Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 August	21 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) 01:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Azim P H Somani[edit]

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

Shameless self promotion by blatant COI. Poor article, far off NPOV. Full of primary sources. Cannot find significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources - fails GNG. Additionally, none of his material (businesses, books etc) appear to be notable - had they been so, they may have indirectly rather than inherently conferred or contributed to some degree of notability. Rayman60 (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article. It's not notable and also fails WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry L. Yelverton[edit]

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

Notable only as a district and circuit state judge. Page also created by serial copyright violater whose articles are being PCCed as we speak. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors, this article created by Billy Hathorn - banned for massive copyright violations - is presumed to be a copyright violation and subject to indiscriminate removal. MER-C 13:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable subject.Forest90 (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if you read the sources quoted, the article is not a copyright violation of any of the sources mentioned on the page, so it doesn't warrant speedy deletion. If the page is to be deleted it should be on the basis that notability is not firmly established. The subject appears to have served a couple of times on the Louisiana Supreme Court but he wasn't a permanent member of that Court and there is very little coverage of him - I have not checked legal journals - which might be the only place where some additional materials might be able to be sourced. Bookscale (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another Billy Hathorn special on a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary M. Polland[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL being only a party chairman who was a failed candidate. Of 6 sources, 3 are from his news site (not WP:IIS), and 2 are not focus on him, so does not meet WP:GNG. Page also created by serial copyright violater whose articles are being PCCed as we speak. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anther WP:REFBOMB with nothing actually establishing notability. FoxyGrampa75, what is PCC? Reywas92^Talk 00:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumptive copyright cleanup. Please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors, this article created by Billy Hathorn - banned for massive copyright violations - is presumed to be a copyright violation and subject to indiscriminate removal. MER-C 13:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless you can source this article beyond his political career, he is not notable. This is just candidate bio stuff. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Forest90 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captan Jack Wyly[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL having won no election that grants that notability. The Time article is about a place and not the person. Page also created by serial copyright violater whose articles are being PCCed as we speak. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, another Billy Hawthorn WP:REFBOMB composed of passing local mentions and family obituary. Reywas92^Talk 00:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it does not meet WP:NPOL criteria. DavidDelaune (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors, this article created by Billy Hathorn - banned for massive copyright violations - is presumed to be a copyright violation and subject to indiscriminate removal. MER-C 13:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Barca (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.Forest90 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harmon Drew Jr.[edit]

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

Notable only as a circuit court judge. The claim that he was elected to a music hall of fame is not even supported by that HOF's site. Page also created by serial copyright violater whose articles are being PCCed as we speak. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors, this article created by Billy Hathorn - banned for massive copyright violations - is presumed to be a copyright violation and subject to indiscriminate removal. MER-C 13:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable judge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson Sevier[edit]

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

Notable only as a county sheriff. Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Putnam Sevier. Page also created by serial copyright violater whose articles are being PCCed as we speak. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors, this article created by Billy Hathorn - banned for massive copyright violations - is presumed to be a copyright violation and subject to indiscriminate removal. MER-C 13:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable county sherriff.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it is not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County sheriff is not an "inherently" notable role, but this article is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to get him over the bar that a county sheriff would actually have to clear. As always, Billy Hathorn thought that any local political figure automatically cleared GNG as soon as you could locate an obituary in their local newspaper — but as always, he was wrong. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Qatar Premier T10 Cricket League[edit]

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

Non-notable league that fails WP:CRIN, also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qatar Premier T10 Cricket League. StickyWicket (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable cricket league. (Note that WP:CRIN only covers "players, teams, venues or matches".) Accordingly, WP:NSPORT relies on WP:GNG, which the subject fails to meet. Coverage for this event which is due to take place later this year is exclusively promotional at the moment. If it happens, and if it garners more significant coverage at the time, then an article may be suitable, but right now, this does not have significant, in-depth coverage, and appears to fail WP:CRYSTAL. Harrias ^talk 06:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - this is non-notable just now. I'd have no problem with T10 leagues being notable if they receive sufficient coverage. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG we cannot judge something that has not happened yet. WP:CRYSTALBALL, . Alex-h (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the moment we haven't even got any dates for when this tournament is even taking place which isn't a good sign for WP:CRYSTAL. Also the fact that it seems to fail WP:GNG as their is many references seems to put me in the delete camp. HawkAussie (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it's not notable itself and also fails WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Monkey Do Monkey[edit]

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

Article about a small record company venture, based on one news article which is largely the founder promoting the bands on the label. The other sources about the company are it's own website. I can find lots of mentions online as in "released on the See Monkey Do Monkey label" but no other in-depth sources about this company. Considering it was set up and has been operating at the height of the internet age, it would strongly suggest it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also couldn't find any supporting sources. OhioShmyo (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable source. Barca (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no delete !votes and snow closure requested by nominator. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Canadian Championship Final[edit]

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

Per the discussion on the talk page, the only unique content here is the "match details" section, which could easily be merged to the 2019 Canadian Championship article. That article is not large and there is no reason to split that content from that article other than to make it appear as though this tournament is somehow larger than in past years, but still not large enough to merit a split. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as originator. The unique content will grow significantly once the matches take place. It is standard for major national cup competitions to have a page dedicated specifically to the finals (see 2018 U.S. Open Cup Final). It would not be possible to incorporate the unique match details such as lineups and kits in the main tournament article because it would force us to include those details for all matches, bloating the article significantly. There is a similar article for the final championship series of the CPL, even though that series is arguably less significant since the winner of the CPL Championship only qualifies for the 2020 CONCACAF League preliminary round. The winner of this series qualifies directly to the 2020 CONCACAF Champions League knockout stage. TrailBlzr (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you ignore my size reasoning? 2018 U.S. Open Cup is 85,067 bytes while 2019 Canadian Championship is 29,654 bytes. The former is eight screen pages long, with multiple matches and very few stats or maps while the latter is five screen pages primarily maps and stats. Despite that, the small amount of data on 2018 U.S. Open Cup Final is unique to that article, and could be merged in if needed. 2019 Canadian Championship Final is primarily content duplicated in the other article and the only thing that could be added is the results of one game, which would easily fit into the main article (as has been done for every season to-date). 2019 Canadian Premier League Championship is similarly unnecessary. WP:OSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hear your point with regard to article sizing. That said, my concern is more with consistency, and byte size is not the only reason to split an article. The 2019 Canadian Premier League Championship is supported by the FOOTY U.S./Canada task force and no one has objected to its existence. If we are going to have a separate article for the domestic league finals, then we must have one for the domestic cup finals. After all, the Canadian Championship has more clubs competing than the CPL, and the stakes are higher (CONCACAF League prelim v. CONCACAF Champions League knockout). TrailBlzr (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, your concern is with making it appear as though this is a more important tournament than it is. One more time: OSE. Once this discussion is done, I'll gut the unnecessary CPL articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - You assume bad faith on my part for reasons that are unknowable; yet it is you—by your own admission—who has plans to "gut" articles that are supported by the task force, and that nobody else has any issue with. TrailBlzr (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I assume that you had good faith in trying to make this tournament appear more important than it is. I entered a good-faith discussion on the article's talk page in which you did not participate. Someone there agrees with my assessment. I will review the other articles on their own merit. I've seen enough of your edits on the project to know that you have not had good judgment in the past though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Look as a person who wants to avoid this argument between two people let me put in my thoughts. That being if you are going to expand the article, put some new information that hasn't been added in the main article as from what I see of it, Walter doesn't want this to be created as the page could fit into one while Trail says the opposite. If we are arguing about the eligible of the Canadian Premier Championship final which is an similar league to the fact of the A-League or Indian Super League (having a final). So for now I am staying neutral in this one. HawkAussie (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason why it can't have a page. It's functionally equivalent to the U.S. Open Cup, especially this year more than ever, and the final matches haven't been played yet. Understand the content fork issue - it needs to be cleaned up a bit and a lot of the information removed (the bracket, for instance, is on the wrong page), but tournament "importance" is subjective - there's no reason why there can't be an article similar to 2018 U.S. Open Cup Final, since the finals will be adequately covered by multiple reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 08:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Giant Snowman 08:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article isn't all that useless. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 11:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but your reading skills are. The content in the article could be merged to the main article, which is now smaller than this PoS article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please desist from attacking anyone who has a contrary view to yours. Posting an opinion here is NOT meant as an opportunity for single voices to shoot down every comment. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not attacking all. I questioned, two. Please read MOS:LISTGAP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please desist from attacking anyone who has a contrary view to yours. Negative comments about a contributor's reading skills such as above are unhelpful to the debate and unwelcome. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Please stop making over-generalized statements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Statement was not over-generalised; my opinion was specifically and deliberately focussed. Matilda Maniac (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        After your fist unnecessary warning to "desist from attacking anyone who has a contrary view" (emphasis mine) was made after there were made after four people had !voted for a keep, and one comment was left. I had only commented on two of the editors' statements. So to overgeneralize and state anyone is a problem. It's the closing admin's job to determine which editors used policy-based arguments and which had not. As the nominator, it's my job to engage poorly constructed arguments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once the page is complete with the information that it needs then it won't be worthy of deletion. For now I would say to keep the article and to try and expand as much as we can before the two legs. Once that happens then it would be good to go. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per HawkAussie comments immediately above. Then Review at some appropriate time post-match, and re-assess depending on the relative merits or otherwise of the article at the time. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's no indication that this isn't notable. That it could be merged elsewhere, isn't a delete argument, as there'd be a redirect. If it's notable, and could be merged, have a merge discussion, not a delete discussion. Also, nominator should be sanctioned for violating WP:CIVIL without any provocation. Nfitz (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, it's look notable subject and as I can see no significant problem exist inside the article for deletion.Forest90 (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close requested I see editors are focusing on the GNG of the one match, which gives me an idea. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles McConnell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a one term mayor of Springhill, Louisiana (Population:5,279) and an unsuccessful candidate for the state house of representatives. All coverage is either local or through obituaries. GPL93 (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, another Billy Hathorn classic. Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors, this article created by Billy Hathorn - banned for massive copyright violations - is presumed to be a copyright violation and subject to indiscriminate removal. MER-C 13:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill local politician in an article with very poor sourcing. Two of the citations are about fellow politicians. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable politician. Barca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Springhill LA is not large enough to guarantee the "inherent" notability of its mayors in the absence of a properly sourced pass of WP:NPOL #2 — but as usual for Billy Hathorn content, this is not properly substantiating that he passes NPOL #2. Many of the sources here are not coverage about him for the purposes of establishing his notability, but are tangential verification of stray facts about other people — and the sources which are actually about him are just routine local coverage of the type that every mayor of every small town can always show, not adding up to evidence that he's a special case of significantly greater notability than most other smalltown mayors. As always, mayors of small towns have to clear a much higher bar than just being technically verifiable as having existed. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Academics[edit]

