don't understand Wikipedia's thresholds for article inclusion? We don't sit around waiting for a subject to become notable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm learning how to rescue articles and comments like cute, hilarious, fabricated - and Why are you participating - just escalate conflict IMO. --[E.3][chat2][me] 16:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of what you have said above is relevant to this discussion, so I shan't waste my time by addressing any of it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a question why am I participating and I gave an answer. refactored. --[E.3][chat2][me] 18:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote to delete per above. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in either the article or its references suggests this comes anywhere near satisfying any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The cited sources are not substantial coverage by any means. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.29.11 (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NSONG criteria: "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." - "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." - "Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." - "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." - the "Announcement" section of the article is pure promotion WP:NOTPROMOTION - complete failure of notability, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daemon (film)

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

No significant coverage per WP:NF. This is only sourced to IMDb. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a review and a lengthy mention in a book. I also found evidence of reviews (or at least some commentary) in these books: [36], [37] (this one is McFarland), [38]. I can't look into them, but the preview that came up in the search field gave off the impression that they were lengthier than just a routine listing in a database-esque book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources references with significant coverage have been identified above so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is no longer necessary imv, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet the notability threshold as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been provided with sources that show the topic passes the GNG. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus for the notability of the subject. I acknowledge the note for closer regarding the Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories AfD having been closed as merge to this article and am affirming that result here. El_C 02:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jeffrey Epstein