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

This article on a student organization has several entirely unsourced sections and clearly doesn't meet WP:ORGDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bylewski[edit]

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

Clear WP:NPOL fail and all non-local coverage appears to have come from a single event in 2009. Was created by an SPA. GPL93 (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, known locally, Fails Wp:GNG , Alex-h (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smalltown municipal councillor, not referenced even close to well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2 as appreciably more notable than most other smalltown municipal councillors. The references which are reliable sources just briefly glance off his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about something or somebody else, which is not how you make a municipal councillor notable, and the references which are about him are primary sources, which are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against re-nominating some of these separately. Hopefully any new debate will have less of a sock smell... Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tallahassee SC[edit]

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

Non-professional clubs (will be adding several more), who don't pass WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Biloxi City FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Bugeaters FC should not be deleted because it meets the threshold of notability as outlined by WP:FOOTYN. The club owns two federal registered trademarks.^[1]^[2] It plays in a league with a national cup, Gulf Coast Premier League. This is specific to the threshold of notability outlined in WP:FOOTYN specific to WP:GNG. This league is a member of a United States Adult Soccer Association by way of direct affiliation.^[3] Please note that National Premier Soccer League and United Premier Soccer League are the same level of sanctioning. Bugeaters FC is an affiliate of EFL Championship club, Huddersfield Town A.F.C..^[4] Additionally, the club has transferred 3 players to pro clubs in England in the past 3 months.^[5]^[6]^[7] Finally, there are many independent national articles about Bugeaters FC.^[8] Jonathancol (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)This !vote is this editor's only contribution to WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:351yjp.2.2
^ http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:351yjp.2.1
^ https://www.usadultsoccer.com/usasaleagues
^ https://www.htafc.com/news/2019/may/huddersfield-town-and-bugeaters-fc-announce-development-relationship/
^ https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/17744091.bradford-park-avenue-sign-former-hull-city-youngster-and-nebraska-bugeaters-ace/
^ https://bpafc.com/bradford-park-avenue-announce-the-signing-of-goalkeeper-jack-bennett-for-the-2019-2020-season/
^ https://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/gallery/maidenhead-utd-fc/147708/new-signing-danny-whitehall-hits-the-ground-running-for-maidenhead-united-fc.html
^ https://urbanpitch.com/descending-the-pyramid-exploring-the-buzz-behind-the-nebraska-bugeaters/

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being in a league which is eligible to participate in the national cup does not meet WP:FOOTYN. The team must have actually played in the tournament (and not in the qualification for the tournament). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The club definitely meets the WP:GNG guideline. The additional items clearly meet the full threshold. Further, there are two other leagues who have the same hurdle which I have pointed out, yet, only this league is singled out. Those have many clubs which are less commonly known and have not been connected and affiliated with top level pro teams. It is further odd that this page has existed, been edited many times and is just now flagged. The # of my edits shouldn’t have any impact on the threshold, which the club definitely meets. I did join in 2009 since you’ve pointed this out. Jonathancol (talk)00:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Jonathancol. Bugeaters FC definitely meets the WP:FOOTYN criteria. Remember, it notes that "The following guidance may indicate at what level teams generally have enough coverage to meet the GNG." *Generally* is emphasized. The cup criteria is just guidance, not the rule. Also, Central Texas Lobos *did* play in the 2018 US Open Cup. It's on their wiki page. So, they meet the GNG with no problem. The cup criteria as a specific rule (which it isn't) for GNG wouldn't be an equitable rule anyway if taken in isolation. The availability of national cup play is different for clubs in different nations. It is easier for a non-professional, lower league club to take part in the FA Cup than it is for a club with the same notability in the US. The notability of US soccer clubs should not be measured the same way as soccer clubs from England or other nations. As such, the pages you are seeking to delete should not be deleted solely on the very narrow reasoning you are putting forward.DC (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Central Texas Lobos did not play in the Cup, they played in the qualifying round for the cup (which is not the same), and did not qualify.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teams must be certified by the USSF to enter the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup, even in the qualifying rounds. It is not just a "sign-up process". Therefore, I'd think that the team that the teams who have played in the qualifying round are playing in the USOC, which most involved in the soccer community tell you is the same or at least adjacent too. MuskadineGrove (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we are grasping at straws now to uphold some agenda which is clearly unfounded. I have the utmost respect for your contributions, specifically to film, of which I have a degree in and common contacts. Your efforts are more than tireless at that level. Oddly enough, there is a similar threshold of notability that applies, so I definitely get where you are coming from. That said, I am confused by you singling our this league and clubs which you may have only found by way of the notability.Jonathancol (talk)14:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going by notability then all teams in the National_Premier_Soccer_League as well as many other lower league teams in other countries would fall under the same guidelines for deletion. AndersLindergaard (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:FOOTYN is really more of a rough guide than a firm guideline, the question really is do these clubs have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I don't have time to look through all five of them right now. SportingFlyer T·C 08:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a cursory search I would think the Bugeaters are at least a weak keep and probably a full keep. These probably shouldn't have been bundled as they all require before searches on WP:GNG grounds, combined WP:FOOTYN failure isn't really enough. SportingFlyer T·C 08:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gulf Coast Premier League as possible search terms, no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 08:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep As others have pointed out, at least some of these are clearly notable. No prejudice against speedy renominations against each of these individually, but this is an inappropriate bundling due to the differing notabilities. Smartyllama (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second the above. It is clear some of these are not notable, but others are. In specific I'd say Delete: Tallahassee SC and Biloxi City FC; Keep or Draftify: Nebraska Bugeaters FC, AFC Mobile, Central Texas Lobos FC. Pirmas697 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while WP:FOOTYN "is really more of a rough guide than a firm guideline", doesn't mean they have a pass at meeting WP:GNG, which other than the routine local coverage which would be expected of a minor league club, none of these passes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the deletion is attempting to say the WP:GNG is the same as the WP:FOOTYN, which I'm not sure they are. MuskadineGrove (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover those criteria are out of date and heavily biased in favor of preserving English clubs, which while not a conversation for here, is a massive problem. My beer league club is more notable, more organized, and more stable than many of the English tier 8 clubs which are given a free pass. We should have more preservation of information, not less.Pirmas697 (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:FOOTYN "is really more of a rough guide than a firm guideline"; Tallahassee SC, AFC Mobile, Bugeaters FC, and Port City FC all meet the criteria of local media coverage. Central Texas Lobos, Port City FC, and Bugeaters FC have played in qualification of the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup, which makes it so they are all "teams that have played in the national cup" as the qualification round of the USOC does require eligibility by the US Soccer Federation. I say keep AFC Mobile, Biloxi City FC (Port City FC), Central Texas Lobos, Nebraska Bugeaters FC, and Tallahassee SC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuskadineGrove (talk • contribs) 12:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC) This !vote is this editor's only contribution to WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MuskadineGrove's comments. Notability has been established for listed clubs. gotroot801 • _talk 13:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, this feels like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Quidster4040 (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep – these definitely shouldn't be bundled, as per Smartyllama. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on keep per above comments and FOOTYN. Sports teams with good enough coverage should not be deleted without good cause. Sounder Bruce 04:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the references given, GNG is clearly met in some of these cases. No prejudice against listing individually if GNG not met for some teams. But how about a little WP:BEFORE first. Nfitz (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just like to point out to the closing editor, that not a single one of the keep !votes has provided the type of in-depth sourcing to show that any of these teams passes, WP:GNG, and they clearly do not pass WP:FOOTYN. The only sources provided are a nice in-depth article from a non-RS source (urban pitch) and several token mentions of the Bugeaters team. The Tallahasee and AFC Mobile teams have nothing but routine local coverage. The Bugeaters turned up a whopping 8 hits, mostly local coverage, with a couple of brief mentions, the Central Texas team turned up zilch, while the Biloxi team turned up 2 local coverage articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually several users have, and I found even more sources for the Bugeaters. Your assertion is demonstrably false. Smartyllama (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plus sources for the Lobos ([1], [2], and [3]), Biloxi City ([4] and [5]), AFC Mobile ([6], [7], [8], possibly [9] which is for some reason blocked by my office firewall but seems like it might be good, and [10]), and Tallahassee SC ([11], [12], [13], and [14], [15]). And that took me all of two minutes. If I had more time, I could find even more. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with local sources as long as they are about the team itself and independent of it, which these are. Smartyllama (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is policy against local sources as per WP:ROUTINE, all of which the above sources fall under.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where WP:ROUTINE bans local sources. I don't see anything of the sort. It bans routine coverage, which may include certain local coverage, but local coverage can be non-routine and routine coverage can be non-local. Also worth noting that WP:ROUTINE is part of the notability guidelines for events, which is completely inapplicable here. It would be a good argument against notability for individual games or seasons for these clubs, but nobody's saying those are notable. Furthermore, many of the sources provided are from a regional or state level. So basically none of what you said applies. Smartyllama (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First line, "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." (highlighting mine). Announcements of games, arenas, transfers, etc. are all routine. And the non-local coverage are little more than mere mentions of the teams. Since a team would also fall under an organization, also take a look at WP:ORGDEPTH, which clearly states, "coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies", which virtually all of this coverage would fall under. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And where does WP:ROUTINE say all local coverage is routine? Smartyllama (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Reading through the discussion, I feel there is a consensus that the article as it currently stands should be deleted. If a neutral and well sourced article can be written, no prejudice against re-creating this article as a draft and having it reviewed by an independent editor before moving it into article space. Randykitty (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Dabbour[edit]

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

Another promotional article about a non-notable subject created xwiki by Arabic spammers who assume that en.wiki users will not read Arabic language sources, which to be fair, is basically the grounds the last AfD was kept on, so they were right. Deleted as non-notable promotion on the Arabic Wikipedia by editors who actually have the capacity to read and understand the promotion. We should delete it here as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Linking to google translate of the arabic deletion discussion As far as I can see it was deleted due to neutrality moreso than notability. I'll prune it, happy for anyone to revert. He was nominated for the Katara Prize for Arabic Novel, sponsored by UNESCO and one of the largest by cash value. Also enwiki can come to its own consensus, we shouldn't defer to arabic wiki. --[E.3][chat2][me] 06:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find that content about the Katara Prize and so I rescind my vote to keep. I trimmed the article so it doesn't read promotional and other editors (preferably arabic speakers) should decide based on the sources :) --[E.3][chat2][me] 07:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per arwiki AfD this article deleted due: (1) Non-notable per search engines results (2) There's a lot of unacceptable and repeated sources in this article (3) a lot of sources meaningless (4) One account (Sam646461) wrote all content of this article in arwiki and enwiki, and try to update it from time to time, also his edits only in this article so considered as WP:SPA in arwiki (specially that this user created a sock on arwiki when this article nominated for deletion) (5) Finally, fake visits per undeclared bot (see here).

In this version (trimmed by E.3): ref1=ref4 (mention only the subject name) and almost other sources only mentioned his name without any information (writer Saleem Dabbour), ref17 is a link for his movie on youtube, ref23 for a site homepage, a lot of Arabic sources from alwatanvoice news and maannews (local news websites), several Arabic sources taking about his historical novel "Horoob" (ref5,6,7,27,28,29,30,31,32,33), ref49 copied from re48 and mentioned that. Finally, a lot of information can't be confirmed.

(P.S if you take a look on this article history you'll find a lot of single-purpose accounts, like Ahmad Basha and other mentioned above)--Alaa :)..! 11:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

!vote changed to delete as per above --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and be rational and fair

If the writer isn't notable why would Al Jazeera quote him or write about his work? i.e

1. https://www.aljazeera.net/news/cultureandart/2008/9/7/%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%85-%D9%83%D9%81%D9%89-%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%B9%D9%88-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%84%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A5%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%82%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%85

2. https://www.aljazeera.net/news/cultureandart/2013/12/23/-%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%83%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86

3. https://www.aljazeera.net/news/cultureandart/2008/2/11/%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%A9-%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC-%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%88%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B7%D9%81%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A

4.https://www.aljazeera.net/news/cultureandart/2011/4/5/%D9%85%D8%AB%D9%82%D9%81%D9%88-%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%81%D8%AC%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%BA%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88

5.https://www.aljazeera.net/news/arts/2019/4/27/%D8%B8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B7%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%B7%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%BA%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%A8

And Why would NBC interviews him, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6wPMphi180
And why would an American Prof. Matt Sienkiewicz write about his films in his book 'The Other Air Force: U.S. Efforts to Reshape Middle Eastern Media' and wrote many articles about his work?:https://books.google.ps/books?id=x6oxDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=Saleem+Dabbour&source=bl&ots=dBj1q2CZ2q&sig=ACfU3U33ENKqMXpi6fvfdriP6mO6EYdQXw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi56f3m4InkAhWJaFAKHVoKAGk4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=Saleem%20Dabbour&f=f:also

Assuming all the other sources I included aren't good enough. All what I can say, There is something wrong going on! Thanks, Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam646461 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam646461 is a major contributor to the contested article and has done no other editing work in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Alaa' pointers. Article created and fattened up by a variety of kamikaze accounts. -The Gnome (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - He's regularly referred to in Matt Sienkiewicz's The Other Air Force: U.S. Efforts to Reshape Middle Eastern Media Since 9/11 [16]. also in Narrating Conflict in the Middle East: Discourse, Image and Communications Pracices in Lebanon in Palestine edited by Dina Matar, Zahera Harb. [17]. He also directed 2 films (or more). They're recorded in Beginning Film Studies: Second Edition by Andrew Dix. [18] Also his film Kaffa! (He wrote the story) won an award at the 14th Cairo Arab Media Festival See Ma'an News Agency - Article:Palestinan film wins silver at 14th Cairo Arab Media Festival. Yeah Palestine's a small country / state. Whatever it is, or however Palestine is viewed by the outside, in Palestinian terms he's notable. To me on the outside, in our terms, he appears notable. Karl Twist (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I haven't had time to go through all the sources yet but based on what I have seen - the book ref identified by Karl Twist and the coverage in Al-Jazeera there is clearly enough here to pass GNG. Mccapra (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as paid-for spam, per Alaa. Reader count padding is just another manifestation of the "buy Facebook likes" phenomenon. MER-C 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the above by MER-C. Where do you see Paid for spam? I haven't seen any! Anyway, there's notability in 3 places. He's also the writer for 5 films elcinema.com: Saleem Dabbour, and one of them Kaffa! won an award at the 14th Cairo Arab Media Festival. Karl Twist (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the above by Karl Twist. Any one can edit/create elcinema.com page, and there's a lot of spam in it. The only source in awards section is internet forum (any one can edit/create), also (Ma'an's 2009 Annual Leading Figures and Organizations poll) is online poll! Ma'an' create polls every week and any one can vote, so it's almost mean nothing and "Several attempts to hack the poll were detected". Paid for spam: this article on arwiki/enwiki created by SPAs, also fake visits per undeclared bot (see here) --Alaa :)..! 11:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Alaa said. Arabic spammers tend to create articles on en.wiki either in addition to or after the deletion of their article on ar.wiki because the assumption is that en.wiki editors don’t speak Arabic so they’ll just see a bunch of links and assume something is notable and not want to delete it. While there are many topics from the Arabic speaking world that do need expanded coverage on en.wiki, BLPs that couldn’t even be classified as D-list celebrities do not fall into that category. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the post by علاء (Alaa) at 11:26, 23 August 2019. The article: Palestinan film wins silver at 14th Cairo Arab Media Festival at Maannews.com says the film won an award. That's an achievement! Quite a bit about Dabbour in Matt Sienkiewicz's book The Other Air Force: U.S. Efforts to Reshape Middle Eastern Media Since 9/11. Matt Sienkiewicz of course is an associate professor of communication and international studies at Boston College. Karl Twist (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Awards section is copied from another websites. "first-ever Palestinian-made animated film for children" not mentioned on the source used, also UNICEF produced a lot of animated films. "first-ever 100% Palestinian-funded production" (source 37 + 38=websites main page, also not mentioned on source 39). I can clarify the content of all sources, and we'll find that most of the information does not exist in these sources, and some of the sources are not reliable at all, and in my opinion that mentioning the name of a person in separate news (not related to him) does not mean that the person achieves notability --Alaa :)..! 11:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Alaa, Stop fooling people. All the Arabic sources which talk about his work are official.just stop this farce! You know everything you claimed is UNTRUE. It was you the one who abused his authority as an Arabic editor and worked hard the delete the Arabic article by fooling some of the Arabic editors! You even blocked me so I can't talk.

Maan poll was made only twice. 2010 and 2011 and not weakly as you claimed. There is No paid spam as you try to make other people believe. The writer is a well known novelist and scenarist to Arabic world specially those who are interested in literature and Film making. He won a gold prize in Tunis and a silver prize in Cairo. He wrote many films, series and novels.