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This is getting ridiculous. We already have two articles covering Epstein's death - Jeffrey Epstein#Death, and Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories, and now a third article containing almost exactly the same material as the second, minus the conspiracy theories. This is a content fork of a content fork, none of it bearing up to long-term notability. bd2412 T 01:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect while I believe this subject absolutely will bear up to long-term notability, we don't need two articles. Redirect this to Jeffrey Epstein#Death Railfan23 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is, in fact, ridiculous. His death is already sufficiently being covered in his own article. I mean goddamn, it’s been 2 (TWO) days. This is the kind of rush to be first nonsense that was happening when Michael Jackson died. Trillfendi (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I said what I said, don’t redact me Puzzledvegetable. Trillfendi (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Unnecessary fork. Spengouli (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add to the above that if this article is deleted, and Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories is kept, then the latter article should be moved to this title, and ideally stripped of its more fringe elements. bd2412 T 02:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. There's no point in a redirect; people will go straight to the Epstein article without searching for this. And there is discussion at the "conspiracy theories" article about moving it to this title and making it more neutral and general. Let's leave the title open against that possibility. BTW the only reason I didn't nominate this for deletion is that BD2412 did it first. We had exactly the same reaction - "this is getting ridiculous." -- MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Now that the article has been expanded into a proper article, IMO it is ready to accept a merge from the "conspiracy" article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't redirect. His biography article covers this!! Govvy (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree the article shouldn't exist, but I see no harm in creating a redirect. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Delete On second thought, deleting this page clears up the name so we could move Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories here. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now until the conspiracy theory article AfD has concluded. Then we can decide what to do with the two articles. Perhaps they should be merged together, but it is inappropriate to have this AfD and the other one at the same time. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rreagan007: The inappropriate thing was that this article was created while the AfD on the other one was underway, and discussion was ongoing there to move that article to this title. bd2412 T 23:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That AfD was at Snow Keep levels. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable death with much discussion in the media, including conspiracy theories, which can all be supported here for now. StonyBrook (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StonyBrook: Did you miss the part that there are already currently two articles on this subject? Trillfendi (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did not. I believe the conspiracy article should be merged here. His death is becoming quite a topic on its own and needs it's own article. StonyBrook (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jeffrey Epstein#Death. Much of what is in this article is found in the main article about the subject. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Jeffrey Epstein#Death and merge to rest of content to Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 20:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge At this rate there's a likely possibility that this article will be deleted and Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories will be kept. This one could be expanded or they could be merged together and the article would resemble something like Murder of Seth Rich, which focuses more on the conspiracy theories than the actual death. There's enough coverage for at least one article though.LM2000 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Death of Jeffrey Epstein delete Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories which is also in the process of an AfD. - Scarpy (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeffrey Epstein. It could be split out in the future to its own article if the Epstein article becomes too long. Also favor merging the conspiracy article. Edison (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG due to the overwhelming level of reliable secondary sources covering the subject. I think it's best that we discuss what to do with the article relating specifically to the conspiracy theories after said discussion is closed as keep / no consensus to delete, which currently seems to be the most likely outcome for the conspiracy theories article. There does seem to be a decent amount of interest in merging those two articles & using this name, but that's best to be decided in a discussion of its own. For both policy reasons and procedural reasons, I don't believe that deletion is a beneficial course of action here. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This subject is notable and large enough, thanks to the circumstances of his death and the conspiracy theories, to justify its own article. Later merge Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories into this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @BullRangifer: Do you think we should have this article separate from the one already covering the same elements at Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories? bd2412 T 00:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all due respect, I don't think this question should be relevant in either of the deletion discussions which you've nominated. I further explain why in a comment I've left on your proposal to delete the page regarding the conspiracy theories. In short, the question you've asked to BullRangifer is one that is best answered by one merge discussion, not by two simultaneous deletion discussions. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - We wouldn't be having two simultaneous deletion discussions if the second article was not created in the middle of the first. bd2412 T 01:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - While that is true, that isn't exactly relevant when considering that the most likely outcome is that one of the articles is eventually going to be merged into the other, which is not possible when one or both articles and all their histories have been deleted; at this time, the only thing preventing a merge discussion from occurring is the fact that multiple deletion discussions are still ongoing, neither of which seem likely to pass (especially the one at the conspiracy theory page). Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neither deletion discussion is proper as both subjects are independently notable. Both AfDs are a huge disruptive waste of time. The articles will most likely be merged. A merge discussion would have been proper, but we're being delayed by this mess. Frivolous AfDs that fail should result in a two week block, they are that disruptive. They show a fundamental lack of understanding. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The very idea that there “needs” to be 3 articles on the death of someone who died *counts finger* 3 days ago, when so much as an autopsy hasn’t been conducted, is proof positive of the bias on this website. Y’all are acting like this is the first person who ever killed himself when the chickens came home to roost. Things without all remedy should be without regard. Trillfendi (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this in the most respectful way possible, but it sounds as if your comment is directed at a strawman. Have any editors suggested that there "needs" to be three articles on his death, or that this is the first time anyone committed suicide when punished? Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the same editor created the "Conspiracy" article and the "Death" article, when these were already mentioned in the main article, indicates that at least one editor really does think we need three separate articles on this one event. bd2412 T 01:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi I don't understand your last comment. If in your mind Epstein is comparable to Hitler, then for sure an extra article should be warranted; if not, then why invoke this comparison, which seems to contradict your position of the death of Epstein being unnotable? StonyBrook (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But they can’t take a joke.... If you really thought I was comparing this reprobate to Hitler then I can’t help you. Other than that, someone who died ~96 hours ago doesn’t need 3 articles about it when his own does it justice. Then again, someone did write an article about Hitler’s dog so, I can already see where this is going. *sigh* Trillfendi (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i was going to suggest "delete" as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:UNECESSARY (what! not even an essay on this?!!:)), but as it would probably just be recreated in a few months time probably best to keep this, note: i have suggested a selective "merge" to this article of Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories, (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories). ps. this is a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and there is a precedent for it HAL333 02:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not notable enough to require two articles covering exactly the same content, but with different wording. bd2412 T 02:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then