Why are you doing this? I don't care if you keep the article or you delete it, Just remember the writer is Palestinian and most of his work is about the Palestinian cause, I leave the rest for your imaginations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam646461 (talk • contribs)

Comment: I'll not respond to your personal attack but I didn't block you in arwiki, created a sock then blocked by other sysop --Alaa :)..! 12:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply you did block me! and it is not personal, I just tell the truth and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam646461 (talk • contribs)

Your sock blocked indefinitely, and your main account blocked for 3 days (finished on 7 August 2019). صالح (arwiki sysop) blocked you per CU results. So I didn't block you

--Alaa :)..! 12:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't even know what those terms mean. I wasn't able to log in my a count and say my opinion, so my room mate made an a count and put a comment, he was blocked too.And please notice I am not a wiki expert, I am still learning how to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam646461 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems that both myself and علاء aka Alaa have both corrected Sam646461's forgetting to sign off at the same time. I did any earlier one but didn't bother with the others as they seemed to be corrections on the post. I apologize if I didn't get it in the right order. I think I did it correctly.
btw: Sam646461, After you finish what you have to say, please can you sign off with 4 or these ~~~~ Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks a lot Karl, I did not forget, I just don't know how to do it, I read your note I hope it works this time Sam646461 (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC) :)[reply]
Reply to the above by Sam64646. You're welcome. All good now. Looks fine. Karl Twist (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I take a look now on this article Wikidata item (Q7403848) and I found that: special:diff/898793285 (description wrote by 176.224.210.30 on 31 March 2019) "مراوغ يحاول الشهرة عن طريق كلمات معينة في الويكبيديا" which mean "Dodger tries to fame by certain words in Wikipedia". Also, on 25 July 2019 another IP (37.42.163.184) here wrote "فيروس فلسطيني ويكبيدي" which mean "Palestinian Wikipedia virus" --Alaa :)..! 12:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Lol Alaa! You are funny!! I am convinced. Thanks a lot for your great efforts to show us the truth!!Sam646461 (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article created by user named "Sam Harb", and between Aug.-Oct. 2018 user "Sam646461" added more than 10K bytes. File:SaleemDabbour.jpg uploaded by user "Samiabufadi". Also, the article edited several times by user named "Ahmad Basha", and before few days "Sam646461" created a sock in arwiki named أحمد الغزاوي (Ahmad Ghazzawi). Note that all of this accounts are single-purpose accounts, that only edits (Saleem Dabbour) article --Alaa :)..! 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rather than thinking about who did what on ar.wiki I’ve looked through all the sources in the article. Clearly the article has been ref-bombed in a bid to bolster notability, and several sources are used multiple times. However:

Lede Section

1 reliable
2 reliable
4 same ref as 1
5, 6, 7 uncertain about reliability of the sources, but they appear to be republishing a press release
8, 9 proper independent commentary pieces. (I’m not sure about Al Watan Voice as a source overall).
10 I’m ignoring as a COI source
11 definitely reliable
12-15 unsure
16 definitely reliable, and sufficient to support a lede

Novels

I’m not familiar with any of the sources used in this section. Some appear to be partisan, and some are YouTube videos. Nothing I’d want to rely on if I was writing an article myself. (Again I’m not sure about Al Watan Voice).

Films

(Nuktet Tahawul)
35 probably reliable
36 reliable
39 reliable, though it doesn’t support all of the content it refers to
40 reliable
41 probably reliable

Kaffa!, Al-Hayaa Ahla, Awards Nothing that looks solid. This doesn’t suggest the statements in the article are false, just that the films and awards may not be as notable as the article suggests if these are the only sources to support them (I haven’t looked for others).

So my view remains that while this article is over-written and needs stripping down, the subject is notable. He has been covered multiple independent reliable sources, just not as many as the article’s creator may believe. Mccapra (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite claims of this meeting GNG, as the deletes have noted no actual evidence has been provided that it actually meets GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Battiste[edit]

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

This person is listed as a political candidate and has not been elected to a major legislature. Being a candidate alone is not notable enough to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN and his work as an academic is not enough to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC Rockandrollradio (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the article needs a fair bit of work and cleanup, it does seem to suggest a BLP at least over the WP:GNG bar for his work on indigenous law. The political candidacy seems irrelevant here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just to be clear, this article has existed since 2015, but he only became a political candidate for the first time in 2019 and the article doesn't even actually mention that fact at all yet, so the upcoming federal election really doesn't have anything to do with why this exists. That said, I'm still not convinced that it adequately demonstrates his notability on the grounds that it was actually going for — none of his career accomplishments are "inherent" notability clinchers that would automatically guarantee him an article just because he exists, but this is referenced entirely to a mix of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not to any strong evidence that he has been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. And on both Google and ProQuest searches, I'm just finding more of the same, and not finding sources that actually bolster his notability by being substantively about him. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after October 20 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is enough to already make him eligible for an article today — and even if the election candidacy were added to the article, that wouldn't change anything since candidates don't get articles just for being candidates either. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would appear to pass WP:GNG without getting into the whole political candidate thing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what, exactly? There are no reliable sources here which are covering him as a subject at all — every single reliable source in the article is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody or something else, while right across the board all of the sources which are about him are primary sources which are never support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is full of deadlinks, but except for the 2004 award as an "aspiring attorney" they seem to be about other things and lacking in in-depth coverage of the subject. There is recent in-depth coverage, but it's all about his candidacy and so fails WP:NPOL. No prejudice against re-creation if he wins election. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Auld (pilot)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet criteria for military officers. DSC is not a highest level award. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was tagged for A7 speedy, but I declined it; after all, the most successful British fighter pilot in the Falklands War is important, and the article shouldn't be deleted without a discussion. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/WP:SOLDIER. ~~A single obituary in The Telegraph and in no other newspaper indicates a lack of WP:GNG.~~ Perhaps something could be merged into Falklands War somewhere and this redirected there. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm puzzled. That's not his obit. He's presumably still alive. Although an obit in a major newspaper generally would be enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Old age seems to be creeping up on me. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER.Now there are several pilots who fought for Britian in wars not clear how the subject is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have cleaned up the article a bit, and formatted the references. (More work is needed but WP:NOTCLEANUP) This is a notable pilot who appears in books and has is published in major news media. He was a Commander which is not the highest to qualify him automatically for WP:SOLDIER, However meets WP:GNG per WP:RS and passes WP:ANYBIO... he received the Distinguished service cross (only 6,658 have received). I will continue to do clean up, but I think we should explore WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE. Let us look for alternatives to deletion per Nyttend: ...the most successful British fighter pilot in the Falklands War should not be deleted. Wm335td (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please quote the whole phrase: should not be deleted without a discussion. In other words, if the article be deleted, it should be the result of an AFD. I don't have an opinion on keeping or deleting. Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend My apologies for the misquote. Thank you for pointing it out. Wm335td (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Merge to 800 Naval Air Squadron~~Delete see below x2...sadly. I could only find passing mentions of him and I am afraid the artilce is misleading because it was the aircraft that is mentioned as being the most successful and not the pilot. The most successful pilot according to this source [19] was Flt Lt David Morgan with 3 solo victories and 1 shared victory. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This source clears up the question as the aircraft was flown by Auld and another pilot, Clive Morrell [20]. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dom from Paris Thank you for the additional verification. I continue to advocate for a Keep. I think we have enough WP:RS for the person and a cumulative effect of mentions to pass GNG. The person has a mention on the 800 Naval Air Squadron WP page. In addition there are many books

The British Carrier Strike Fleet: After 1945

Jet Wars in the Nuclear Age: 1972 to the Present Day

RAF Harrier Ground Attack: Falklands

And many more...Pacific Defence Reporter, Carrier Warfare, Operation Corporate: the Falklands War, 1982, Task Force: The Illustrated History of the Falklands War, Warbirds of the Sea: A History of Aircraft Carriers & Carrier-based Aircraft..and many more. Our readers should be able to find an entry for a pilot who has so many mentions in books, and reliable sources. Sorry for the long response. Wm335td (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly these all seem to be passing mentions. That said I am changing my !vote to merge as his name could be a redirect to the squadron page and we could merge the information into the Falklands section. I am very surprised to see that David Morgan doesn't have a page though. There is a great deal more information about him and if no-one beats me to it I shall create a page for him tomorrow. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is true that several relatively weak references in the same area can combine to product evidence for notability is some cases, but these sorts of mentions are not even weak, they're totally useless. I don't even support a redirect, unless we make one to their unit for every recipient of the DSC ever. But we're not a directory. There's also a possibility of making a list of all the commanders of the squadron, but since it changes ever year or two, I'm not sure it would be helpful.Again, not directory. Anyone mentioned in a WP article like the one on the squadron) can be searched for in a WP, so there's no real point in a redirect for those not otherwise notable DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to mention that the DSC is 4th highest military award in the face of the enemy, the order being

It has been awarded 6680 times but only 136 times since 1947. I doubt very much that the list would be very long for each unit (it is an all arms medal). --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our standard practice seems to be to accept as notability a single award at the highest level only , and also 2 more more awards at the 2nd level. Below that doesn't ordinarily count as notability . DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much as it pains me, does not meet notability criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've improved sourcing. Now meets WP:GNG. See WP:Before and WP:NEXIST. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again User:7&6=thirteen please avoid the WP:ADHOM WP:BEFORE accusations that you seem to make at almost every AFD. It is tiresome and discouraged. Could you please state which sources you have added are in-depth coverage. The Aces high source was one I noted here myself and it is not indepth at all, the Rolling Thunder source says he led an attack but mentions him no further, the aviation geek club is even shorter. IMHO none of these or the previous ones are close to being in-depth coverage. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly does meet the criteria in that, "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign" (criterion #4). There is no need to satisfy all the criteria hence tne "or"s that everyone seems to be missing.--Ykraps (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: I'm sorry to say that downing 2 aircraft is not what I would call an "important role". If this were the case then we would find in-depth coverage in reliable sources of the person and his important role. This just isn't the case. I scoured the internet in the hope of finding that overage and it just isn't there I'm sad to say. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's rather subjective isn't it? The Falklands War was a small and short-lived conflict. One can't expect millions to die. As I understand it, the pilot with the most kills only downed one more aircraft than Auld. And although killing people is important, it is not the only way one can make an important contribution in a war. Auld was commander of a squadron who flew 62 missions (according to the article).--Ykraps (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point! It is 100% subjective, as is your opinion, but we are writing an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and not on our own opinions. So whether you or I think it was an important role or not makes no difference whatsoever because that is WP:OR. What we need is for others to say that or something similar about him in reliable sources to be able to apply that criterion. I have no idea whether 62 missions is a lot in a 10 week conflict or not. I have read in a DCS citation that they flew up to 4 missions a day so is it a lot compared to other pilots? Was his role any more important than the other pilots? Dom from Paris (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He made an impact by shooting down two enemy aircraft. Coupled with his general notability (coverage in multiple reliable sources), I would say, that is enough. As I said, this was a small conflict in which some personnel never even discharged their weapon and I think Auld's actions need to be seen comparatively.--Ykraps (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You sum up my comment perfectly when you write "I would say that is enough" when you talk about his actions but not the sources. Notability is not judged on our personal opinions but on the sources and no reliable independent sources state or suggest that they agree with your analysis of his importance. Just to be clear I personally would love to see articles on every serviceman that showed courage and won gongs. I served with some, including Falklands veterans. Friends of mine were killed and wounded on active service. It galls me that some notabilty criteria are so low, notably sports, that you need no in depth coverage to guarantee a place. For example take a look at WP:NFOOTY or WP:GRIDIRON. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can agree on that at least. Personally, I don't see why the bar should be set any higher. Time to IAR before we end up with an encyclopaedia full of porn stars, video games and people who once scored a touchdown for their college team.--Ykraps (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "The aircraft XZ457 shot down most enemy aircraft in the Falklands War - three downed aircraft, and one damaged", doesn't mean he is a fighter ace, just that an aircraft he sometimes flew was. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody said he was an "ace". although Andy Auld destroyed one in the ground and two in the air. The aircraft shot down two Argentine fighters. albeit in the hands of two different pilots. In any event, you misread the sources, and conflated three separate facts. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're incorrect, Nyytend did say in their edit comment ...especially as it sounds like he was an air ace (three kills with his aircraft, and two with some other sort of missile and I think you are mistaken as well about how many aircraft Auld actually claimed because the aircraft destroyed on the ground was hit by the other pilot Morrell according to this source [21]. So the aircraft had 3 fighters shot down and not 2 as you say plus the aircraft destroyed on the ground. You may have misread the sources too. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my business, I am final. As Justice Jackson wrote of the United States Supreme Court, "We are not final because we are infallible; we are installible because we are final." Nevertheless, I could be mistaken; and this isn't my "business."

Per your source: Sea Harrier XZ457 "On May 24th, Lieutenant-Commander Andy Auld shot down two Grupo 6 Daggers with Sidewinders over Pebble Island." The aircraft apparently shot down more, per that source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::::Here are two more sources.

"Auld, Andrew D." goefoundation. Goe Foundation. Retrieved 18 August 2019. ... in 1979, he served as the desk officer responsible for overseeing the debut of the Sea Harrier into operational service and the creation of 800 Squadron, the first frontline unit. Auld took command of the 800 Squadron in January 1982, not knowing that a few short months later he'd lead his unit in combat. At 0400 hours on 2 April 1982, Auld was told to bring his squadron to immediate readiness to embark on HMS Hermes. Instead of starting Easter leave that day, he and his squadron began the 8,000 mile voyage to the South Atlantic. Over the next 2 1/2 months, Sea Harriers from HMS Hermes flew 1,126 sorties and scored 16 aerial victories. Auld flew 62 combat missions and downed two Argentine Daggers.
"Sea Harrier XZ457". Boscombe Down Aviation Collection—Old Sarum Airfield. Retrieved August 21, 2019. On May 24th, Lieutenant-Commander Andy Auld shot down two Grupo 6 Daggers with Sidewinders over Pebble Island. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is correct. Though you said The aircraft shot down two Argentine fighters. albeit in the hands of two different pilots. but if Auld shot down 2 with it what did the other pilot shoot down? I think you meant to say 3 Argentine fighters, albeit in the hands of two different pilots but that was probably just a typing error as was installible and BTW you actually misquoted Jackson in reality he wrote "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." (my bolding of the words 'but' and 'only' that have all their importance in the phrase I believe.) Wonderful phrase and so simple and understandable, probably because he didn't have a law degree! But all of that is neither here nor there because what is really missing here is in-depth coverage. --Dom from Paris (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "He was an important part of making the Sea Harrier operational in the Royal Navy, and was a driver of its success in the Falklands War." --> Well that sounds interesting, but the article doesn't back up this wild claim in the lede at all. Lots of people win awards. If somehow Auld drove the British Navy success in the Falklands War, we're going to need much better sourcing. SnowFire (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as an aside I have created the page for David Morgan (pilot) as promised, if anyone would care to improve or add to it. --Dom from Paris (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sole item of notability isn't even adequately sourced, namely his supposed role with regards to the Sea Harrier's success - and beyond doing his job, that seems like a dubious claim. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make you read the sources. But Ipse dixit won't do. Gathering of Eagles Foundation One of the cited sources includes the following:

Upon graduation, he again returned to 893 Squadron–this time as Executive Officer. Sent to the Directorate of Naval Air Warfare in the Ministry of Defense (MOD) in 1979, he served as the desk officer responsible for overseeing the debut of the Sea Harrier into operational service and the creation of 800 Squadron, the first frontline unit. Auld took command of the 800 Squadron in January 1982, not knowing that a few short months later he’d lead his unit in combat. At 0400 hours on 2 April 1982, Auld was told to bring his squadron to immediate readiness to embark on HMS Hermes. Instead of starting Easter leave that day, he and his squadron began the 8,000 mile voyage to the South Atlantic. Over the next 2 1/2 months, Sea Harriers from HMS Hermes flew 1,126 sorties and scored 16 aerial victories. Auld flew 62 combat missions and downed two Argentine Daggers. Along with air defense of the Task Force, 800 Squadron proved equally adept in bombing and ground attack. Under his leadership, 800 Squadron’s combat performance proved the value of the Sea Harrier and led to new procurement and modernization programs. Following the Falklands campaign, Auld was posted to Antisubmarine Warfare Striking Forces Atlantic as the Staff Aviation Officer. In 1984, he moved to Norway in the Plans and Policy Division of Allied Forces Northern Europe. Returning to the MOD’s Directorate of Naval Air Warfare in 1987, Auld developed policies and tactics to improve the effectiveness of the Sea Harrier.

Oh well. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Notable pre internet War hero: he commanded the 800 NAS Harrier group during the Falklands War and of the 13 enemy planes shot down by Harriers he is responsible for 15%. As Ykraps has stated, the subject passes WP:SOLDIER "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign" (criterion #4). In depth coverage regarding pre-internet subjects is a troubling theme in AfD. Fact: The Falklands War is rarely mentioned without mentioning Andy Auld. Soldiers are known for their soldiering and this soldier's name appears in multiple books, news articles, and on our own Wikipedia coverage. WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD. Andy Auld was a war hero who retired to private life without fanfare, and without getting into news worthy trouble. My thoughts are also that this person passes number 1 and number 2 of WP:ANYBIO for his Distinguished service cross and major contribution in the Falklands War: 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: just for the sake of accuracy, I feel obliged to point out that the Internet was developed in the 1970s, whereas Auld is known for his actions in the 1980s. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ARPANET was created in the 1960s and 1970s. The Internet wasn't split off it until 1983. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge with redirect to 800 Naval Air Squadron – Coverage of him is brief; the sources don't even seem to come close to WP:SIGCOV. If he really was important (WP:SOLDIER #4), we would have found biographies of him already written. Wikipedia should never be the first to publish someone's biography. – Levivich 01:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote from delete to merge. I am not convinced that this article subject meets GNG–there is, so far, one in-depth source of questionable reliability–but Auld was the commander of the unit during an important period, and there is certainly something we can say about him. That something, though, should be said at the 800 Naval Air Squadron page rather than in a stand-alone page. – Levivich 15:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [22] "Under his leadership, 800 Squadron’s combat performance proved the value of the Sea Harrier and led to new procurement and modernization programs". "Auld developed policies and tactics to improve the effectiveness of the Sea Harrier." So he made a notable impact in his field. Dream Focus 02:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept "Under the leadership of..." as significant for anyone in any field of activity. It's the routine pseudo-tribute to an executive, taking the praise for everything done by anyone in their unit. In business or in war, an executive deserves honor for the actual decisions they personally make, not for the decisions or work done by other people. It's not even that the executive personally hired the people who did the noteworthy work, or personally trained them, or even personally planned the work, or necessarily did anything more than happened to be there at the time. (This might even be particularly true in fields where the commanders of units regularly rotate, in contrast to those where the senior executive stay as the chief for decades, and where they could possibly be rationally assigned credit for the major long range planning and senior appointments. Serious studies of leadership tries to separate out the actual contributions of the various parties. It's the difference between FDR & Churchill having the credit (or blame, sometimes) for the actual strategic decisions they made, vs. Stalin taking praise for everything that was successful during his regime while putting the blame for the failures on others. Under the leadership of" is not only an empty phrase, but implies there was nothing specific .

We have learned to recognize and ignore PR-speech in general; it's at its worst in strongly hierarchical organizations. " DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The case for meeting WP:SOLDIER is unconvincing if it is even verifiable. The case for meeting the general notability guideline is non-existent, because none of the sources amount to significant coverage. That leaves us with a clear result: delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. See evaluation:

Reliable, but mentions him in passing only.
What in the world makes anyone think this is a reliable source? Not scholarly, not a specialist publisher or well-reputed author in the field, and not reviewed by either. See [23]. This shouldn't be used at all.
Per page 5: "Now to the story I want to tell. I tell it as I saw it." This is just a primary source; WP:BLPPRIMARY.
It's a charity, not a reliable publisher.
Reliable publisher, but unless my Google Books search hid some results, this has only a passing reference.
Simon and Schuster is routinely not a reliable source — they're mostly just popular content written by nice people, and while that's perfectly fine, it's not reliable unless the author has better qualifications. Also, just a passing reference.
Maybe reliable, but I'd need a lot of convincing, and anyway it's a passing reference like #1.
Passing reference, and shouldn't be used; it's just a group of volunteers who maintain an aircraft museum.
Can't evaluate reliability, but there's only a passing reference to Auld.
A blog. See WP:ELNO; this shouldn't even appear in external links, let alone be cited.
Same as #8
Reliable, but mentions him in passing only.