merge, not AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @BD2412: Are you sure about that? I don't see any conspiracy theories here. HAL333 15:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The significant points of this article are, however, duplicated in the other article; while this one does say "U.S. President Donald Trump responded to Epstein's death by retweeting a conspiracy theory linking his death to Bill and Hillary Clinton". You must know that duplicate content is going to continue to leak into both articles. I doubt anyone will police that. bd2412 T 04:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the death conspiracy theories article. On the other hand if Barr, Stasse and others keep the pressure on, we may soon need a Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case article with how much posthumous investigating will have happened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment deletion is not cleanup applies here. We probably do not need all the quotes we currently have from various people, but that is not relevant to weather we should have the article or not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just realized that today begins the one year free of statue of limitations window to sue over child sexual abuse allegations in New York. In most cases people will sue an institution and need to prove some sort of lack of oversight, prior knowledge of a threat, etc. However Epstein is one of the few perpetrators of such abuse who is worth sueing on their own. I have to wonder if this fact motivated Epstain's actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has significant coverage, and it would be too long to merge into the main article.Swil999 (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some mysterious rich sex trader dies after buying hookers for famous rich pedos, press goes wild, indy rocker solves the mystery. Easily contained at his own personal island of misfit information. Three paragraphs, tops. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and merge Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories into this article. Benjamin (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes WP:GNG. – Anne drew 14:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge with Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories. I think it would be good to keep the actual events and conspiracy theories separately. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ample coverage and sourcing available on this specific aspect of Epstein's life. Fish+Karate 18:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think there is enough discussion and notability of the subject to warrant an article to it's own. However I think Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories should be merged here, we don't need three different articles covering the same topic. -Euphoria42 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories and if Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories is deleted, merge with Jeffrey Epstein. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories as both are forks of tightly connected topics. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm fine with conspiracy theories being deleted or merged, but I feel certain much more will come of this case, and so much already has in less than a week, that a separate article is advisable to keep just for information that would fit better here than Epstein's main article. Sirkh1 01:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic seems to be receiving significant coverage beyond what would be appropriate for inclusion in the main Jeffrey Epstein article. Also, merge Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories into this article. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sustained, significant coverage has occurred and is likely to continue. Moreover, if the page on conspiracies regarding Epstein's death is merged or otherwise deleted, the content there may need more than a passing notice in the main Jeffrey Epstein article. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The death has been substantially covered and is clearly significant enough for its own article. Davey2116 (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with the Washington Post and other running articles suggesting Epstein's autopsy may point closer to strangulation than suicide this whole issue just blew up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By a whole sentence or two! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This absolutely is a notable topic, of which has been covered by many reputable news organisations. Derick1259 (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles of this type are common and appropriate for people who were famous for other things while alive and also died under unusual circumstances. The level of news coverage of this person's death (as a topic distinct from his life) is more than sufficient. ―cobaltcigs 15:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge with Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories for same reasons as stated by Benjamin, Euphoria42, Davey2116, FoxyGrampa75 and others. An investigation has been launched into his death, which increases the notability. --WuTang94 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there has been ongoing media coverage for days and this is unlikely to go away. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and merge the "conspiracies" article to this one. Circumstances, investigations, commentaries and serious questions surrounding Epstein's death are far too numerous to include in his bio. The "conspiracies" article inadvertently calls all of this false. ("Conspiracy theory" is a term weaponized by the CIA to stop people from questioning the official story or government narrative by making them appear crazy.) Clearly with the autopsy inconclusive, and the latest news that his injuries are more consistent with strangulation, it is presumptuous to insinuate that all theories about a possible conspiracy (a plan between two or more people) are bogus. Therefore, I have iVoted to delete the conspiracy article and merge content to this one. petrarchan47 คุ ก 17:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The autopsy is not so much "inconclusive" but "not completed". There has not been an official word on its outcome. It is in progress. This is not that uncommon under the circumstances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A famous person suffered a violent death in judcial custody and it has received widespread ongoing coverage. It easily meets notability. TFD (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the conspiracy theories article into this one. Ongoing notability and details are now emerging of this death being suspicious. Nixinova T C 08:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the conspiracy theories article into one article, may the two become one! Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the conspiracy theories article --Nowa (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The autopsy now officially says he committed suicide. I am not sure if this will change anyone's view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Millions of people who believe a coroner is the right person for a coroner's job probably went from "undetermined" to "suicide by hanging" after this. But yeah, the sort that trust their gut or the sort that publish opinion pieces are likely standing by their old selves. If there's one thing worse than trading in a vast estate for a prison cell and having the world peer into your porn locker, it's publicly swallowing your pride and eating your words while they're still fresh. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it does appear that Epstein's lawyers are among those who are not convinced. I have to admit that I am not sure who exactly they are now working for with Epstein dead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His vast estate. You can keep living presidents in your pocket, but you can't take dead presidents with you. Pretty sure the FBI gets dibs on his filthy porn stash, but the rest has to go somewhere; wherever that is, lawyers will circle. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the conspiracy article into this one, and trim the recentist speculation. — JFG ^talk 21:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor - I have just closed the AFD of Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories as consensus to merge to this article, per discussion at that AFD and here. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C and M Mobile Home Park, Alabama

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

This is hardly remarkable. There are thousands of mobile home parks around the country, not sure why this one deserves its own page. Here's a Google Maps view of the place: https://goo.gl/maps/GtodqDXNPZef4r6p9 BigDwiki (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't think of how a trailer park could ever be notable. This one certainly isn't anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more notable than any of the other residential roads in the vicinity, or indeed anywhere.----Pontificalibus 06:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing in the GNIS is merely an acknowledgement that it appeared on a map at some point, in this case one prepared by the City of Mobile, Alabama. Absurd and risible to think this means this is notable. Fails GNG and NGEO - appearance in a database of anything that has been on a map in this country is not "legal recognition" and there are zero sources of any substance on this. Reywas92^Talk 16:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and express wonderment as to how this article managed to survive for nine years with nobody noticing. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. When the article tracks the inclusion of a name in another work this is the work of a very specialized and specific dictionary, not the work of an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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