Numbering reflects the order in this revision. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gathering of Eagles Foundation is reliable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boscombe Down Aviation Collection—Old Sarum Airfield| is reliable. And you have evidently ignored the six books gthat refer to him. Not to mention the articles. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would call this a passing mention.[[24]] I would say that separate mentions on four pages,[[25]] three pages,[[26]] and four pages,[[27]] significant. However, there does appear to be a difference between the British and the American definition of 'significant'.[[28]] --Ykraps (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes those organisations reliable? If you cited these in an academic work (even an undergraduate paper), your professor would be highly unlikely to accept sources that are written by volunteers without qualifications and that are not reviewed by scholars in the field. And which six books have I ignored? The second book is citation #5, the third is citation #6, the fourth is citation #4, and the fifth is citation #3. The first book isn't cited, so I overlooked it (my response: the author of the article had it but never cited it: why should I believe that it provides significant coverage of Auld?), but your claim that I failed to address six books is severely in error, as are your evidence-free claims about the reliability of citations #2, #8, and #11. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based largely on improvements and expansions made to the article since it was nominated for deletion. The best proof of notability is the many references to his name in published scholarship on air operations in the Falklands War, such as Christopher Shores' book. It at least reaches the general notability standard, with enough information to produce a Wikipedia article of more than respectable depth.Worldlywise (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many references? Shores' book mentions his name exactly twice: once in a table of pilots with aerial victories and once in a list of pilots who were awarded DSCs. Neither of those provides significant coverage in the sense marked as American by this dictionary, and their "having a special meaning" sample sentences indicate that this sense isn't relevant to notability. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Hey, WP:NEXIST. Article's sources demonstrate it should NOW be kept. Q.E.D. WP:Before was honored more in the breach than in the observance. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I still don't agree I have worked on the article but there is still no in depth coverage from reliable sources. The gathering of eagles source which is the only one that goes into any depth and it has a mission that is "Honoring airpower heritage to inspire military and community leaders of the future". We have no idea who wrote the page for Auld or if there was any kind of editorial oversight or what sources they used. If we dismiss this source there is no in depth coverage of the subject. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I expected you to ignore the 5 books and the London Gazette. Your response renews my faith in my foresight. We will have to agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The London gazette is a primary source, (I myself am in there multiple times but don't think I am notable!) and the books are passing mentions which is why I stated "no in depth coverage from reliable sources" I could have added "secondary" but I didn't think it was necessary because GNG states "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.. My mistake I should try to be clearer in the future. But as you said we shall have to agree to disagree. --Dom from Paris (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of agreeing to disagree: it's one editor who sees two others reviewing sources and says "You ignored the sources". Someone who so grossly distorts the truth has no business participating in an AFD. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And would you please stop the exhausting editwarring on the page. The phrase in the lede that says "He played an important role in making the Sea Harrier operational in the Royal Navy, and was instrumental in its success in the Falklands War" is a blatant WP:SYNTH of the GEO source. I have already marked it as such and you keep trying to reference this phrase to that source. I shan't waste my time tagging it until the result of this discussion but if it survives I shall ask for a 3rd opinion (which really shouldn't be necessary) and I will abide by that opinion as I hope you will too...hope springs eternal...Dom from Paris (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, we already have three opinions, and two of them say you are wrong. Your vehement opinion {"blatant") is hysterical, wrong, and not proof of anything (other than your opinion). The louder your voice, the more sceptical I become. Ipse dixit just won;t do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Pope Benedict XVI so rightly said "Truth is not determined by a majority vote" but if we are counting heads for the fun of it I think there are at least 4 editors that disagree with you: myself, the nominator, SnowFire and NiD.29 and possibly Nyttend. Also I would ask you to please try and make an effort to avoid the ad hom comments. This discussion and other associated talk pages are peppered with them. I and others have patiently replied to your comments and politely explained why we disagree with you only to be met with sarcasm and personal comments. It's a shame really and if you took a step back you might actually realise that he who is shouting the loudest is not necessarily him whom you accuse. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the London Gazette' is simply the place of publication of formal announcements of the UK government. It includes everyone who receives an honour. It documents the honour, but it does show its significance for notability. The statement of why the award is given is the usual bureaucratic puffery. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely and as a DSC is the UK's 4th highest award for valour in the face of the enemy it does not qualify for a pass on #1 at WP:NSOLDIER. The more we discuss the more I am for delete now so I'm going back from merge. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NSOLDIER because, as the commander of 800 Naval Air Squadron, he "played an important role in a significant military event". There's no case for deletion as there are obvious alternatives which we should prefer per our policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a personal opinion and not backed up any sources. A squadron is the second lowest level of unit in aviation and a Lt Commander is an OF-3, the first level of senior officer. Simply commanding in combat a squadron or infantry company or being an senior officer on a ship (Lt Commanders rarely command a vessel of any importance) would not infer notability in itself so I do not believe NSOLDIER is met, if this is what is meant by "an important role" this would open the door to an unbelievably large number of articles. The importance of the role has to be proven by reliable sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided above and in the article seem quite adequate to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSOLDIER. The size of the units in the Falklands war were quite small – this was not WW2 with vast army groups and thousands of aircraft. The subject commanded a large portion of the British air forces in this war and so his importance was correspondingly significant. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want you to change your !vote but just to put into perspective your comment from what I can gather from this article British air services in the Falklands War is that there were 212 aircraft involved in the conflict including 38 harriers (FRS1 and GR3 models). Auld commanded 12 aircraft which is 5% of the air forces or 32% of the Harriers. I am not sure what you would call small but 25,948 British service personnel served in the campaign and the only figure I found for the Argentinian forces was the killed + wounded + captured which was 13,619. It's odd but people do not realise just quite how many were involved. This was a conflict that lasted 74 days and 42,000+ belligerents, we are not talking about a small affaire in my eyes. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Winfield[edit]

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

The sources cited in the article either are not in-depth enough, are interviews where little information is added by the interviewer, are written by the subject, or written by colleagues of the subject (Entrepreneur - where he is a "VIP contributor"). I wasn't able to find any qualifying sources via Google. "Chris Winfield" shows many results, but many of them are not about this Chris Winfield. MrClog (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The only source that has what could be considered independent, reliable, and significant coverage is the Fortune citation (and even then, considering it to be significant coverage is being charitable). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing. He's. Done. Is. Notable. Despite the Mexico border wall of citations. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Birch[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS and no indication of notability, either on page or via internet search. Star Garnet (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - On the face of it, this is a potential WP:BLP1E case. However, against that we have the fact that he has received coverage in reliable sources at the time, a BBC documentary was made about him, and at least one RS [29] thought it was worth catching up with him for an update some five years later. Given the same level of coverage of an individual with a more 'conventional' medical condition, I might argue for a redirect or a merge to that condition, but this case is so unique that there just isn't a realistic target. So, yeah - overall I think there's just enough here to tip the article over the GNG line. Hug^syrup 16:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the story is ridiculous and unscientific, there are reliable sources out there who have covered him. Trillfendi (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is the bar for notability, the vast majority of non-notable congressional candidates would have an article. This case is akin to the last person to catch a home run by [insert famous baseball player] making the rounds on talk shows. There's good reason this has for all intents and purposes been an orphan page for eight years. Star Garnet (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't actual news organizations write stories about how they were mad that the Notorious AOC had no Wikipedia article before the primary election? Trillfendi (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of coverage on this by further media. Check this extensive coverage on Vice https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qkqjj7/catching-up-with-the-man-who-had-a-stroke-that-made-him-gay "Catching Up with the Man Who Had a Stroke That Made Him Gay" that I will also add for notability. This item is actually from 2017, so quite recent. werldwayd (talk) 05:03, 22 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) 16:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agar Street, Leicester[edit]

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

Completely NN road with no claim of significance except "one of very few streets" with a cobbled surface. Does not meet WP:GEOROAD. MB 14:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing suggests any encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about the street that one lives on is indeed on the Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas, and that is apparently what the article creator is doing here. I did not believe the thing about cobbled streets, which seemed carefully vague and is not supported by the source, and a quick check of some guides to this city indicated that there is possibly something to say about the city and cobbling in general. But that won't be in this article. Perusing some histories, just in case this was a really bad stub for an actual historic place, it seems that there are some well-documented routes there, New Walk, Leicester being one that caught my eye in a history of the city during the 18th century (A History of Leicester in the Eighteenth Century at the Internet Archive) , but this is not one of them. Uncle G (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, What makes us sure it is the only cobbled road , not notable Alex-h (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices using Mediatek tablet processors[edit]

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

This list of "products using another product" is just marketing material. There's no encyclopedic value to such a cross reference, and this serves as only promotion. Fails at least WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:RAWDATA. Mikeblas (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note Category:Devices using Mediatek tablet processors doesn't exist, and a handful of devices in this list have articles which could be added to such a category.----Pontificalibus 15:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic significance to such a product directory. Reywas92^Talk 17:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. A product directory that is hardly encyclopedic and only useful to a very small number of readers. Ajf773 (talk) 10:29, 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. Tone 17:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doukas Gaitatzis[edit]

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

Not finding a lot, and none of it (as far as I can tell) RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sure, more sources should be added to the article. Other than that, I don't see any issue with notability here. - Darwinek (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article appears to be mostly copied from the Greek wikipedia article (see here) thats been there since 2011, so it may need a translation tag. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - assuming per WP:AGF that the citation in this article passes (and that other language wikis, long predating this article, are correct on this info) - our subject passes WP:NPOL as he was elected in the 1936 Greek legislative election to Parliament. Sources for this era, in Greek, might be spotty in terms digitization. Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G5 per Ponyo below. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Khalil Ahmad Baig[edit]

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

Biographical article about an academic that does not demonstrate how the subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. No sources beyond two books written by the subject. Railfan23 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Railfan23 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedy deleted the article per WP:CSD#G5 as it was created by a confirmed sock, part of a very large sockfarm.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYDM[edit]

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

Contested prod without rationale or improvement. Doesn't meet WP:BROADCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:BROADCAST: "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming." - deos not meet WP:GNG: has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources" - possible merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Maasin, but as that article has no references it may be up for AfD as well - no point in a redirect as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maasin article does not mention DYDM - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks sources that meet WP:BROADCAST. A merge would serve no purpose as the target does not mention and this is a trivial subject as well. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks collectibles[edit]

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

The article does not currently cite any reliable sources and I am unable to find any coverage myself. WP:GNG does not appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if I could find the slightest indication that this term was notable, I'd have argued for a merge, but I cannot. A google search turns up precisely nothing, and all of the sources in the article seem to be aimed at proving that people do in fact collect Starbucks merch and that a secondary market exists (hardly surprising - people will collect anything) but do nothing to show that the term, concept, or existence of that secondary market is notable. So, agree with nom that this fails WP:GNG, insufficient sourced content for a merge. A case could be made for a redirect, but the obvious redirect target of Starbucks#Starbucks_collectibles was itself only added today, and seemingly only in a rather misguided effort to de-orphan this article. Since that section is itself extremely poorly sourced (an unreliable website, and an article that is actually about the Starbucks card and not the concept of collectibles as a whole) it should be removed. Hence, I see no value in a redirect either. Hug^syrup 11:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously not a notable product and the article is promotional. Trillfendi (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hugsyrup summarized very well above. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and independent sources. But I'll change my !vote if my Starbucks card suddenly has 4,500 points miraculously added to it. /snark Bearian (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete material which does not really belong in an encyclopedia and is WP:PROMOTION. No WP:RS. Wm335td (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Chubenko[edit]

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

No references since December 2016 even though the originating editor has continued to work on the article by adding spamish links. BLP Prod has been moved twice. Second one added accidently. No effort to source the article over the past two and a half year. Potential move to draft but it would not rescue it. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Neither WP:NOIMPROVEMENT nor WP:ATTP are good reasons for deletion. What matters is WP:NEXIST and WP:NPROF, but I'm not sure if he passes based on this standard since, whilst he has authored a lot of publications, it's not clear that any of these have had a significant impact.FOARP (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a mid-level bureaucrat/administrator in the Ukrainian academia. Absolutely nothing in GoogleScholar. No evidence of passing either of WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus Institute[edit]

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

Not notable organization. All the sources are from National Moroccan Press Agency. To be noted that the president is the son of a former prime minister in Morocco and the National Press Agency can then not be considered as reliable and objective source. R3lo sd (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not very good but it appears to be notable. There is no such thing as an objective source, and that is not what is required, or we would have no coverage of some countries at all. There are several sources, and this compares fairly well with coverage of other organisations in Morocco.Rathfelder (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for sources that establish notability is relatively strict and is contained in WP:NCORP. Looking at the references in this article, none of them meet these criteria. This Morocco World News reference announces that this organization was named in a report ranking "think tanks" globally, but the report itself says nothing about the organization and merely lists it in a ranking list - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The EuroMesco reference is a listing on a webpage and is not independent content as it was provided by the organization, failing WP:ORGIND. The archived Map.ma references do not appear to contain any mention of the organization. I am unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmin Alexandru Cernica[edit]

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

This guy has been studying PR since age 18. He’s now all of 26. Naturally, he feels the need for a Wikipedia biography. His first attempt crashed and burned; let’s hope this one ends up likewise.

Anyway, the main claim to notability is that he designed a pair of cufflinks, which seems... not quite on the level of an encyclopedia’s attention?

As for sources, they’re generally what you’d expect from a PR man: links to his articles, a screenshot of his blog, a couple of softball interviews. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure WP:PROMO, no WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources (an interview is not independent of the subject as they are the source of it). FOARP (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill public relations person. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a run of the mill PR person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cracker Lake (Florida)[edit]

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

Subject is not a lake, it is one of countless small manmade retention ponds in Florida (map). References are certainly not reliable sources that would establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 07:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zolfo Springs, Florida. While not notable, it appears to be the largest body of water in Zolfo Springs and is mentioned in that article, so a redirect there seems appropriate.----Pontificalibus 08:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Pioneer Park Lake is several times bigger. This small retention pond is utterly not notable (Florida is known for having thousands of them) and I have removed its unnecessary mention in that article, which was also added by this article's creator. Reywas92^Talk 17:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zolfo Springs, Florida. The articles are not that big, can't see why they can't be merged. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Because none of this is remotely meaningful or from a reliable source? Reywas92^Talk 17:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information into Zolfo Springs, Florida. As the current mention in the Zolfo Springs article is really brief, talking about the "trail". Then make this name a redirect to that article. Kierzek (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's talking about a different road. Have a look at a map. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am having a hard time finding any of the sources cited apart from the advertisements for the campsite and the promotional postings on message boards by unidentifiable people about some other place. The archived URLs are all for top-level pages. Other citations come up with blank WWW pages for me and are just bare URLs. And it appears, from the fact the some of the sources cited are maps, that the description is taken from looking at the aerial view (of one instant in time) in a WWW map, not actually from descriptive documentation of some kind. Then there's the other half of the article, for which no sources are offered at all. I cannot come up with any good sources, either. This seems to be an undocumented subject. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not listed in GNIS. Having it merge to Zolfo Springs makes no sense in this context. – The Grid (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Football Lake[edit]

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

Contrary to the the prod remover's claim that "places are presumed notable", WP:GEOLAND actually states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." The only source is a mere database entry that the place exists. Minnesota calls itself the land of 10,000 lakes, but since my BEFORE search did not turn up anything with or without substance, these are certainly not all automatically notable. Reywas92^Talk 07:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. WP:GEOLAND suggests a merge but it would be WP:UNDUE to merge to Cass County, Minnesota.--Pontificalibus 08:10, 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. There is no support for deletion and this seems unlikely to change -- see WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Ash[edit]

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

Not evidently notable - can only find an Independent obituary and a The Times obituary from an online search. While these constitute two (independent?) sources (which might make the subject presumably notable by WP:BASIC), coverage there and in the article are only about his personal life and his involvement in local town planning / real estate development, which is run-of-the-mill and falls into the same spirit as WP:ROUTINE. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-known early British environmentalist and surely three broadsheet newspaper obits is the definition of WP:N? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obits in national newspapers are sufficient. What more would you expect coverage of for a biography other than their personal life and career? ----Pontificalibus 09:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd expect sources about a person's accomplishments demonstrating some significant work and that would make them notable. Sources that give something besides just a description of their personality, whom they were friends with, and whom they admired. Neither the existing WP article nor the two obituaries say much outside of that, besides a list of his former positions. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the Indie obit, it's written for an audience who already understand the passing references and their significance. It's not an accessible piece, maybe it was squeezed to a word count. But every name in there is significant. This isn't just "who they were friends with", those "friends" are also some of the more powerful and influential people in the country. Every business or social development around the Dartington Hall estate since WWII had Ash involved with it, usually as its major instigator. And those passing names in there are things like Dartington Glass, which are themselves highly notable businesses or artistic endeavours. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being friends with important people doesn’t make one notable though. Plus, the obituary from the Independent is, funnily enough, not independent of the subject as the author was mentored by Maurice Ash (as mentioned here). If one could find independent reliable sources on the subject and his work (surely, if he was so influential then there would be coverage of his work from when he was alive?), I’d be all for inclusion of this article and it’s claim for notability. The content of these two obituaries alone don’t cut it. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is this the "British newspapers aren't RS, see WP:DAILYMAIL, we have to use USA Today instead" wikicrap again? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note what matters is that the piece is editorially independent - it's not a requirement that a particular author should be unfamiliar with the subject, but that the decision to publish it is not influenced by a conflict of interest. Unless you have evidence that the newspaper stood to gain financially from the estate of the deceased for example, then there are no concerns that the newspaper's editor chose someone to write an obituary who personally knew the subject while they were alive.--Pontificalibus 11:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obits in The Times, The Independent and The Guardian certainly indicate notability. As for "surely, if he was so influential then there would be coverage of his work from when he was alive?" well, yes, there is coverage from when he was alive, including reviews of his books. One can find it through Jstor (for which there is a search link just under the head of this nomination), and digitised contemporary newspapers such as in the British Newspaper Archive. They can be added, if obits in 3 national newspapers are considered insufficient. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - I normally don't join pile-ons at AFD, but the idea that obituaries, which are necessarily WP:SIGCOV of someone's entire life (and thus not coverage of a single event), do not confer notability, is patently ridiculous. Of course obituaries in broadsheet newspapers confer notability on their subject. No, simply having been mentored by the subject does not make the author not independent of it, what matters is editorial independence. There is no need to look for further sources here, absolutely none, but had the nom looked they would have found them. WP:BASIC met and then some. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Informant247[edit]

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

Advertising of utterly non notable, non-reliable website by two SPA accounts. Sourced to cluster of similarly amateur websites, unreliable blogs likely operated by the same user. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the above. R3lo sd (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ignoring the user details, there is still a complete lack of reliable sourcing to support the page. OhioShmyo (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note. the page has been edited with more reliable reference. no form of prom. inclusion. [[]] ([[User talk:|talk]]) 09:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonuola Okoye[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. While the Guardian Nigeria is a major newspaper, the first two references are mere mentions, and citation #3 is only slightly better. If we had two or three more references like citation 3 I would be ok with keeping this article, alas the only coverage I was able to find online was in unreliable sources like BellaNaija. I tried looking for coverage of her book, and I wasn't able to find anything. The company she cofounded might be notable, though.

Note also that the article was created by a SPA and was also edited by an editor blocked for undisclosed paid advertising _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:14, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AMIRCI[edit]

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

Lack in-depth news coverage, non notable group. Meeanaya (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as per nom. WPK21 (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Removed the above vote by a blocked sockpuppet. --CiaPan (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since its nomination, this article has been substantially developed and improved, references have been added, as has a list of publications, and relevant categories have been appended. Oronsay (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep = per Oronsay. Bookscale (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Publications by AMIRCI are not independent coverage of AMIRCI. Same with the orgs own website. The first reference is by a member of AMIRCI's general committee so is also not independent. The last two references don't even mention this organisation and are just lipstick on a pig. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important women's organisation. MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 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 redirect to Average Joes Entertainment. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hideout Pictures[edit]

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

Article has no sourcing at present apart from a link to the company's website. Searching for sources, I find nothing but directory entries, passing mentions, and primary sources such as court filings - nothing approaching WP:CORPDEPTH, so fails WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some sourcing has now been added to the article - none of it however gives significant coverage to the subject of the article, just passing mentions in articles about films the company is associated with, and so they do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update More sources have been added - a NY Times article that does not mention the subject, and a few IMDB entries (unreliable source per WP:UGC and WP:Perennial sources. Still no CORPDEPTH-compliant sourcing. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Average Joes Entertainment - not notable enough for a stand alone article - Epinoia (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Average Joes Entertainment as per above. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to note that I would be also be happy with redirecting to Average Joes Entertainment as an alternative to deletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bermuda Rugby Football Union. Bermuda Rugby Football Union seems to be the most natural target. Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union in Bermuda[edit]

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

Article is about an under-developed topic and mostly contains information about Bermuda national rugby union team, information about Bermuda Rugby Football Union, or vague general statements. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bermuda national rugby union team. Standard title that people would search for, and until there's enough content to justify a summary article, it is useful to have it point to the national team page. Wug·a·po·des 23:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: A redirect would be fine, but it's not clear to me whether Bermuda Rugby Football Union or Bermuda national rugby union team would be a more natural target. The latter article is more developed while the topic of the former is more broad in scope. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sah Al-Noom[edit]

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

Non-notable television series that fails WP:GNG Collaboratio (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Arabic language article has three sources provided, indicating it passes GNG. matt91486 (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep - Three references are cited on the corresponding Arabic page. The first is a 2007 review in Al Riyadh, which appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. Whilst the machine translation is hard to read, it appears to be a laudatory review of this television program (it would be great if this could be confirmed by a native speaker). The second is a 2008 piece in Al Riyadh of a similar nature. The third is an archived article in Syrian Drama, which appears to have been a magazine (and thus a WP:NEWSORG). These would all appear to be instances of WP:SIGCOV but it would be great if a native Arabic speaker could confirm this. Assuming this is so, passes WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 12:14, 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) Meatsgains^(talk) 15:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens[edit]

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

Subject is unencyclopedic Meatsgains^(talk) 00:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has shown topic's Wp:Notability, and it does not seem unencyclopedic. GliderMaven (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the page's creator. Article satisifies WP:N. Multiple reliable sources, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, have written specifically about the "No Way To Prevent This" posts and the impact those specific posts (not just The Onion generally) have had. These sources have already been cited in the article. Purifiedwater (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is one of the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and I don't see how this falls under WP:NOT. The sources already in the article show that it meets WP:GNG, and more could be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 03:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 03:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received non trivial coverage. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 03:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Onion - this article has such a long title that it is unlikely any one would type in this term in the Search Wikipedia box. Vorbee (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is too long, there would be no benefit from redirecting it, and unless you have notablity concerns, it would be deleted under criteria 10 of WP:R#DELETE.

Surely Merge or delete makes more sense. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The WaPo, NYT etc. articles are clearly WP:SIGCOV for the topic of this article since they address it directly and in detail. The topic is notable as a cultural phenomenon. The title is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME for this series of articles since it is the way that reliable sources refer to it. Allegations of it being too long don't seem well founded, whilst WP:WAX is not a great argument, it is still instructive to compare and contrast with Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. FOARP (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator has essentially not advanced any meaningful argument for deletion, and numerous arguments against deletion have been given above. The title being so long that no one would type it in the search box is possibly the weakest argument for a redirect I've head in a while. The subject has received substantial independent coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG, and that's good enough for me. Hug^syrup 11:08, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamyang Tenzin[edit]

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

Despite the player only being brought on to Bhutan team once as a substitute, this player might fail WP:GNG on the basis of not having much info. HawkAussie (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Arguably no bigger feat than playing for your country. Similar case to AfD/Batbayar Khash-Erdene, which was kept back in May. Also, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, I'd assume it's very difficult to find local media online for Bhutan and it's football, à la how we give a 'pass' to footballers from the 30s, 40s etc. Delete, if clarified - Apologies, I had forgotten about the Tier 1 International Match part of NFOOTY. It's a little arbitrary, but if that's how our guidelines stand then I'll follow them. R96Skinner (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He played as a substitute in an AFC club game against Global FC in 2013 and that's the only additional thing I can find about him anywhere. Maybe there's more local sourcing? SportingFlyer T·C 03:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per NFOOTY and per major Systemic Bias concerns, as countries with more limited online media, especially in English language, should not be treated as less notable, as indicated by R96Skinner. matt91486 (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if someone technically passes WP:NFOOTY, we won't keep them if they definitively fail WP:GNG, which is the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep passes WP:NFOOTY , has played at the highest international level for Bhutan.He did play in a friendly match between Bhutan vs Thailand match on 14th Novmeber 2012.But checking whether it is a official match [30] ,[31] and [32]Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has no tier-1/official games for the national team (confirmed by NFT, the only source on the article) - perhaps @R96Skinner and Matt91486: would like two reconsider given (ignoring GNG concerns) he actually fails NFOOTBALL... Giant Snowman 09:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, NFooty can't supersede WP:GNG for which this article fails. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hadn't appreciated when I created this article that it was not an official friendly that he participated in. Happy that this player fails NFOOTY. @HawkAussie: I, like most editors, would appreciate the courtesy of being informed when an article of mine is up for discussion. I received nothing for either the PROD or this AfD. Fenix down (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For clarification: Why isn't the Thailand vs. Bhutan match Tier 1? I assume we aren't just taking NFT's word for it? No match reports ([33], [34], [35], [36]) of the game mention it being unofficial. R96Skinner (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league or in a FIFA "Tier 1" match. No significant coverage exists online (although a Tibetan political activist with the same name gets a good amount of online coverage), resulting in a miserable GNG failure. Jogurney (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly true Jogurney, but why isn't Thailand v. Bhutan considered Tier 1? It seems to pass Tier 1 requirements in relation to the FIFA regulations? R96Skinner (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything conclusive, but an ESPN article indicates Suzuki Cup matches were first treated as Tier 1 ("A") internationals by FIFA in 2016. Thailand's 2012 friendly with Bhutan was simply a warm-up match for the Suzuki Cup. As such, I highly doubt it could have been a Tier 1 match - and I'd need to see some evidence to demonstrate that it was. Jogurney (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good spot. I'm content to trust NFT, but it's good to try and clear things up for future reference. R96Skinner (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league or in a FIFA. --SalmanZ (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No sources, no article, per every core content policy (V, NOR, BLP, NOT). There are no secondary sources in the article, or here. I know NFT is considered reliable enough by WP:FOOTBALL, but what we have is a BLP where the only source is to a self-published website containing statistics that we know are sometimes wrong or incomplete. This fails like every single part of WP:V. I am finding more coverage of a badminton player with that name than a football player. This is (or should be) WP:BLPPROD-worthy. – Levivich 01:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No sources, no article, per every core content policy (V, NOR, BLP, NOT). - MA Javadi (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.357 (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Only source present is IMDb. 1989 (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 03:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - besides the IMDb listing I couldn't find anything on this film, no confirmation of the 2005 New York International Independent Film & Video Festival award for Best Short Film, no reviews, nothing on the websites for MTV, Filmstock or Los Angeles International Short Film Festival. No evidence of notability, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:351yjp.2.2

[2] ttp://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:351yjp.2.1

[3] ttps://www.usadultsoccer.com/usasaleagues

[4] ttps://www.htafc.com/news/2019/may/huddersfield-town-and-bugeaters-fc-announce-development-relationship/

[5] ttps://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/17744091.bradford-park-avenue-sign-former-hull-city-youngster-and-nebraska-bugeaters-ace/

[6] ttps://bpafc.com/bradford-park-avenue-announce-the-signing-of-goalkeeper-jack-bennett-for-the-2019-2020-season/

[7] ttps://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/gallery/maidenhead-utd-fc/147708/new-signing-danny-whitehall-hits-the-ground-running-for-maidenhead-united-fc.html

[8] ttps://urbanpitch.com/descending-the-pyramid-exploring-the-buzz-behind-the-nebraska-bugeaters/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]